"Ese documento es totalmente inadmisible, consideramos que ese intento fallido está destinado a socavar las negociaciones de Ginebra y la conferencia en Sochi, así como las demás tentativas de buscar una solución política sobre Siria; esas propuestas van dirigidas a destruir el proceso de paz", dijo a los periodistas.
- Según reportes mediáticos, el 12 de enero Estados Unidos, Reino Unido, Francia, Arabia Saudí y Jordania celebraron en Washington una reunión sobre Siria.
La reunión especial sobre Siria en Viena, convocada por el enviado especial de la ONU para el país árabe, Staffan de Mistura, arrancó el jueves en la sede de la organización internacional en la capital austriaca.
El encuentro de dos días supone la continuación de las ocho rondas de las negociaciones de Ginebra, celebradas bajo los auspicios de las Naciones Unidas.
Después de la reunión en Viena, los días 29 y 30 la ciudad rusa de Sochi acogerá el Congreso del Diálogo Nacional de Siria, una iniciativa rusa aprobada en los diálogos de Astaná que busca propiciar un proceso político inclusivo y contribuir a la reconciliación y reformas políticas en el país árabe.
[mundo.sputniknews.com]
26/1/18
GR
FR
DE
ES
IT
RU
EU
Informal paper on reviving political process in Geneva is totally rejected...
ReplyDelete...Al-Jaafari said that it is no coincidence that the Vienna meeting coincided with the “leaking” or intentional distribution of an “informal paper” for the so-called revival of the political process in Geneva about Syria by representatives of five countries who met in Washington and then Paris, namely the United States, Britain, France, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, all of whom have been involved in shedding Syrian blood since the beginning of the crisis.
“This in itself is like a black comedy which we are living in a new chapter of the conspiracy against Syria. How does a country like America – who created and sponsored Daesh (ISIS) terrorist organization, and is still fighting for it over the Syrian territory, a state that violates Syrian sovereignty by its military presence on its territory in flagrant defiance of all international covenants and laws – how can a state like this whose hands are covered in Syrian blood and has directly attacked Syria talk about the political solution and the future in Syria?” al-Jaafari said.
“How can countries such as Britain and France, who follow American policy like the blind leading the blind, envision of any solution or political horizon in Syria? And a state like Jordan, which hosts the secret military operations room and has opened its territory to terrorists from all directions and turned its territory into a safe haven for seven terrorist training camps to train and send them to Syria and other countries, how can it talk about sovereignty, politics, and participation in making a political solution in Syria?
“And last but not least, Saudi Arabia, the crown jewel, the epitome of democracy, the beacon of freedom in the East, the model of the rule of law, the example of constitutions and social justice, the oasis of good living and gender equality, the icon of elections and alternation of holding power, how can such a medieval country contribute to devising an advanced vision for a Syrian constitution? This rally is a black comedy,” he added.
Al-Jaafari affirmed that this so-called informal paper is totally rejected and is not worth the ink it was written with, because the Syrian people have not and will not accept solutions that are parachuted to them or brought on tanks.
He added that the authors of this informal paper have written it in an irresponsible manner that portrayed the political process in Geneva as if it has died, adding that the authors of this paper are trying to give the impression that they are trying to revive the political process in Geneva while in fact they seek to “kill it and attend its funeral” as the local saying goes.
He pointed out that this failed attempt seeks to undermine the Geneva talks, the Sochi Congress, and any prospects for the political solution in Syria, because this is consistent with its authors’ destructive policy in the region.
SANA