Ribal Al-Assad addresses the Conservative Foreign Commonwealth Council on Syria and the Arab Spring
Thursday, 20 September 2012
3 more image(s) »
Ribal Al-Assad, this week spoke about Syria and the Arab Spring in a speech to the Conservative Foreign & Commonwealth Council (CFCC) at a central London venue. The speech was warmly received and followed by a comprehensive Q & A session.
The event was attended by many members of the CFCC and hosted by its executive including the Chairman, Sir Ronald Halstead CBE, Vice Chairmen, Sir Michael Craig Cooper CBE TD DL, Mr Peter Friedmann and the Hon. Secretary, Mrs Melissa Crawshay-Williams.
The purpose of the Conservative Foreign & Commonwealth Council is to provide a forum for the discussion of international foreign relations to promote greater understanding and awareness.
Its President is The Rt. Hon Sir Malcolm Rifkind KCMG QC MP
Its Patrons are:
The Rt. Hon William Hague MP
The Rt. Hon Sir John Major KG, CH
The Rt. Hon The Lord Howe of Aberavon QC
The Rt. Hon The Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
The Hon The Lord Hurd of Westwell CH CBE
Ribal Al-Assad made the following speech:
Syria: a pawn in two games
"Good evening.
I would like to thank you for the very kind invitation.
It is a real honour to have this opportunity to speak to you all.
You will need no reminding of the long-standing Conservative traditions of freedom and acceptance.
This Council’s values of “Greater understanding and awareness” …
… are words synonymous with the organisation that I head.
I have lived in exile since the age of nine …
… because my ideas differ from those of the regime.
And I have watched with a sense of profound sadness …
… as my country has become split internally …
… with peaceful protests against an abhorrent regime …
… becoming hijacked by extremists …
… with the ensuing struggle escalating into civil war.
It seems extraordinary that the mosaic of ethnicities making-up the Syrian population ...
... were relatively recently living alongside each other in comparative peace.
At present, the majority are living in fear …
… as violence escalates due to an unyielding regime …
… a split opposition …
… and a cascade of sectarian-fuelled terrorists, arms and rhetoric from abroad.
It fills me only with regret …
… that I have been predicting this spiral towards civil, and regional war …
… since before the onset of the Arab Spring.
I have also spoken widely about my sincere belief …
… that the only remedy to extremism …
… is pluralism.
The Conservative Party, and indeed Britain itself, are heralded around the democratic world as beacons of political and religious freedom.
I am proud to have studied here …
… to have lived here …
… to be bringing up my son here …
… and to have so many friends here.
However, I believe that Britain’s policy towards Syria …
… along with that of the US and NATO…
… is flawed.
If we agree that democracy is the goal …
… events are rushing in the opposite direction.
And in a nutshell, I believe that the West’s misinterpretation stems from a simple, age-old misguided premise:
That my enemy’s enemy is my friend.
In the case of Syria, the regime is tyrannical and barbarous.
But supporting selected elements of the opposition …
… is akin to backing the Taleban against the Russians in 1980s Afghanistan …
… and, more recently, helping the opposition in countries across the Middle East, most topically Libya …
… where the tragic assassination of the US Ambassador was indicative of the reigning state of chaos.
Many of you will have a sophisticated understanding of the three interwoven tiers of enmity directly effecting the current impasse in Syria.
For the sake of context, I will summarise them briefly.
On a global level, tension continues to escalate between China and Russia on one side …
… and the US and NATO on the other.
This has been played-out in accusations over missile defence shields …
… currency issues …
… war games …
… and naval activities …
… both in the South China Sea and the Mediterranean.
Mitt Romney’s announcement that Russia “is without question, our No. 1 geopolitical foe” has not helped matters.
Nor has Dmitry Medvedev’s warning that “At some point such actions which undermine state sovereignty may lead to a full-scale nuclear regional war.”
This rivalry has, unsurprisingly, focused on the Middle East …
… and its ever-widening Sectarian divide .
A Turkish-led Sunni axis encompassing Qatar and Saudi Arabia …
… opposes an Iranian-led Shia axis forming through Baghdad, Beirut and Damascus.
Russia and China back the latter …
… the US and NATO the former – implicitly at least.
The changing role of Turkey over the past five years illustrates this growing schism.
Her combination of democracy and Islam was hailed as a benign model for the region …
… typified in the commercial and political partnership with Syria.
But the flotilla incident in the Mediterranean …
… followed by the onset of the Syrian ‘Spring’ …
… led President Erdogan to pursue parochial interests to select the Muslim brotherhood-dominated SNC opposition ...
... irrespective of Syria’s best interests.
He soon became embroiled in a war of words with Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki …
… with each accusing the other of fuelling sectarian tensions.
A month ago, Erdogan questioned whether the Syrian President was even a Muslim.
And then a week ago, he compared the current situation in Syria with the battle of Karbala …
… the legendary origin of the Sunni/Shia divide in Islam.
Moderation has been replaced with bigotry.
