SdeM: I have been now 47 years with the UN, and in 22 conflicts…I’ve never seen a conflict which has been using more brutality, indiscriminate brutality than the one in Syria
Note to correspondents: Remarks by UN Special Envoy for Syria, Staffan de Mistura to the Doha Forum
Doha: the 16th of December 2018
SdeM: Thank you. Let me say the following: Every case is different, sadly, because otherwise we would have a common line there, but in Afghanistan, as you know, and I know too, there was a considered decision to turn the page temporarily, temporarily, on transitional justice. Many of the people who are still around, and powerfully so in Afghanistan, are the same warlords who happen to be very active, and brutally so, during the period of the fighting among them and with the Soviet Union at that time. I remember one in particular, who tried to kill me twice, and I met him happily walking in Kabul, because he had become a sort of acceptable personality, so far.
Now my message to myself, I remember at that time, when I was Special Envoy in Afghanistan, and I was meeting these people, who I knew had their hands full of blood, but at the time had been a postponement on a discussion on that, that transitional justice, sometimes, cannot be implemented immediately because otherwise it would interfere with what could be a most important outcome which is finding a political outcome to a tragedy. But, but, but, it needs to be like a candle and the light should never disappear, that’s why we need that light to be kept because one day, one day, sooner than later, that candle will be giving a feeling of hope to those who lost so many people due to this horror.
Now, how does this apply elsewhere, well, every case is different, but I hope the candle remains the same. That would be my first comment.
The second comment, since I am dealing with Syria, I have been now 47 years with the UN, and in 22 conflicts including this last one, so I do have a historical capacity, I think, to actually analyze where we are. And I must tell you, I’ve never seen a conflict which has been using more brutality, indiscriminate brutality than the one in Syria. You mentioned barrel bombs, indeed but there were all sorts of weapons utilized, frankly from both sides because there’ve been indiscriminate shelling for instance in Aleppo, from both sides, but the level of horror was different, let’s be frank, very different, and by the way the opposition doesn’t have airplanes and helicopters neither does Daesh in spite their horrific horror of behavior.
So, and there’ve been hospitals hit once, twice, three times when even people were trying to relieve and help, those who were trying to rescue, those who were in the hospitals and torture and detention…” so frankly if there is one place where the candle needs to be kept alight, perhaps not for today, perhaps not tomorrow but alight is definitely the Syrian conflict.
SdeM: You know I am at the end of my assignment, so it is a difficult moment for actually telling you what will be my book once I will be ending my mission, so I will have to use a caveat here, I am still very much, not a lame duck, I am still a flying duck until the 31st of December. So, I am still very heavily involved in trying to make the best out of a very difficult environment for the Syrians. So, let’s first of all make a general comment. There are two constants in this conflict and I have been involved in it for the last four and half years. The first constant is that there is nothing constant in this conflict. If you look at it, it has been changing geographically, territorially, and consistently all the time. When I tried to have a freeze on Aleppo, who actually was not in favor was the Opposition, believe it or not, at that time, because they said no no no we are perhaps are going to win this war and if you are focusing on Aleppo that may produce a lack of focus on other areas. And in other cases, it was the government, no no no we are almost winning the war why should we be having any compromise. So, we in the UN are nice but not stupid, ok? So, I was fully aware and we have been fully aware that the two sides never wanted to negotiate, because the starting point was: I don’t recognize you, you don’t recognize me, you are a terrorist, and you are a non-legitimate government.
So, what do you do? You wait and pray? Or you agitate yourself in order to start putting a momentum, so that is what we have been doing, by having a constant action in the direction of when negotiations will be starting, they never started, but we all pushed in that direction.
Now, let me share something with you, the other day someone who is an expert in this environment and calculations, wrote to me; actually called me and then I wrote to him, he called me and said: you know Mr. de Mistura you must be asking yourself whether this was the right moment to leave, it is never a right moment by the way my friends, as you know in a conflict like this, because you never know where you actually end it, often there is no a peace treaty signed anywhere: look at Iraq, Afghanistan, or wherever we are. But it is just a new environment which then ends up into hopefully a better situation. So he said don’t feel bad, if you do, because in this period of history there are no fair, final, famous conference of peace; and two, we made our own calculations, you have been bothering everyone on every side, particularly on one side, by organizing international consultations, conferences, asking for ceasefires, making a big issue when the sieges were taking place and so on; you didn’t succeed in stopping them, but you were making a big issue out of it, you have been having periods when ten days there were only meetings and no one could actually stop it. Well, we have calculated all this and instead of having hundreds of thousans killed there would have been 1.3 million, because the all-out war was not allowed, so is this a treatment? A cure? Was this the solution? No, but it is, to answer what you heard, these four years we were not just waiting and hoping for a negotiation that never started.
