UN Says “Too Soon For Syria Peace Conference” So Long As ISIS Gains Ground

image source

Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post
August 13, 2015

In late July, as ISIS’ gains across Syria were televised all over Western media, the United Nations publicly announced that it was too soon for another Syrian peace conference.

The UN position was no doubt confusing to many half-cognizant observers since the United Nations is typically the loudest voice calling for peace talks (oftentimes half-heartedly) in any given confrontation. This time, however, the UN has thrown up its hands and essentially declared “it’s no use!”

The official reason for the UN declining to restart peace talks is that the two sides in the Syrian conflict could not agree on the most vital issue at hand – the Assad government’s transition from power.

At Geneva II, the Syrian government participated in the negotiations but rejected the forced abdication being demanded by terrorists and NATO countries. The terrorist and US-puppet contingent would hear of nothing that did not require a transition without Assad. After a communique’ was issued by the United Nations Secretary General that all had agreed upon the need for a “transitional government body with full executive powers,” the US balked and said that, in such a “transitional government,” Assad would have no place, essentially throwing much of the work of seemingly genuine parties like the Russians and Syrians into disarray.

It should be noted, however, that the United Nations, while attempting to appear neutral during the discussions, was clearly pushing for a transition. The UN was interested only in negotiating the terms of that transition as opposed to whether or not the transition would take place in the first place.


As the AP reported,

He [Steffan De Mistura – UN Special Envoy tasked with finding a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Syria] said that the most polarizing element in the roadmap to peace adopted by key nations in Geneva in June 2012 is the formation of a transitional government with full executive powers. That is the starting point on the roadmap which ends with elections and would require Syrian President Bashar Assad to relinquish power at some unspecified point.

It should also be noted that the AP reports De Mistura has held talks with over 200 individuals, both “Syrians and non-Syrians,” about “finding a political solution” and that there was widespread support for “a managed, phased, gradual or controlled transition, avoiding a repeat of Libya and Iraq.” De Mistura did not name the “non-Syrians” he had talked to or exactly why non-Syrians would be involved in determining political transitions within the country. Nevertheless, De Mistura is clearly “negotiating” (read “planning”) with outside forces for the ouster of Bashar al-Assad and the political mechanism that will emerge to take his place.

De Mistura is likewise committed to the US line that the Geneva II agreement requires that Assad step down at some point in the future.

Regardless, the real reason for the UN refusal to engage in any more peace talks, however, may be related to something else – the developments on the ground.

One thing is patently obvious in terms of the UN’s outlook on the Syrian crisis – when Assad gets the upper hand, it is time to talk peace and immediately declare a cease-fire (in the areas where he has gained the upper hand). When Assad falls behind, cease-fires have failed and peace talks are no use. In some instances, options for negotiations may be offered if it is deemed that the Assad government may be losing heart or enough territory to warrant a desire for a bargain.

In other words, the UN has become more and more transparent in the way it addresses the potential for peace in the Syrian crisis. And it has nothing to do with peace. It has to do with the fact that the UN is acting as chief negotiator for terrorist proxies. The UN functions as a slow-down mechanism for Assad victories while it ignores any calls for cease-fires when Assad is losing.

Remember, the UN was all too happy to join in with a cease-fire peace treaty when Assad was crushing terrorists in Aleppo earlier this year. Just like the recent refusal to reconvene negotiations seems to be timed with the ISIS push West, the UN’s February cease fire was conveniently timed to halt the Assad government’s progress in the largest city in Syria.

As Tony Cartalucci of Land Destroyer writes,

It is curious because talks of “truces” were completely absent just as recently as 2011, when both organizations, the UN and NATO, backed hordes of terrorists sweeping across Libya, committing abhorrent atrocities including the systematic, genocidal extermination of Libya’s black communities.

Indeed, NATO and UN peace treaties only seem to appear when the NATO terrorist proxies encounter serious trouble on the battlefield.

As mentioned earlier, even the last round of talks centered around the topic of what a transition from power might look like for Assad. It did not consider the fact that the Syrian crisis is made up mostly of foreign terrorists backed by NATO and the West. Indeed, the admission of such a fact would eliminate most of the claims made by the “opposition” and NATO that Assad has lost his legitimacy and that there is any justification whatsoever in a push to force him to step down.

Thus, with Steffan De Mistura’s statement that it is simply too early to restart negotiations it is becoming clearer and clearer that, if Syria wants the UN to come to the table with a peace plan, cease-fire, or some other negotiation proposal, it must immediately begin winning on the battlefield once again.

While peace is no doubt to be desired in Syria, Western powers should not be allowed to use the concept as a weapon against the Syrian government or the Syrian people.

The United States, UK, France, NATO, and the UN do not want peace. They want a reprieve for their proxy forces.

If terrorist fighters in Syria want peace, they should have the option of unconditional surrender. Amnesty, upon surrender, could also be discussed at the pleasure of the Syrian government.

Fake peace agreements and politically based “truces” are no longer acceptable and they are no longer credible in the eyes of any informed observer.

Image Credit

Brandon Turbeville – article archive here – is an author out of Florence, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author of six books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, and The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria. Turbeville has published over 500 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.