His motives have been further skewed by the realisation that Syria’s Kurds are gaining a similar level of autonomy to those in Iraq …
… with implications for the claims of Turkey’s Kurds to press for independence.
And the tension with the Syrian regime was exacerbated by the widely reported downing of a Turkish F-4 fighter …
… and the aiming of Syrian chemical weapons toward Ankara in broad daylight.
As a result, the Turkish, Saudi, Jordanian and Israeli armies are now on a state of high alert.
Iran and Hezbollah have said they, as part of the ‘Axis of Resistance’, will not allow the Syrian regime to fall.
Meanwhile, Iran has now admitted that her elite Revolutionary Guard has a presence in Syria.
And so tension deepens.
I am sure I do not need to update you on the escalating violence within Syria …
… where the UN reports war crimes being carried out on both sides.
But I will focus on the ways this internal conflict it is being influenced by infiltration and intervention …
… some of which is well-meant …
… whilst the remainder is unequivocally sinister.
In essence
… there are two chess games being-played out on the board that is Syria.
Two games of which the British government is, of course, well aware.
On one hand is the official game, taking place above the table.
It involves an internal conflict …
… and a superficial international play for peace …
… acted out through the ‘Friends of Syria’ conferences …
… calls for a ceasefire …
… ongoing UN intervention …
… and a lack of consensus at the Security Council leading to the Russo-Chinese veto.
As we all know, the official game has no chance of a successful conclusion …
… while the sinister and illicit game continues under the table.
This version pushes both sides towards civil war.
Islamic clerics on Saudi-owned WISAL and SAFA satellite TV stations exhort their people to join the war.
Sheikh Saleh al-Luhaidan, the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Judicial Council in Saudi Arabia, calls for jihad against Alawites, even if one third of the Syrian people die in the process.
President Obama signs a covert order authorising support for Syrian rebels permitting the CIA and other US agencies to provide assistance to help oust the Syrian regime.
Russia and China support the regime ...
... Russia through the provision of surface to sea and air missiles ...
... not least because they are both seriously concerned of the consequences of Islamic fundamentalism at home …
… in addition to their strategic interests in the region …
… and ongoing posturing against the West.
Here in Britain …
… as in America …
… there was initial support for the SNC opposition …
… despite its thinly veiled façade for the Muslim Brotherhood.
There is now backing for the Free Syrian Army.
£5m has been sent for ‘non lethal purposes’ …
… including medical equipment and body armour …
… in addition to the $25m from the United States.
Unfortunately, when used in conjunction with the lethal aid coming in from elsewhere …
… including Saudi Arabia …
… it leads to an inevitable escalation of the conflict.
As if evidence was needed, the opposition is now also receiving surface-to-air missiles.
This brings me to the hub of the problem:
Namely, who are the opposition and what are their motives?
A question that we didn’t seem to ask (or answer) when the UK was backing the opposition in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.
For a start, As James Clapper, Head of US Intelligence stated last year, the Syrian opposition is fragmented and infiltrated by Jihadists including Al Queda.
This remains the case, and the groups are often at odds with each other.
Many minorities in Syria have not sided with the Free Syrian Army.
Some have taken up arms against it ...
... because they have no confidence that a future under the external SNC or the internal FSA would be better for them than the incumbent regime.
This was illustrated when Abdel Salam Harba …
… the military opposition chief in Western Syria …
… issued an ultimatum for the Christian population to flee the city of Qusayr.
And so it not surprising Christian and Armenian fighters have now been fighting for six weeks in Aleppo …
… to prevent Free Syrian Army rebels from entering Christian areas of the City.
Many refugees have quoted rebel fighters as shouting:
“Alawites to the graves and the Christians to Beirut”.
And it would be a mistake to assume that every opposition party is motivated by a desire to overthrow the regime.
Their goals are diverse.
Jacques Beres of Medecins Sans Frontieres said that at least half the people he treated in Aleppo were foreign fighters …
… intent on waging holy war and establishing an Islamist state.
To quote him directly:
“It’s really something strange to see. They are directly saying that they aren’t interested in Bashar al-Assad’s fall, but are thinking about how to take power afterwards and set up an Islamic state with Sharia Law to become part of the world Emirate”.
He also explained that the French citizens in his care were inspired by Mohammed Merah—a terrorist who killed a rabbi and three Jewish children in Toulouse in March,.
And so we not only have an opposition with a range of motives …
… we also see increasing numbers of imported fundamentalists.
The released hostages, British journalist John Cantlie and Dutch photographer Jeroen Oerlemans - bear this out.
Oerlemans described his kidnappers as "foreign jihadists,” …
… from Chechnya, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Britain …
… and that some had "Birmingham accents" and at least one other was from South London.
And there is also an influx of extremists from within the region.
Not just from Saudi, Qatar and Yemen …
… but also from Libya.
Alarabiya.net quoted a purse seller from Aleppo:
“I sell to women in Libya while they send their unemployed men to fight our soldiers.”
