Macron's statements on Syria "discredited him in the eyes of many who believed in his role"

 Ziad Majed:

 'Macron says that "Bashar is not the enemy of France, but the enemy of the Syrian people." How do we first explain this dichotomy?

 This statement echoes the positions already expressed last year by the current Minister of Foreign Affairs Jean-Yves Le Drian when he was Minister of Defense. It justifies military intervention against Daesh (Arab acronym of the Islamic State) and inaction against Bashar al-Assad, even though he is responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity of Daesh.

 The declaration excludes the Syrians from the international community and humanity, for even if they die under torture in Assad's jails and under the aerial bombardments of his army, This does not make their mass murderer an enemy of France. It is the contempt displayed towards a whole people and an approach that divests France of the universal values ​​and the international law that it often claims to defend.

 Worse still, this message will be interpreted by the Syrian dictator as a license to kill, as a total immunity, as long as the tens of thousands of victims are only children, Syrian women and men (and Palestinians from Syria).

 "I did not state that the removal of Bashar was a prerequisite for everything. For no one has presented me with his legitimate successor, "he adds. Is this to say that the current opposition is not legitimate?

 Mr. Macron himself declared in reply to Franco-Syrian associations who had questioned him about his position with respect to Syria during his presidential campaign that "Bashar al-Assad committed war crimes against his people. His retention in power can in no way be a solution for Syria. Nor will there be peace without justice and therefore those responsible for the crimes committed, including chemical attacks, will have to respond. France will continue to act in the Security Council in this regard, despite the systematic obstruction of "one of the permanent members ".

 Today, Mr. Macron seems to be reversing his position. Moreover, to consider that the alleged absence of alternatives is a sufficient reason for maintaining a mass killer in place is in itself an insult to the intelligence of the Syrian people. Mr. Macron denies the potential of thousands of Syrians, intellectuals, technocrats, jurists, civil society activists who resemble those he is so proud of in his "En Marche" movement. In any event, after the massive destruction of Syria by Bashar al-Assad and his allies, it is impossible to be reborn without collective political management. The alternative is not a single leader,

 "The absolute struggle against all terrorist groups. They are our enemies. We need the cooperation of all to eradicate them, especially from Russia. Is this the new realpolitik of France?

 The declaration can be a form of repositioning in relation to dialogue with Russia in a moment of uncertainty and unpredictability. Mr. Macron believes he can play a more important role by turning over his jacket and abandoning the principled positions of his predecessor, Mr. Hollande.

 He is mistaken because his position denotes a naivety and a lack of strategy. All past experiences show that the war against terrorism is not won by mere military cooperation with the Americans or the Russians, which also have hundreds of civilian casualties in both Syria and Iraq.

 Terrorism is developing in a context of humiliation, lack of prospects and occupation. Warrior nihilism thrives on the ruins of the political field that Assad, father and son, have destroyed in Syria through repression, massacres, arrests, impunity and sometimes the complicity of international actors ... Everyone pays The price today. We will pay more for it in a few years by repeating the same policies. Another form of daeshism might emerge.

 Mr. Macron is well aware that "Assad continues today thanks to the Russian and Iranian military occupation of part of Syria. He is also aware that this occupation is in itself a reason enough to fuel frustrations and anger, even resistance, which are far from leading to any stability.

 The more Assad stays in power, the more Daesh, al-Nusra (Fateh al-Sham, ex Jabhat al-Nusra, the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda), or other successors will increase their recruitment capacity. Of course, a departure from Assad would not immediately solve all the problems. It must not be forgotten that we are in the sixth year of a conflict preceded by 41 years of a barbaric dictatorship. Without a political solution ensuring a transition, without justice and respect for human rights,

 Macron repeats his "red lines": "chemical weapons and humanitarian access," which he says will be "intractable." What is his room for manoeuvre? And what do these red lines mean after all he has just said?

 Macron reiterates the words of Barack Obama, whose unfortunate consequences we are unfortunately aware of. The red line on chemical weapons was nothing more than a green light for committing war crimes and crimes against humanity with all kinds of weapons except chemical weapons. Macron promised to play a role of political and ethical leadership at European and international level. This statement immediately discredited him in the eyes of a large part of those who believed in him.'