Labour should say ‘no’ to arms for Syria

Foreign Secretary, William Hague appears to have got his way. Britain and France have successfully lobbied for the European Union not to renew its arms embargo on Syria. Russia’s Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, immediately announced that three hundred anti aircraft missiles would be made available to the Assad regime, presumably relishing the opportunity handed to him by Hague. Russia’s decision to increase arms shipments to the Assad regime is a disgrace, and offers the green light to repressive regimes the World over to turn their armies on their people. But Hague’s cack-handed attempt to play with highly combustible power politics in a region already in flames is reminiscent of a stupid school boy throwing petrol on the fire.

Britain’s increasingly parochial media has been at one in completely ignoring the views of the United Nations and in particular the Secretary General, Ban ki moon. The UN is opposed to any actions that may escalate the existing civil war, actions that are now on the verge of spilling over into Lebanon, Turkey and Iraq. Ban ki moon has been quite clear in demanding that both sides do not receive yet more weaponry from outside, much of it that may be turned against innocent civilians. Quite where all of this leaves the recent US John Kerry initiative aimed at holding meaningful US/ Russian talks is anyone’s guess.

I have reported from inside Syria on a number of occasions, most recently for al Jazeera English TV, and in pursuit of some of those reports have followed the UN Secretary General into Syria. This country – an artificial construct by France and Britain from the collapse of the Ottoman Empire is typical of so many colonial ventures. Syria is a patchwork quilt of different religious groups, with the minority – in this case the Allawites – used, as they were, to police the majority under the French mandate – much as the British used the minority Turks in Cyprus to do the same over the Greeks. For much of the last half of the last century many of the countries arbitrarily carved up in this way were ruled over either by feudal Sheikhs or latterly secular, nationalist parties. A combination of wars – particularly the war on Iraq and the emergence of new democratic forces in many parts of the Middle East has shaken the old order. In Tunisia, and to a degree also in Egypt, there is now more democracy, but in Syria, one of the most complex societies, Basher al Assad’s Allawites saw any moves towards democracy as a threat to first their power, and now their very existence.

Britain and France might have had more leverage in Syrian had they stuck to the letter of the UN Resolution that was passed – with Russian acceptance – to protect the civilians of Benghazi from Colonel Gadaffi’s threats. But Cameron and Sarkozy unilaterally extended the no fly zones in Libya to out and out regime change, infuriating Russia. Today’s Russian intransigence owes much to the clumsy interventions of both Britain and France at that time.

The three countries who can and must exert real leverage over both the Assad regime and the rebels are the United States, Russia and Turkey, and not necessarily in that order, and they need to be able to do that with the UN Secretary General, Ban ki moon, presiding.

William Hague is out of his depth, his weak grasp of Middle East politics too clouded by his links with the Neo Cons, with whom he agreed as they set about bombing Baghdad. The weapons he proposes to send may well end up in the hands of al Qaeda and others bent on wreaking a terrible revenge on amongst others Allawites and Christians.

The trouble is, that with the exception of Menzies Campbell, a handful of Tory sceptics and some in the Parliamentary Labour Party, he is simply not being challenged – in particular the Shadow Foreign Secretary, Douglas Alexander.

I am sure that Douglas Alexander, in common with all those other senior Labour figures who supported the war on Iraq but who now regret doing so, must realise the history risks repeating itself. But this time it could have truly calamitous implications for all of the Middle East, including Iran and Israel, as the flames of civil war are fanned further by William Hague.

It is high time Douglas Alexander spoke up, and he could begin by putting a call into the UN Secretary General’s office to ascertain where Hague and Britain now stand with regard to international law.  Update: My original post did Douglas Alexander a diservice. He has been critical of William Hague’s attempt to lift the EU arms embargo to Syria – and it is not exactly his fault that the national media have failed to attach the importance that many of his arguments the significance deserve. That said Labour’s voice needs to be a great deal stronger and clearer at this crucial time, and if the Geneva talks next month are to have any chance of success.’