General Coordinator of the Supreme Commission for Negotiations, Riad Hijab, told Al-Hayat newspaper that UNSC Resolution 2254 represents a backward step in international agreements and was pushed by Assad regime allies by making using of the absence of a ceasefire mechanism which consequently means that regime’s bombardment and shelling would continue during negotiations. However, Hijab confirmed in the interview that the Syrian Opposition has strategically decided to go forward in the diplomatic track in order to represent the just cause of the Syrian people before the international community.

Hijab, who defected his position as Syria’s prime minister in mid-2012, said that Assad will inevitably leave power and his destiny has become connected to international agreements which are being done apart from him after his regime lost legitimacy and sovereignty.

Hijab added that reclaiming the independent national resolution by the Syrian people is a three-track process that consists of human, political and military channels. This hard process, according to Hijab, starts by realizing that Assad regime has become outside the strategic and political equation.

Herein below the interview with Riad Hijab.

Al-Hayat: What has the Supreme Commission for Negotiations achieved since it was established on December 10?

Hijab: After the establishment of the Supreme Commission for Negotiations, we had a founding meeting during which we approved the commission’s charter and formed the legal, political, media, public relations and the secretary office. We also specified the criteria and the reference for the negotiation process as a preliminary step to specify the names of the negotiating delegation based on the rules and standards which were approved. The council has also discussed the general attitudes towards the escalation of military operations by Assad regime and its allies.

We also held a meeting with the U.N. special envoy to Syria Staffan De Mistura on Tuesday and explained our point of view concerning our vision on the political process that contributes in spreading peace and puts an end to military actions.

We also talked about continuing the political transition that aims at creating a pluralistic system that represents the whole spectrum of the Syrian people and founding a full power transitional body in which Assad and his inner circle or his regime’s main men have no role or any political status.

Our efforts are mainly focused now on creating the proper mechanisms to communicate and coordinate among revolutionary bodies and to consult with our friends and allies regarding the military escalation and to discuss the means of easing the suffering of the Syrian people within a number of trust-building initiatives.

How do you view the international preparations in the Security Council regarding pushing the political process in Syria forward?

Undoubtedly, UNSC Resolution 2254 which the Security Council approved on the 18th of last month represents a backward step regarding the previous international agreements approved in Geneva and Vienna.

The international powers formed agreements and compromises among each other in the absence of the representatives of the Syrian people not taking in account the potential threats that were left untreated in the international resolution. The international community should work to fill these gaps in order to launch the political process.

It is improper to issue an article that states on stopping the offensives against civilians, medical utilities and their staffs in addition to putting an end to indiscriminate shelling and bombardment then the next day an international power which has signed on the Resolution targets residential areas by cluster bombs killing civilians and leaders of moderate military factions which we rely on to guarantee the continuation of the political process and to fight ISIS.

The escalation of bombardment has emptied the Resolution from its content and made building trust measures unreachable, particularly when the Resolution hasn’t specified a timetable to carry out the ceasefire. In addition to this serious defect, linking the ceasefire to the first steps of the political transition means that all sides can still fight and continue bombarding and killing civilians during the negotiating period which may extend to six months which consequently means the impossibility of delivering relief aids and protecting civilians as a primary condition to start negotiations.

The international rush to satisfy Assad’s allies resulted in neglecting many important points some of which are creating a U.N. controlled-ceasefire mechanism, particularly when the majority of the fighting sides in Syria are affiliated with foreign countries that must be obliged to get committed to an international Resolution and supervision rather than internal arrangements that are based on good intentions. Undoubtedly, breaching this article would make the other articles relevant to the humanitarian sides of Resolution 2254 worthless since the ceasefire agreement and supervising all sides’ commitment to it shouldn’t be subjected to the decision of a negotiating side but it should be rather done under the supervision of an international sponsor given that military actions are not limited to groups affiliated with regime and opposition only.

What about assassinating the leader of Jayh al-Islam, Zahran Alloush?

The continuation of bombardment that targets civilian areas, using cluster bombs and targeting military leaders who have taken part in founding the Supreme Commission for Negotiations which we still depend on in fighting terrorism would have serious repercussions in the future.

Moreover, the irresponsible statements by regime officials alongside its allies about not recognizing Riyadh conference and its resolutions in addition to the regime’s intervention in forming the opposition’s delegation and the insistence on issuing a list of terrorist groups that fits their definition of terrorism are the ways used by Assad regime to hinder the political process and prolong the conflict.

The Syrian people are suffering the bitterness of being let down by the international community and are looking forward to any serious procedures that put an end to their suffering and stops targeting the civilian areas and destroying infra-structure.

There were negotiations with the regime in the beginning of 2014. Do you think that the situation has changed and are the conditions more proper for a political solution?

Actually, there were two negotiation sessions with regime in the beginning of 2014 but the U.N. special envoy Lakhdar Brahimi announced the failure of negotiations apologizing to the Syrian people about being unable to achieve anything attributing the failure to the regime’s refusal to discuss the article about the transitional body and its insistence on discussing fighting terrorism. The regime was internationally condemned for causing the failure of negotiations when the UK and the French foreign ministers held Assad regime responsible for preventing any progress in negotiations.

Has the situation changed?

In fact the negotiating strategy followed by the regime has not significantly changed. The regime insists on raising suspicions about the credibility of the opposition and it keeps using the international media momentum to make meaningless shows by prioritizing fighting terrorism before the negotiations disregarding removing Assad from power and forming a full-power transitional body while it keeps depending on its allies to escalate its military actions against civilian areas.

Have the most significant resolutions been removed upon approving 2254?

For the first while, it looks that the international community has responded to the Russian pressures when 2254 was taken. The international resolution removed the articles relevant to ousting Assad and stipulated issuing terrorists’ groups list. However, let me emphasize that the situation now is very different from that one in 2014. Assad and his regime members are living today in underground hideouts. The space of territories which are under the control of his forces have shrunk to 18% of Syrian land. More than 92% of the country’s sources and wealth have become outside his control. He lost the majority of highways and border gates with neighboring countries while half of the Syrian people have become displaced or refugees.

Is there anything new about the international diplomacy to push the political process?

Yes, we are before a new view. We believe that the Syrian crisis has reached its climax for the international community particularly when flows of refugees reached Europe and terrorist cells resulting from the prolonged crisis and the regime’s attempt to export its problems outside started to pose a serious threat for the world’s security.

The regional congestion as well as the views of military escalation have warned of changing the conflict from a proxy war to direct confrontations among regional and international powers.

Moreover, Assad allies are under unprecedented pressures because of the inefficiency of the military actions and the increasing cost of their intervention aiming at keeping the regime in power.

How do you see the transitional period?

We have our political reference and a collection of international documents that we can rely on. The opposition forces have decided to adopt the principles which were implied in Riyadh Communique as a common ground for the negotiating process. These principles stipulate the unity of the Syrian land, the civil character of the state, its complete sovereignty over its lands and to establish a pluralistic political system that is based on respecting human rights, civil freedoms, transparency, accountability and the rule of law.

Geneva Communique represents a starting point that we can depend on to establish a full power transitional body. We will depend also on the Syrian people who have views and aspirations that we are looking forward to taking in consideration through free and general elections. This of course, requires a lot of work and good efforts to build what has been destroyed and to encourage our people to get back to their country after ending all military actions in order to restore peace and stability.