The announcement of the UN envoy to Syria Geir Pedersen that the meeting of the Constitutional Committee was disappointing opens the way for many questions and inquiries about the hopes he is talking about and about the party or party that disappointed him?, and the reasons that led to the meeting not reaching any common understanding on any of the ideas that been discussed?
Many observers and observers of the work of this committee believe that the responsibility of finding the ground to achieve a breakthrough in its work lies with the United Nations in line with its charter and in a manner that guarantees the sovereignty of the decision of the party motivated by states insisting on interfering in Syrian internal affairs and imposing their will on the Syrians.
Likewise, the United Nations must provide the ground for implementing any agreement on the ground, and this presupposes the withdrawal of the Turkish and American forces occupying Syrian lands and assisting the Syrian government in imposing the rule of law on all Syrian lands and eliminating international terrorism that receives support from the Turkish regime and the United States and its tools in the region .
Providing these matters strips countries that seek to impose their will on the Syrian people from the elements of influencing their tools within the committee, whose role is limited only to embodying the desire of their employer and not the interests of the Syrians.
The maneuvering of those who call themselves representatives of the Syrian opposition and their refusal to explicitly condemn the terrorist act that killed 17 workers from a construction establishment who are going to earn a living is a sufficient reason for the committee not to reach any understandings that dispel the disappointment of Pedersen, who was supposed to call things by their names, especially since this act The terrorist is qualified as international terrorism.
Holding the stick from the middle, in order to ensure the impartiality expressed by Pedersen, must not violate international law and the Charter of the United Nations, not only with regard to its tool of terrorist acts and adherence to anti-terror laws, but also by expressly and clearly declaring the rejection of any measures outside the framework of international law and the Charter of the United Nations. Therefore, it seems surprising and exciting. Due to suspicion, the organization's envoys to Syria ignored the talk about the illegality of the presence of Turkish and American forces on Syrian territory.
Restricting to holding “disappointing” rounds without having an adequate understanding of how to push this process forward, as described by Pedersen, is not sufficient to justify this successive failure. To go beyond the borders drawn by those countries and achieve their goals and ambitions in Syria.
It seems that Pedersen, who made efforts with the United States and Turkey, pinned hopes on this tour, which he gleaned from promises he received from the governments of Washington and Ankara, but they soon faded with their insistence on prolonging the war in Syria.