2 November, 2012 — Voice of Russia

It is now evident that the recent ceasefire was violated Syria by the radical opposition groups. The terrorist’s activities led to numerous victims and, what is unthinkable, the United Nations was unable to condemn them.

This is due to the irrational and short sighted approach to the Syrian crisis, taken by Western powers. The situation is absolutely clear: it is a vivid example of a policy of double standards demonstrated by the United States, Britain and France.

The Syrian opposition guerrillas declined the first stage of a probable peace settlement to the bloody conflict and are thus blamed by many for its continued escalation. The was a tangible chance for peace, after the government in Damascus declared itself ready to honour a ceasefire to observe the three-day holiday, Id al-Adha, or Festival of Sacrifice, which is celebrated from October 26th to 29th .

Just the first day of the doomed ceasefire resulted in 146 deaths: suicide bombers blew up two cars, in Damascus and in Deraa province. Then throughout the three days, opposition forces attacked Syrian army outposts, government offices and civilians, including schools and childcare centres. A clear demonstration of how Syria’s radical opposition plans to achieve its political objectives.

The reaction of many European countries and the United States is far from adequate, particularly bearing in mind the September 11 tragedy. Instead of condemning these acts of terror, they seemingly choose to turn blind eyes to the outrage, but doing so is like playing with fire. Such actions will result in a strengthening of radical Islamist positions in the Middle East and finally cause even more regional chaos. It would be no exaggeration to say that stability in this key region hinges on further developments in the Syrian crisis.

Also the policy pursued by the West raises many questions. One of the most significant is why do anti-Assad groups feel so free to terrorize the civilian population? The answer is simple. They have no motivation to start negotiations with the government, a position supported by states convinced that the fall of Bashar al-Assad will serve their own interests. The current situation is hardly likely to change in the foreseeable future and, unfortunately, it appears that another bloody chapter in the Syrian tragedy will be opened before long.

However, the bloodshed could easily be stopped, if Washington, London and Paris set aside their geopolitical ambitions and applied pressure to the radical opposition to accept, at least the possibility of a negotiated solution. Instead, the Western powers propose another scenario for Syria, one based on splitting the country into separate quasi-states.

Today there are still some modest opportunities for a final resolution to the crisis in Syria, but the only real one is to begin a dialogue between the authorities and the opposition, a civil roundtable to discuss the broad complexity of the country’s domestic problems to find a political formula to secure a peaceful future. There is clear evidence that Syria’s government is ready to do so but, as things stand, nothing is likely to persuade the other side of the conflict to do the same.