Ribal Al-Assad: Why arming the rebels is NOT a good idea

On both sides of the Atlantic calls continue to arm the rebels in Syria. Briefly David Cameron agreed. And then he stepped back. Barack Obama disagreed, before John Kerry agreed to double the aid to the rebels to $123 million.

The West is confused.

It is correct in its observation that the regime in Damascus has been, and continues to be, vicious and dictatorial. It is also correct that there are (and have been from the start) Syrians with altruistic motives who oppose the regime.

Where the confusion begins is in the West’s understanding of the remainder of the opposition.

Because the myth of this being a conflict between ‘good’ (the opposition) and ‘evil’ (the regime) should have been debunked over two years ago. Along with that other regional misnomer, the ‘Arab Spring’.

The regime is brutal and bloodthirsty. But it is not alone there. The UN estimates that in the civil war so far, security forces have suffered 15,000 fatalities, the opposition 10,000, and their fighting has led to 45,000 civilian deaths.

There has not been an integrated Syrian opposition defined by its patriotism since extremists hijacked the 2011 protests of those seeking democratic reform and chanting “Peaceful, Peaceful, Peaceful” and “One, one, one, the Syrian people are one”.

That was a different era. It is no secret that the entire country is now in chaos, and that includes the opposition. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dempsey, admits that the US has no clear picture of what's going on in Syria. The UN peace envoy Lakhdar Brahimi reports that fighters representing 38 nationalities have joined the forces opposed to the regime. In the U.K, the Home Office has warned that hundreds of British and other European Muslims fighting alongside groups linked to al-Qida in Syria, could return home to carry out terrorist attacks. And as casualty figures rise and the conflict spreads, jihadi fighters connected to al-Qaida now represent a majority of the opposition forces.

And so we should not be surprised that the rebels have been repeatedly condemned by the UN for murder, kidnap, torture, assault, corruption and the use of child soldiers. Or that Carla Del Ponte, who sits on the UN commission of inquiry into the war, believes that there are "strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof" that the rebels have used chemical weapons.

But what may be a surprise is that none of this has been condemned or punished by the Free Syrian Army (FSA) who the United States, Britain and France seem so determined to fund.

Which brings me back to the confusion.

Because Secretary of State John Kerry has announced, quite rightly, that “we can't risk letting this country in the heart of the Middle East become hijacked by the extremists”. However, he continued by giving his support (and that of ten other countries) to the Supreme Military Command of the Free Syrian Army.

To oppose extremism and support the FSA is oxymoronic. The US Secretary of Justice, Eric Holder, has stated categorically that most of the FSA follow the Al Qaeda ideology. Even General Idris, the current Chief of Staff of the supposedly moderate Free Syrian Army has said that he is happy to fight alongside these extremist groups. He believes they compromise approximately half of all opposition forces. That may be an understatement.

The groups which make up the Supreme Military Council of the FSA disagree on much, but their one common ground is Islamism, which sits at the heart of each of the influential al-Tawhid Brigade, Deraa al-Thawra Brigade, Suqour al-Sham Brigade, Syrian Martyrs Brigade and al Farouq Battalions. Searching some of their YouTube videos can be quite instructive (if not frightening). And it is no coincidence that the areas of the country they control are already practising Sharia Law. Nor that a holy Shia site was lately desecrated by the rebels (to condemnation by the Prime Ministers of Iran and Iraq). Nor that main square of Raqqa City is now adorned by a massive black flag bearing the Islamic Shahada.

And these are the ‘acceptable’ side of the Rebels. General Idris only labelled as fundamentally ‘extremist’ the al-Nusra Front. He estimated its numbers at 3,000, and acknowledged that it was fighting alongside the FSA against the regime. Which is also confusing, as it was only last year that the United States blacklisted Nusra as a foreign terror organisation.

Confused? It’s hard not be. Particularly as the Obama administration’s response to the UN’s statement regarding the opposition’s use of Sarin is “highly sceptical”.

And so the United States government continues to send help to the opposition, sure in its belief that assistance can be channelled to certain elements of the opposition in isolation. As Robert Fisk recently observed, “John Kerry wants the Gulf to support the Syrian rebels. But which rebels? The soft, safe ones? Or those horrible, 'terrorist' Islamists?” Saudi Arabia and Qatar are already funding and arming extremist groups and The Guardian recently reported how Jordan is accepting Saudi money to supply arms directly into Syria. The West cannot possibly label weapons ‘Not for al-Nusra or other Islamist groups’. As Austrian Foreign Minister Michael Spindelegger said last weekend: “Nobody can give a guarantee that weapons delivered to the opposition in Syria will end up in the right hands.”

John Kerry, along with William Hague, also believes in the provision of ‘non-lethal’ aid. This is a strange concept. Because it includes night vision goggles, medical equipment and armour. The ‘lethal’ aid is already pouring in from the Gulf. Used together they represent the core supplies required to fight a war.

But it is not the type of aid that worries me most. It is the picking of sides. It is as if the West has ignored the lessons of history. In the 1980s it supported the Taliban in Afghanistan. Last year it fed arms to extremists in Libya – a decision whose ramifications are already being felt across swathes of North Africa. And now Syria.

