Press TV has interviewed Sara Flounders, a member of the International Action Center in New York, to discuss the third round of international talks which are underway in New York on ways of putting an end to the bloodshed in Syria.
The following is a rough transcription of the interview.
Press TV: If we cannot agree on who is the “opposition” and who is a terrorist, how are we to resolve the situation in Syria?
Flounders: This has been the ongoing problem from the very beginning. The two different goals, two different agendas, diametrically opposed. One is for the complete destruction of Syria as a sovereign country, the tearing down of the elected government and that is a sign on which the US aligned with Saudi Arabia and Jordan and Turkey and also the countries of the EU are totally together on and on the other side has been the effort by Russia, by Iran, by Hezbollah, by other forces to defend and preserve Syria as a sovereign state. So they meet together and right away the differences again present themselves. Can there be even a temporary coming together to defeat ISIL, that is what they are discussing.
Even within that though, the differences right away reveal themselves. It is given to Jordan to decide who is going to be on the list of terrorists and who is the opposition forces and of course Jordan for all of us is very well-known in supporting the terrorist forces. There is a Saudi bloc that met in Saudi Arabia Syrian opposition groups and these are really the terrorist forces that have been tearing Syria apart.
So the differences are huge but the very fact that diplomatic talks are taking place is based on facts on the ground and that is that the government of Syria has survived, has been able to defend itself through going now 50 year of the most difficult protracted destructive war and that determination remains and there is a determination from other countries to defend the sovereignty of Syria. So that has given even the fact that the talks are taking place. That is the basis for it.
Press TV: I am wondering when you talk about the fate of President Assad, that is something that has been a sticking point for quite a while now but it seems Western countries at least when it comes to words are softening their sense on that? Is that a positive change do you think?
Flounders: Yes, it is certainly positive. It is really based on reality and even if it is a temporary reality, that would be important. If they have even a realistic estimation of the situation and the very forces that they have brought into power because ISIS, ISIL could not exist a minute without the wink and a nod that come from both the US, from Turkey, from Saudi Arabia, those thousands of oil trucks, the millions and millions of dollars that is directly in conduit to them, all that is allowed.
Now we hope the UN Security Council resolution yesterday can change that somewhat, the [calling for] sanctions on ISIL. Certainly the US has imposed sanctions on many countries around the world far stricter than even what it suggests to do against ISIL.
So we can only hope that there is some recognition of reality of the Syrian government’s right to exist, right to defend the people of Syria, right to provide the services that are so essential for a government to do and that these terrorist organizations can be really not only pushed back but defeated.
That is the hope. That is what people are fighting for and it is important for every country of the region and every country in the world not to fall prey to this effort of outside aggressive military intervention, armed and funded by powers that really seek to recolonize Syria and the region.