By Abdullah al-Ghadawi
(Zaman al-Wasl)- Following the arrows that rained on to him as a result of a report published by Zaman al-Wasl where it indicated that he accepts Bashar al-Assad’s presence in the transitional period, the deputy head of the coalition Mouaffa Nyrabia was content with issuing a brief statement on the coalition website where he re-stated the coalition attitude and his personal attitude towards the perseverance of the revolution without getting bogged down in details.
After storm calmed down, Nyrabia held an extended conversation with Zaman al-Wasl to reveal the true story behind the coalition consultation with the coordination committee.
He denied that there are ways of speaking of the transitional phase and the presence of al-Assad indicating that the Yemeni experience and the international conscious does not accept such a thing… so to the details of the conversation:
-There is a kind of covering up for the competitions and haggling between the coalition and the negotiation committee… do you think the relationship is moving in the correct path?
Breaking down this relationship necessitates going backward in time, as for the coalition it was established on the basis it is the umbrella for the revolutionary forces, and it walked a difficult road until the spring of 2015 when the United Nations Envoy Staffan de Mistura called it to the Geneva Talks.
The coalition was hesitant at first to respond to the call and all Friends of Syria tried to pressure the coalition to not refuse the invitation. Those talks held much damage for the revolution if we had accepted them, and we said we would not go, and we covered the ‘no’ with the greatest respect possible for the United Nations and our friends. Following major countries decided to punish the obstacle coalition… and let me tell you the coalition has been punished and is being punished for its independent stance.
Some wanted to scale down the coalition
-I understand from this talk that the coalition is considered of the hawks by the negotiating committee?
That is absolutely not what I want to say… and let me continue about the process of forming the negotiation committee to clarify some ambiguities.
After the Vienna meetings and the meetings that preceded it about the Syrian crisis, it was decided to form a broader entity representing all opposition parties to confront the political solution, and it was decided that Riyadh would be the sponsor of this meeting of the various opposition forces. And one the basis the negotiation committee would be a broad umbrella for the negotiations and this was the main aim of it. But the atmosphere surround thing formation of the negotiation committee and what preceded it from pressure on the coalition to go to Geneva was ambiguous.
As some understood that the purpose of forming the High Committee for Negotiation was scaling down the coalition, especially after the coalition refused as I mentioned, and despite the diplomatic refusal, to answer the invitation for the Geneva talks in spring 2015.
The international atmosphere surrounding- at least- surrounding that stage aimed at scaling down the coalition’s size. To this I want to return to the state of suppressed tension with the High Committee for Negotiation, as some wanted to enter the game as I said and for the negotiation committee to be a tool to scale down the coalition… so electrified atmosphere appeared to some degree between the two sides.
-Who do you mean when you say they wanted to scale down the coalition?
Riyadh conference was a position and constructive initiative, but in the atmosphere surrounding this conference Saudi Arabia alone was not working to form the High Committee for Negotiation but a number of countries contributed to forming this committee, some of those sides even if they did not work to scale down the coalition they were not in opposition to scaling it down.
The relationship between the Coalition and the Negotiation Committee improves
-Do you believe the relationship between the two sides is correct and healthy?
Now, the relationship between the two sides has returned to its proper course, where it has been agreed that the High Committee for Negotiation is a broad and wide entity with a role in negotiating, whereas the coalition is a membership entity concerned with the Syrian revolutionary movement.
It has a wide network connected with military people, and forces on the ground through the temporary government and the support coordination units and its various and important political components…. This does not deny that agree with much of what is said about the terrible situations within it of course!
-Where is the membership relationship between the coalition and inside Syria… you know that many inside the country including military men do not acknowledge the coalition?
The coalition is the only political entity that represents the revolution’s path regardless of what is said about it, this path has remained cohesive and upholding the ceiling of national demands… it is the only national entity, as all other attempts serve something not a country practically, as in they serve division, dispersion or regionalism…. It is also the only entity that has such an important network of relations inside and outside the country.
-Do you believe that some of the coalition members living in Europe represent the revolution’s political route?
This is a different issue.
Cutting off the political money improved the coalition’s performance
-since the coalition is the political representative of the Syrian revolution, why does this institution always collide with attempts to reform despite everyone inside it wanting to reform?
