US, Allies Don’t Want Peaceful Resolution of Syria Crisis: Ex-American Diplomat

“The principal issue is not the constitution, but the eight years of war and destruction brought on by foreign intervention, principally by the Americans, British, French, Israelis, and Turks,” Michael Springmann, the former head of the American visa bureau in Saudi Arabia, said in an interview with Tasnim.

“Those countries do not want a peaceful resolution of the conflict and would much prefer to see the current war continue,” he added.

J. Michael Springmann served in the US government as a diplomat with the State Department's Foreign Service, with postings in Germany, India, and Saudi Arabia. He left federal service and currently practices law in the Washington, DC, area. Springmann’s works and interviews have been published in numerous foreign policy publications, including Covert Action Quarterly, Unclassified, Global Outlook, the Public Record, OpEdNews, Global Research and Foreign Policy Journal. He has written Visas for Al Qaeda: CIA Handouts That Rocked The World and a second book Goodbye, Europe? Hello, Chaos? Merkel’s Migrant Bomb. Both are available on Amazon. The books’ website is: www.michaelspringmann.com

The following is the full text of the interview:

Tasnim: A 45-member committee equally divided between the Syrian government, the opposition, and civil society held talks in Geneva on Monday about the amendment of Syria’s Constitution. Media sources close to Damascus said that 35 members of the Constitutional Committee traveled to Geneva last Sunday while UN special envoy for Syria Geir Pedersen kept 45 others in the Swiss city to be part of the mini-committee that would discuss the constitutional reform in the country, after eight and a half years of conflict. The committee will conduct its work and adopt its decisions by consensus wherever possible, or resort to a majority of 75 percent of votes. Observers fear that the required number of votes could prevent the committee from approving any decisions in its upcoming meetings. What do you think about the developments? How possible is it for the Constitutional Committee to reach an agreement given the deep differences and lack of trust between its members?

Springmann: With 150 delegates meeting in Geneva about a new constitution for Syria, I do not believe it is possible for them to come to any kind of agreement. The first problem is the sheer number of members at the conference. Getting so many people to agree on anything would be a trial.  The second problem is the representatives' makeup: 50 representatives from the Syrian government; 50 from the supposed "opposition", in reality, terrorist groups primarily sponsored by the United States; plus 50 from "civil society", whatever that is.   

The principal issue is not the constitution, but the eight years of war and destruction brought on by foreign intervention, principally by the Americans, British, French, Israelis, and Turks. Those countries do not want a peaceful resolution of the conflict and would much prefer to see the current war continue.

The UN is proving useless. Its "special envoy Geir Pedersen called for patience, persistence, and readiness to compromise." After eight years of combat, stoked by foreign forces, the citizens of Syria would be happy to compromise--provided the people they were dealing with wanted peace.

Tasnim: The Syrian Constitutional Committee was established with the aim of paving the way for a political settlement in Syria. If a new constitution is approved by the committee, how practical will this be?  How can the opposing parties guarantee to implement the new constitution?

Springmann: Any constitution approved by such an unwieldy committee would most likely prove unworkable. After all, one definition of a camel is an animal put together by a committee. 

Compare and contrast the proposed Syrian constitutional structure with the American one.  In the Syrian Arab Republic, there are 150 individuals tasked with creating a new constitution (without specifying exactly the issue with the old one). In 1787, the original 13 United States appointed men to draft a basic law for the new country. Seventy were chosen, 55 actually attended the convention and did the work.

Whatever comes out of Geneva where the Syrian constitutional delegates are sitting will most likely prove unworkable.  If the idea is to create a political settlement, having delegates from so many disparate groups is almost a promise of failure.  There will be no guarantees of implementation since many of the representatives are trying to destroy the country, which has been held together by its president and a common consensus of "live and let live"--at least until the alien invasion.

Tasnim: Given Turkey’s military operation against Kurds in northern Syria and the presence of Ankara-backed extremist groups in the area, what do you think about the negative impacts of foreign intervention on the political settlement of the Syrian crisis?

Springmann: Foreign intervention in Syria, specifically that of the United States, Israel, Britain, France, and Turkey, is designed to ensure that there will be no political settlement of the Syrian crisis.  The invaders created the present situation.  In contrast, Russia and Iran were invited into the country by its legitimate government.  Unlike the New Crusaders, those two states have long sought to stabilize Syria.

The real aim of America and Israel is to break Syria into pieces, just as they've tried to do in Iraq since 2001.  They would like to split the Kurds in the northeast from the rest of the country.  The Turks have no interest in a unified Syria and less in a Syria with a population of Kurds, an ethnic group they've persecuted for the past 100 years.  However, they do seek to kill as many as they can and intimidate the rest to such an extent that the Kurds will never oppose Turkey.  Additionally, Turkey covets Syrian land.  Syria once was a province (vilayet) of the Ottoman Empire.  Recep Erdogan, Turkey's president, and apparent sultan wannabe, seems to crave its lost territory.