Unsurprisingly, the import of fighters is mirrored by the export of tension and violence.
Hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees are upsetting the delicate political balance inside Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon.
The Lebanese City of Tripoli has witnessed its heaviest fighting since its own civil war.
Tit-for-tat kidnappings abound.
Meanwhile,
And, as I have already mentioned …
… the Syrian regime’s retreat from the Hasakah region in the North East has effectively given freedom for self-rule to its Kurdish majority - led by the Syrian Kurds, the PYD.
This has raised the possibility of a ‘Kurdish Spring’ inside Turkey where the Turkish government are alarmed by the potential alliance of the PKK - the Turkish Kurds – with the PYD.
I have already touched on 2012 Syria’s parallels with 1980s Afghanistan.
David Ignatius wrote an excellent piece in the Washington Post on that subject.
Western involvement in Syria is implicitly supporting jihadist opposition.
Russia is an adversary.
In the 1980’s the Saudi’s financed and supported the Mujahedeen in their fight against the ‘godless’ Soviets.
That ‘great victory’ in the depths of the cold war led to rampant fundamentalism that is still menacing the Middle East and much of the world.
In the current climate, it is difficult to predict any alternative outcome from the Syrian conflict ... although its impact would be greatly exaggerated given Syria’s geo-strategic and geo-political importance.
My aspiration remains democracy.
As I’m sure does yours.
And we will all agree that the current tsunami of violence …
… accelerated by vested foreign interests …
… is not going to take us to that promised land.
The chess game under the table means that the current deadlock may be impossible to break.
The opposition can’t bring down a regime supported by Iran, Russia and China.
Nor can the regime crush an opposition armed and funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar ...
... and supported by Turkey and the West.
The Kofi Annan plan was doomed because the UN has to play above the table.
And if the current situation continues, Lakhdar Brahimi will fulfil his prediction as taking on the impossible job.
If the regime were to fall tomorrow …
… I believe that the conflict would simply be superseded by something equally violent ...
... leading to a fragmentation and potential disintegration of the state ...
... to be replaced by a political vacuum, leaving Syria at the whim of fundamentalists, including Al Qaeda, Salafi and Wahabi elements …
… which can hardly be in its best interests.
We have to make a ceasefire possible.
Pope Benedict said so last week.
Ban-ki Moon commented that "The continuing militarization of the conflict is deeply tragic and highly dangerous."
Vladimir Putin, irrespective of his motives, spoke sense in an interview with RT:
“We realize that this country needs a change, but this doesn’t mean that change should come with bloodshed. We would like to stay away from Islamic sectarian conflict, or interfere in a showdown involving the Sunnis, the Shia.”
This is no Sierra Leone.
We are not dealing with a clear-cut case of ‘good and evil’.
There will be no happy ending through intervention …
… but there may be through diplomacy.
As democrats and lovers of freedom, we have a duty.
It is not to throw funds towards a civil war …
… but to help unite the democrats amongst the opposition.
Bosma Kodmani, one of the few women in the SNC …
… is the latest to resign as head of its foreign affairs bureau.
She said earlier this month that the SNC has effectively failed and should be replaced by a new political authority.
...I absolutely agree with her.
That new, unified opposition, should be clear that it has a single motive:
The interests of the diverse people of Syria.
And are best served by democracy.
History proves that we cannot solve the problems of the Middle East by picking one opposition group, ignoring its deficiencies, and throwing funds in its direction.
Quite the opposite.
Our role must be rational, calm and democratic.
Which leaves us with a series of actions.
We must only use the word ‘democracy’ to clarify our objectives …
… rather than to justify violent deeds.
We must call for a ceasefire.
As Ban-ki Moon and the Pope have urged, we must discourage the implicit and explicit arming of the opposition.
We must set an example by engaging with Russia and China to promote a peaceful situation.
We must condemn the extremist clerics advocating the murder of minorities, including the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia who called for "all churches across the region to be destroyed". We must do all we can to ensure that Syrian institutions stay intact.
We must pressure the regime, the opposition and their outside backers into supporting diplomacy.
Finally, and most urgently, we must entice the Syrian opposition to finally come onto one platform and speak with one voice.
An opposition is not worth supporting simply because of the regime it opposes.
That is a tried and tested route.
Britain, along with France, Qatar and the United States ...
... backed the opposition in Libya to overthrow a tyrannical dictatorship ...
... and effectively gave our blessing to what followed:
Anarchy.
In which groups of armed Islamic militants can create atrocities ...
... like that on the US Embassy, killing the very Ambassador who had helped liberate Benghazi.
This policy has clearly failed before ...
... and it will fail again.
It is imperative that the International Community throws its collective weight behind a democratic, inclusive, peaceful opposition:
The only type of opposition that presents a chance of peace for Syria.
And I am sure that all of you at the Conservative Foreign and Commonwealth Council …
… agree with all of us
… that we should do everything to give it that chance.
Thank you".