There are objective and individual reasons, the objective reason is that the basic political system for the coalition was started at the measure of some blocs and sides, this led to helplessness in trying to overcome this system or change it. We managed through complex means to modify some points in the fundamental system last year, such as “giving privileges for the political committee” whereby the decision is not in the hands of one or two people but we were unable to modify everything we wanted. Regarding individual reasons this is related to the composition of the coalition itself, and let me repeat here, the coalition is not as they speak of it, it is a good entity because its revolutionary path is held steadfast but honestly many of the members of the coalition should not be members in it. This affects the decision making mechanisms… we seek for the return of the Syrian nationalism to the coalition and to all of the revolution… imagine that in a revolutionary institution there is administrative and financial corruption as is the case… this is completely unacceptable. In the last period the political money was cut off leading to the coalition’s improved performance.
They exaggerate the role of Fatih al-Sham in Aleppo
-the latest Aleppo battle included sectarian features with the naming of the battle Ibrahim al-Yousef… as well as the coalition despite its knowledge of the strong presence of extremist factions including Fatih al-Sham, blessed the battle and considered it part of the coalition… what is your opinion?
Despite everything, the victories in Aleppo revitalized the moral of the Syrian people, as in the last period the regime, Russia and Iran were dealing with the Syrian people with superiority, arrogance, and harshness belonging to the middle ages. At this time came the attempt of the Russian-American agreement to confront all whom they call terrorists. Amid a state of American hesitation, the Russians and Iranians escalated the killing and siege operations…. Aleppo’s operation is a miraculous response to this state. What happened in Aleppo in tandem with breaking off ties with al-Qaeda, without looking to the details. There is excessive and suspicious exaggeration about the influence of Fatih al-Sham and the size of its battle in Aleppo, as 13 brigades that struggled with al-Nusra Front in Maarrat al-Nu’man, and other factions of the Free Syrian Army… after announcing the break between al-Qaeda and al-Nusra front the paranoia of some of the factions was removed to some degree, as well as the military situation in Aleppo imposed on all these factions and this unity led to a great victory which must await its developments, transformations, and results.
-One current among some members of the coalition sees that the coordination committee is connected to the regime… and it is not at a good level of coordination with the coalition… how can you explain this transformation?
Our knowledge of the coordination committee is not good, it is basically an alliance between the traditional opposition forces in Syria. These forces interacted with its youth and elders with the revolution and they went out in demonstrations with revolutionaries in Damascus and Homs especially in the days of the peaceful revolution.
The coordination committee remained loyal to the peaceful revolution, and in an exaggerated manner at times…. Despite the leaning of some of them to deal positively with what is military, despite others among them suspecting the militarization of the revolution and its Islamization…. And it was and still is attached to the political solution as well in an exaggerated manner at time… and we must also take into consideration that the coordination committee is present in the shadow of an oppressive regime with our caution that this not turn into an opportunistic situation…. As the communication with the coordination committee was from one year ago, and it made it possible to bring together the coalition political committee and the executive office in the committee for the situation of distance to end, whereby there will be agreement and cooperation between the sides at the institutional level, and this is with the knowledge of the coalition general committee with the aim of expanding the opposition’s base of political representation. We asked some European countries to sponsor these meetings then the European Union agreed and useful things happened.
Talking in the negotiations damaged the coalition and coordination committee meetings
-Finally, what is your response to what Zaman al-Wasl published about your enthusiasm for the opinion of the general coordinator for the coordination committee Hassan Abdel Azim who said that the condition of al-Assad leaving in the transitional phase is impossible… we want to hear from you now?
Some believed that the issue of the negotiations in Geneva must be explored during the meetings between the committee and the coalition in Brussels, and when they were actually discussed, sensitive appeared from the side of the High Committee for Negotiation on the basis that both sides are members in the negotiation platform, so why are you meeting distantly?
This issue especially I was against it and it was originally in opposition to what was required of these meetings.
The principle aim was to bring the perspectives closer and bridge the gap between the two sides, organize the relationship in a way to make it more cohesive.
The meeting or meetings were supposed to produce a new document inspired by the Cairo document of 2012, and the new document would be the start of a new reign regarding the country, the future, and politics. This was my message which I carried to Hassan Abdel Azim, who I did not call as was mentioned in the recounted news, and I did not speak of the transitional phase or al-Assad remaining. The aim was the coordination mechanisms and joint work… and the main attitude is that there is no role of Bashar al-Assad, and this is what I mentioned in my statement the day after the disfigured news was published… this issue is not subject to compromise, even the Syrian conscious will not tolerate Bashar al-Assad… the Yemeni experience does not allow it… all the variables do not allow Bashar al-Assad’s presence… and this does not mean that we will not continue to work with the coordination committee, but… on the basis that we agreed upon in the Riyadh conference with clarity and no ambiguities.