And having decided to pick a side, the choice of the FSA is far from clear-cut. Nor is that of the Syrian National Coalition (SNC), a group formed in Qatar earlier this year. Reuters reported that two thirds of the 263 men who formed it were either members of the Muslim brotherhood or their allies. It’s leader, Moaz Al-Khatib has a long and loud history of anti-Western comments and has publically criticised the US decision to blacklist the Nusra Front.

It has ceased to surprise me that other more liberal groups were not offered a seat at the table. Their views (and mine) are much too liberal for the SNC, and for its key backer, Turkey, whose undersecretary of foreign affairs also criticized the US’ blacklisting of the Nusra front, whose foreign minister has said that Jihad is not related to terrorism, and whose Ambassador to Chad has tweeted that Al Qaeda is different to ‘terror’. But there does seem to be a certain irony in my being exiled in Britain, where a democratically elected government are happy to discuss the Syrian situation with members of the Muslim Brotherhood, but not with us or our partners.

This article is not aimed at self-promotion. But I believe it is relevant that I predicted (and published) two years ago precisely how the Syrian catastrophe would escalate. That was not guesswork, but a view predicated on an understanding of how my country sits on a fault-line of national, sectarian, regional and geo-political interests. Any local conflict fuelled by the strategic interests of Russia, China, Iran, Iraq and Lebanon against NATO, Turkey, Saudi, Qatar, Kuwait and Jordan, was not going to end quietly. I have raised the likelihood of this escalating into a regional war from the very start.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor, has said just that. In recent weeks Syrian planes have attacked targets inside Lebanon. Syrian militants have hit Hezbollah positions elsewhere in Lebanon. Iraqi forces have shelled FSA positions after its Prime Minister predicted regional war in the event of a rebel victory. Iranian General Hassan Shateri was assassinated near Syria’s border with Lebanon. Iran and Hezbollah vow to stand by the Syrian regime. An Israeli aircraft strike on Damascus, following previous aircraft and guided missile strikes. Russian ships' heavy presence in the Mediterranean. This all suggests that the region is on the brink of war.

Good advice from sensible people continues to be ignored, from the late Pope Benedict to Ban-ki Moon. John Barron MP, German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Amnesty International have all agreed with me. Lady Ashton, the EU Foreign Policy Chief, told EU leaders that arming the rebels would provide a reason for Iran to act more aggressively in the Middle East. Most recently, Alain Chouet, former chief officer of the General Directorate for External Security in Damascus, has denounced President Hollande’s weapons deliveries to the rebels as “completely illegal” and described how “the jihadist militias have taken precedence over the others”. But to no avail.

So what should be done?

There is only one answer. Diplomacy. Which, for a start, is cheaper than arms. And, more importantly, it has not been given a real chance.

Firstly, every Syrian group with a vested interest in the country’s future should be invited to talks. And that should include the regime and the multitude of opposition groups. Every reasonable observer of this tragedy seeks a democratic solution. Democracy is about representation, and the international community must push towards a representative process that covers the eclectic interests of the full mosaic of Syria’s people, including those exiled from the country.

In the meantime, we must recognise that the Arab League is not neutral or objective. Nor does it represents democracy. It represents the very states encouraging extremism and sectarianism in Syria, and have recently given Syria's seat to the same Muslim Brotherhood controlled SNC.

We must also cease to supply any opposition group with money, or 'non-lethal' aid, which could become extremely lethal when used in conjunction with arms flooding in from Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and some Gulf countries. Our money should, in the first place, be used to supply medical aid through the Red Cross, UNICEF and other responsible charities to ensure that it saves civilian lives rather than compromising them.

Any other international aid should be put into a fund and held until a peaceful solution is found. Pouring it into a war zone can only inflame. Saving it until afterwards will create resources to rebuild homes, business and families.

The biggest barrier to peace is not the Syrian people , but the extremists already in the country. Concord is not in their interests. And, as we have seen in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan, they will continue to intimidate, attack and bomb. That is inevitable. But the international community must pressurise Qatar, Saudi and Turkey to stop funding, arming and encouraging the conflict.

And this all needs to happen fast. I made all these suggestions in 2011 and 2012. They were ignored. Mayhem, inevitably, has followed.

And yet those calls to arms continue, from influential governments in Paris, the UK and Washington. But the Syrian situation requires a different narrative. The people must decide, rather than have their choices made for them. Russia continues to preach the language of democracy, and has continually said that the only solution is dialogue.

The social, economic and political destruction of Syria is already underway. Ban Ki-moon has said it risks dissolution. Adm. James Stavridis, the commander of U.S. European Command sees tragic parallels with the Balkan conflict. The entire UN Security Council has condemned in the strongest terms the terrorist attack on a mosque in Damascus which killed Syria's most senior Cleric. And as President Obama put it in March (in stark contrast to his country’s policy to date): "I am very concerned about Syria becoming an enclave for extremism because extremists thrive in chaos. They don't have much to offer when it comes to actually building things, but they're very good about exploiting situations that are no longer functioning. They fill that gap."

As I write, John Kerry has arrived in Moscow to discuss the conflict with Vladimir Putin. Their conversation could not come at a more pivotal moment. Syria has already become an enclave for extremism. Responding with military aid will simply turn a catastrophe into an apocalypse.

Photo Credit: Russia Today