There is nothing new here. See my blog when Clinton met Lavrov about Syria, 28 June 2012 when they are about to formally adopt the Geneva Communiqué. The main difference between then and now is the US expressed attitude towards Assad. As the Telegraph put it at that time:
U.S. officials are adamant that the plan will not allow Syrian President Bashar Assad to remain in power at the top of the transitional government, but Russia insists that outsiders cannot dictate the ultimate solution or the composition of the interim administration.The US attitude is a little difference now and they agree with the Russians that Assad, or at least his regime, are a keeper.
It would seem that only the Syrian people and their real friends, want to see the iron yoke of the Assad regime off their necks completely.
The Voice of Russia is reporting:
The Geneva Communique of 30 June 2012 is essentially Kofi Annan's Six Point plan. This was the plan he was trying to implement more than 2 years ago. After his plan was formally adopted as the Geneva Communique and upon Kofi Annan's resignation as envoy on 31 August 2013 UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon said:
The Geneva Communiqué is a way to end the Syrian crisis - John KerryThe Geneva Communiqué is an important basis for ending the Syrian crisis said US Secretary of State John Kerry adding that the United States notes the importance of the Geneva communique in resolving the situation in Syria.
"The approaches of the U.S. and Russia on a political settlement of the conflict in Syria have never really been that disparate but were delayed from converging as was, for various reasons, the practical implementation of the measures in the Geneva agreement,” reports Voice of Russia correspondent Pauline Chernitsa.
The Geneva Communiqué is an important document that should lead to a peaceful settlement of the situation in Syria, and not remain a simple statement on paper, therefore at an international conference scheduled for late May, it is important to invite representatives of the opposition and the Syrian government, said the U.S. Secretary of State after talks with his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov.
"We believe that the Geneva Communiqué is really an important way to put an end to the bloodshed in Syria. This should not be a piece of paper, or empty diplomacy, but it should pave the way for a new Syria, where there are no longer massacres," he said.
Kerry confirmed that probably at the end of May, the Russian Federation and the United States will try to organize an international conference as a follow up to the meeting of the Action Group on Syria, which was held in June 2012 in Geneva.
"Our goal will be to invite the opposition and the Syrian government to conference and to implement the goals that have been specified in the Geneva Communique," said the U.S. Secretary of State.
"Tragically, the spiral of violence in Syria is continuing. The hand extended to turn away from violence in favour of dialogue and diplomacy - as spelled out in (Annan's) Six-Point Plan - has not been not taken, even though it still remains the best hope for the people of Syria."Russia has always maintained that the Geneva Communique was the only road to peace in Syria but we haven't heard much about it lately from the Obama camp. Now it seems that they have come back around to pushing it again as the roadmap to peace in Syria.
There is one major problem with the Geneva Communique and that was outlined by Grederic C. Hof on 25 April 2013 at the Atlantic Council:
Questions posed by reporters to government officials about the Geneva agreement sometimes receive garbled answers. Although the agreement itself is not entirely free of subtlety and even ambiguity, there is no basis for fudging the answer to one key question: does it require that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad resign and depart at any procedural stage? The answer is no, it does not.No the great powers, the US, UK and France included, intend salvage whatever it can of the Assad regime and force the Syria people to accept a role for this bunch of child killers in Syria's future.
The Syrian opposition recognized within minutes of the signing that there was no Assad-related requirement for preemptive resignation, departure, harakiri, or surrender. Its reaction to the Geneva agreement was therefore negative: surely the great powers should deliver the head of the dictator on a silver platter before anyone deigns to negotiate over the future of Syria.
In Barack Obama's Courtship of Bashar al-Assad, 14 September 2012, I said:
So the Obama administration would like to see Assad "step down" but it also wants to keep in place the Assad killing machine that has so far taken more than 20,000 Syrian lives and has been condemned for massive human rights violations by the United Nations, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.More than 50,000 Syrians have been slaughtered since then and they are still pushing the same line on the Syrian people - give up your goal of overthrowing the Assad regime, maybe he will reform.
So we might say that Obama is demanding that the Syrian people marry their rapist.
So expect Russia to continue to play the bad cop, making sure Bashar never runs out of ammo, while the United States continues to play the good cop, making sure the rebels don't get the weapons they need. The Syrian people are going to have to fight both imperialist camps if they want to have a future free of the fascist Assad regime.
Here are some of my blogs that discuss Barack Obama's support for the Assad Regime:
Obama "green lights" Assad's slaughter in Syria
Barack Obama's Courtship of Bashar al-Assad
Syria: Obama's moves Assad's "red line" back as SOHR reports 42,000 dead!
SecState[?] John Kerry and his "dear friend" Bashar al-Assad
Chemical weapons use reported in Syria, Has Obama's red-line has been crossed?
How the US help put Assad in power in Syria
Obama on Syria: They're still dying, he's still looking
How Obama's 'No MANPADS for you' policy in Syria is backfiring
UN reveals its real stand on Syria, giving Assad $500 million | #UNPaysAssad
More thoughts on Obama's 'No MANPADS for you!' policy in Syria
Barack Obama's Courtship of Bashar Assad Exposed!!! in Syria
Obama: Did the CIA betray Assad's opposition in Syria?
Obama planning drone strikes against Assad's opposition in Syria
Counterpunch: So Wrong on Syria