(Zaman al-Wasl)- Following the arrows that rained on to him as a result of a report published by Zaman al-Wasl where it indicated that he accepts Bashar al-Assad’s presence in the transitional period, the deputy head of the coalition Mouaffa Nyrabia was content with issuing a brief statement on the coalition website where he re-stated the coalition attitude and his personal attitude towards the perseverance of the revolution without getting bogged down in details.
After storm calmed down, Nyrabia held an extended conversation with Zaman al-Wasl to reveal the true story behind the coalition consultation with the coordination committee.
He denied that there are ways of speaking of the transitional phase and the presence of al-Assad indicating that the Yemeni experience and the international conscious does not accept such a thing… so to the details of the conversation:
-There is a kind of covering up for the competitions and haggling between the coalition and the negotiation committee… do you think the relationship is moving in the correct path?
Breaking down this relationship necessitates going backward in time, as for the coalition it was established on the basis it is the umbrella for the revolutionary forces, and it walked a difficult road until the spring of 2015 when the United Nations Envoy Staffan de Mistura called it to the Geneva Talks.
The coalition was hesitant at first to respond to the call and all Friends of Syria tried to pressure the coalition to not refuse the invitation. Those talks held much damage for the revolution if we had accepted them, and we said we would not go, and we covered the ‘no’ with the greatest respect possible for the United Nations and our friends. Following major countries decided to punish the obstacle coalition… and let me tell you the coalition has been punished and is being punished for its independent stance.
Some wanted to scale down the coalition
-I understand from this talk that the coalition is considered of the hawks by the negotiating committee?
That is absolutely not what I want to say… and let me continue about the process of forming the negotiation committee to clarify some ambiguities.
After the Vienna meetings and the meetings that preceded it about the Syrian crisis, it was decided to form a broader entity representing all opposition parties to confront the political solution, and it was decided that Riyadh would be the sponsor of this meeting of the various opposition forces. And one the basis the negotiation committee would be a broad umbrella for the negotiations and this was the main aim of it. But the atmosphere surround thing formation of the negotiation committee and what preceded it from pressure on the coalition to go to Geneva was ambiguous.
As some understood that the purpose of forming the High Committee for Negotiation was scaling down the coalition, especially after the coalition refused as I mentioned, and despite the diplomatic refusal, to answer the invitation for the Geneva talks in spring 2015.
The international atmosphere surrounding- at least- surrounding that stage aimed at scaling down the coalition’s size. To this I want to return to the state of suppressed tension with the High Committee for Negotiation, as some wanted to enter the game as I said and for the negotiation committee to be a tool to scale down the coalition… so electrified atmosphere appeared to some degree between the two sides.
-Who do you mean when you say they wanted to scale down the coalition?
Riyadh conference was a position and constructive initiative, but in the atmosphere surrounding this conference Saudi Arabia alone was not working to form the High Committee for Negotiation but a number of countries contributed to forming this committee, some of those sides even if they did not work to scale down the coalition they were not in opposition to scaling it down.
The relationship between the Coalition and the Negotiation Committee improves
-Do you believe the relationship between the two sides is correct and healthy?
Now, the relationship between the two sides has returned to its proper course, where it has been agreed that the High Committee for Negotiation is a broad and wide entity with a role in negotiating, whereas the coalition is a membership entity concerned with the Syrian revolutionary movement.
It has a wide network connected with military people, and forces on the ground through the temporary government and the support coordination units and its various and important political components…. This does not deny that agree with much of what is said about the terrible situations within it of course!
-Where is the membership relationship between the coalition and inside Syria… you know that many inside the country including military men do not acknowledge the coalition?
The coalition is the only political entity that represents the revolution’s path regardless of what is said about it, this path has remained cohesive and upholding the ceiling of national demands… it is the only national entity, as all other attempts serve something not a country practically, as in they serve division, dispersion or regionalism…. It is also the only entity that has such an important network of relations inside and outside the country.
-Do you believe that some of the coalition members living in Europe represent the revolution’s political route?
This is a different issue.
Cutting off the political money improved the coalition’s performance
-since the coalition is the political representative of the Syrian revolution, why does this institution always collide with attempts to reform despite everyone inside it wanting to reform?
