Transcript of stakeout by United Nations Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura in Oslo, 14 June 2017
SdM: True, this is not the most important perhaps job in the world, but one of the most complicated at the moment.
I was trying during, and I’m not revealing a secret, I was trying to convey to those who are participating to this mediation seminar, which by the way is extremely helpful, because comparing notes informally for people like us, who are often in official conferences, really makes a difference.
I was trying to convey the fact that there is a window at the moment, I won’t say of an opportunity, but a window not to be missed and it is based on the fact that the Minister was just saying, apart from the fact that there is a need for a Russian-American coordination on what could be some of the main results of the de-escalation. As you know the Americans have been suggesting what they called interim de-escalation areas and the Russian side has been in Astana promoting the so called the de-escalation areas. Both areas, or several areas could be a major difference if properly implemented. Why? Because if you ask the Syrian people, what they ask is reduction of violence, so the opportunity of transforming this reduction of violence into something that can be a little bit more politically, also promoting for another process which is (inaudible) but also some type of political formula.
Why? Because the de-escalation alone will not last, even if, and we hope they will get observation groups, which is the best way to maintain the de-escalation. But even then you have to give it life by having a political horizon. The political horizon, you are right, should come now from some discussions that need to take place between Russians and Americans. Why not the others, they are involved, but we have seen, and we have seen it with our experience, when Russians and Americans do agree on some parameters, the others are in a way easily or possibly influenced.
So I would keep my eyes, if I were you, on Hamburg. Thank you.
Q: The mapping out of the de-escalation zones was supposed to be finished by June the 4th, and they were supposed to agree on who would administer and observe the zones, so have these deadlines been met, as far as you know?
SdM: No, they have not been met, because this is a complicated process and while we are talking there are actually meetings, I am aware of them, taking place just on these issues and I do know that there is an aim of having an Astana meeting sometime early July, which is just before Hamburg, and perhaps just before we may be wanting also to relaunch Geneva talks.
Q: When could it be for Geneva?
SdM: We will not say exactly the date at the moment, because that could be quite a scoop.
They need to be in July, and they will be in July, and it will be after Ramadan, but also once we would have helped and made sure that the de-escalation really works, that’s why everything is a little bit (inaudible) in the same direction.
Q: You have raised our curiosity mentioning Hamburg, what can you share with us, what you expect coming out of Hamburg regarding Syria?
SdM: I knew I was going to cause a problem here, but the issue is, in Hamburg there will be the first potential opportunity after a while for many to meet, in particular for two to meet, President Trump and President Putin. And Syria is certainly on the radar screen of both and this is a good time to discuss it.
I think also, as I said at the beginning, there are key players now looking for an exit strategy of Syria. This has been going on too long, it needs to end, and it is important that both President Trump and President Putin, hopefully then use the Hamburg meeting to also discuss Syria: how can we create a road map and an inclusive process that can be the beginning of an end of this conflict. And I think there is more likelihood that this can happen now rather than in the long term. This is also because everyone is seeing no good options in front of them. This is a fact.
Q: How is the Qatar crisis affecting the situation in Syria?
SdM: The answer has to be very short: for me it is premature to say how will it affect or is it currently affecting it. I mean what I say; I wouldn’t want to be more analytical right now.
Q: Last year there were voices (inaudible) that we should no longer talk about Bashar al-Assad and his reassignment is that still a political issue, is he sort of off the table, or is his leaving of is still correct for the conflict resolution.
SdM: We are, at the moment, perhaps even more than before, using as a guideline 2254, and in 2254 there is no reference to any person in particular. So I would say that in a mediation you need to have some parameters, and then within those parameters you can then hope to find a compromise over a formula that everyone accepts. I know I’m being cryptical.
Q: You are actually saying that his position is not threatened by that?
SdM: 2254 does not mention any person in particular; it talks about the political transition.
Q: Since the talks in Astana planned to be held in early July. I can confirm this: Mr. Bogdanov told TASS that they are planning it for the 4th and the 5th of July (inaudible). So do you plan to come to Astana again, as you did in May? And what potentials of further de-escalation do you see in Syria? What further agreements could be reached in Astana and later built upon in Geneva?
SdM: We have, very clearly, divided our roles, I would say, and so far, it has worked. Astana is extremely important, extremely useful for this type of cessation of hostilities, which we now call de-escalation, and we are all behind it because that’s what the Syrian people are asking for. They are saying: “whatever you do, negotiate for 20 years if you want, but what we need to see is a reduction of the violence. We don’t want barrel bombs; we don’t want mortar shells from the other side.”
So Astana is important and the UN, and by the way I have a special team supporting it, because we do have an experience in cease-fires, seventy years of experience in cease-fires. So from that one to be, we hope that what has been done in Astana can be expanded in order to make sure that what was the aim of the 28th of December ceasefire and discussions between President Putin and Erdogan and then President Erdogan and then what the Security Council have been asking, a total cease-fire.
Of course, there are the terrorist areas, Daesh and al-Nusra that is an issue, which is still there.
Q: When we say there is a window in Hamburg, have you got any signals from the Trump administration that they actually want to be involved in the negotiations, do they want to be a part?
SdM: When I say a window, it is because I see this period as a period in which there can be progress on the de-escalation, there can be progress also in clarity on what is terrorist areas or people, rather than just anyone, and because Hamburg is an opportunity for a meeting.
I would stop there more than anything else. I know that the Americans, as you know, are much more involved in Syria than they used to be, we have evidence of that all the time, they have a focus, they have priorities, but perhaps in Hamburg they have opportunity of discussing how the overall picture of the future of Syria could be.