Now regarding constitutional committee, it’s true that is not 2254, but the constitutional committee is basically and can be, if properly done, if properly done, the entry point like in every country, in every country constitution is the beginning and the end of a new format. It does touch, for instance, on presidential powers, it could and should be touching on how elections are done, on division of power, in other words a big issue, it’s not haga basita—it is an important issue, and that is why the government is extremely concerned about it, that is why there is such an issue about it.
Last point, last point. According to 2254 and even the Sochi declaration, the last word is with us, with the UN, not with any country, as good and as powerful as they may be. And if the UN doesn’t give the stamp of legitimacy to what we would believe is a credible, balanced, inclusive constitutional committee, well it will be water, it will be just homemade, so the last word is with the UN in spite of what you may be believing. Thank you.
SdM: Well, trying to address your point, I think as I told you I am still in the middle of negotiations and discussions, and pushing and pulling so I am not going to be too elaborated although you tried very hard and I recognize this, so I will just give you one sentence as an answer. One can win territorially, territorially, a conflict, especially if one has strong military support from strong friends. But the issue is can you win peace? And we are getting into that phase, and that phase means rehabilitation, reconstruction, recognition, return of refugees—all that are important elements that can be as powerful as actually a military force in terms of helping everyone to realize that you can’t win a war and full stop.
Last point, fly with me back – I was in Iraq – to Mosul. There was a big mistake made and I was in Iraq when we were trying to make sure that after the Al-Qaeda component – at that time Mr. Zarqawi had been defeated because there had been an engagement with the Sunni tribes in order to include them – the word inclusion is crucial – then there was a mistake done—a big mistake and guess what we had Mr. Al-Bhagdadi coming up and ISIS and Daesh; and what did it take to actually address that? Have we learnt anything from it? Bottom line, if any solution that will be found for Syria does not include the word inclusion, in a very strong way, and that can be done through a credible, inclusive constitution that needs to be applied of course, then there would be big problems, and I think that is something that is making many people aware probably even the government. At the end of the day it must be the Syrians who decide, the UN can say this is credible, and viable and inclusive, but then when they meet it should be among them that they decide. So, we have a strong say and the morale aspect of the UN on that needs be protected. Anyway this is the for the next 20 days. Thank you.
SdM: Yes, there actually were two questions but I will be quick in addressing them. The one regarding Afghanistan and Syria, probably would be my main first message. You remember, you remember the image of a candle, in Syria, the UN and the international community has got three candles, they are three institutions who are constantly updating themselves regarding what has been and what has been happening in terms of criminal activities and those candles will remain there. In Afghanistan the same. I know how you feel, because I felt the same when I saw in the streets someone who I know well, and I said to myself well the Afghans have decided for the time being that the damage of using a fire in the moment when there was a lot of oil on the street would have been too much and you and I were together in Kabul at the time. But a candle needs to be there and kept alive, because one day it will be actually happening what we all hope. The same applies elsewhere.
Now, there was a question regarding refugees, it is a very important one, it’s a very important one. Refugees are very very smart, they know, they know what they need to have in order to return. This is not a school or a building or a road or an electrical center. They are asking will I be arrested? Will my son be recruited by the military and be punished because he actually went to Lebanon or to Turkey or to Jordan? Will there be a possible political process will give a chance to us to feel that this is a different environment? then I will return. So again, we go back to the bottom line: the intangibles, and that’s why we are in the political process. The constitutional committee seems to be the main issue, because it’s an entry point, it could be actually like an ice breaker. Well, we are insisting on the fact that there should be confidence building measures, the issue about detainees for instance, 80,000 of them, ten of them just released so far, ten I repeat. Obviously, the refugees are watching that.