There are objective and individual reasons, the objective reason is that the basic political system for the coalition was started at the measure of some blocs and sides, this led to helplessness in trying to overcome this system or change it. We managed through complex means to modify some points in the fundamental system last year, such as “giving privileges for the political committee” whereby the decision is not in the hands of one or two people but we were unable to modify everything we wanted. Regarding individual reasons this is related to the composition of the coalition itself, and let me repeat here, the coalition is not as they speak of it, it is a good entity because its revolutionary path is held steadfast but honestly many of the members of the coalition should not be members in it. This affects the decision making mechanisms… we seek for the return of the Syrian nationalism to the coalition and to all of the revolution… imagine that in a revolutionary institution there is administrative and financial corruption as is the case… this is completely unacceptable. In the last period the political money was cut off leading to the coalition’s improved performance.
They exaggerate the role of Fatih al-Sham in Aleppo
-the latest Aleppo battle included sectarian features with the naming of the battle Ibrahim al-Yousef… as well as the coalition despite its knowledge of the strong presence of extremist factions including Fatih al-Sham, blessed the battle and considered it part of the coalition… what is your opinion?
Despite everything, the victories in Aleppo revitalized the moral of the Syrian people, as in the last period the regime, Russia and Iran were dealing with the Syrian people with superiority, arrogance, and harshness belonging to the middle ages. At this time came the attempt of the Russian-American agreement to confront all whom they call terrorists. Amid a state of American hesitation, the Russians and Iranians escalated the killing and siege operations…. Aleppo’s operation is a miraculous response to this state. What happened in Aleppo in tandem with breaking off ties with al-Qaeda, without looking to the details. There is excessive and suspicious exaggeration about the influence of Fatih al-Sham and the size of its battle in Aleppo, as 13 brigades that struggled with al-Nusra Front in Maarrat al-Nu’man, and other factions of the Free Syrian Army… after announcing the break between al-Qaeda and al-Nusra front the paranoia of some of the factions was removed to some degree, as well as the military situation in Aleppo imposed on all these factions and this unity led to a great victory which must await its developments, transformations, and results.
-One current among some members of the coalition sees that the coordination committee is connected to the regime… and it is not at a good level of coordination with the coalition… how can you explain this transformation?
Our knowledge of the coordination committee is not good, it is basically an alliance between the traditional opposition forces in Syria. These forces interacted with its youth and elders with the revolution and they went out in demonstrations with revolutionaries in Damascus and Homs especially in the days of the peaceful revolution.
The coordination committee remained loyal to the peaceful revolution, and in an exaggerated manner at times…. Despite the leaning of some of them to deal positively with what is military, despite others among them suspecting the militarization of the revolution and its Islamization…. And it was and still is attached to the political solution as well in an exaggerated manner at time… and we must also take into consideration that the coordination committee is present in the shadow of an oppressive regime with our caution that this not turn into an opportunistic situation…. As the communication with the coordination committee was from one year ago, and it made it possible to bring together the coalition political committee and the executive office in the committee for the situation of distance to end, whereby there will be agreement and cooperation between the sides at the institutional level, and this is with the knowledge of the coalition general committee with the aim of expanding the opposition’s base of political representation. We asked some European countries to sponsor these meetings then the European Union agreed and useful things happened.
Talking in the negotiations damaged the coalition and coordination committee meetings
-Finally, what is your response to what Zaman al-Wasl published about your enthusiasm for the opinion of the general coordinator for the coordination committee Hassan Abdel Azim who said that the condition of al-Assad leaving in the transitional phase is impossible… we want to hear from you now?
Some believed that the issue of the negotiations in Geneva must be explored during the meetings between the committee and the coalition in Brussels, and when they were actually discussed, sensitive appeared from the side of the High Committee for Negotiation on the basis that both sides are members in the negotiation platform, so why are you meeting distantly?
This issue especially I was against it and it was originally in opposition to what was required of these meetings.
The principle aim was to bring the perspectives closer and bridge the gap between the two sides, organize the relationship in a way to make it more cohesive.
The meeting or meetings were supposed to produce a new document inspired by the Cairo document of 2012, and the new document would be the start of a new reign regarding the country, the future, and politics. This was my message which I carried to Hassan Abdel Azim, who I did not call as was mentioned in the recounted news, and I did not speak of the transitional phase or al-Assad remaining. The aim was the coordination mechanisms and joint work… and the main attitude is that there is no role of Bashar al-Assad, and this is what I mentioned in my statement the day after the disfigured news was published… this issue is not subject to compromise, even the Syrian conscious will not tolerate Bashar al-Assad… the Yemeni experience does not allow it… all the variables do not allow Bashar al-Assad’s presence… and this does not mean that we will not continue to work with the coordination committee, but… on the basis that we agreed upon in the Riyadh conference with clarity and no ambiguities.
Comments About This Article
Please fill the fields below.