The uprising against President al-Assad shows little sign of reaching a conclusion. The civil war is causing huge suffering – with atrocities perpetrated on both sides. There are no easy answers. Some in Government actively push for Britain to supply weaponry to the rebels. But this would be a mistake of historic proportions, as it could tilt the conflict towards a truly regional war.
This is one reason Parliament should be consulted before lethal support is provided to the rebels. Our debate next week attempts to draw this line in the sand as we head into the summer recess.
So far the debate about providing lethal support has been confined largely to the implications within the country. But the real danger is to the region as a whole. Syria is in many ways a proxy war being fought out at differing levels, whether between Sunni, Shi’a and minority communities (such as Alawites or Christians); the West against Russia and China; or Iran against Saudi Arabia.
Throwing more weapons into this conflict would not only increase the violence, and therefore suffering, within the country, but also could extend the conflict beyond Syria’s borders – with disastrous repercussions for the region as a whole. Potential unintended consequences are legion.
It is not as if our record of arming groups in the region is good. In fact, quite the opposite. In the 1980s we armed the Mujahedeen as well as Saddam’s Iraq – only for some of these weapons to be subsequently turned against us. Moreover, history also suggests that the promotion of democracy – the Government’s stated aim – is poorly served by force of arms. Democracy is tentatively establishing itself across North Africa and the Middle East, but less so in Iraq or Afghanistan, despite the high cost in both lives and treasure.
Other negatives abound. We do not know much about the rebels, but it is clear that some – such as the al-Nusra Front – have close links to jihadist and extremist groups. Some of these groups have committed war crimes and other atrocities. It would be nigh on impossible to track and trace weapons to ensure they were only supplied to the moderate elements. Small arms tend to have very long shelf lives and are readily tradable – very little escapes the bazaar.
It is also foolish in the extreme to maintain that heightened violence and suffering will not result from an increase in weaponry. This is one reason why the UN Secretary-General is strongly opposed to the idea – as are many charities on the ground.
There are more constructive things Britain can do than simply throwing weapons at the problem. Refugee camps outside Syria are desperately short of basic amenities. Everyone accepts politics is the only viable long-term solution, and yet the West is denying Iran a seat at the conference table.
But whatever one’s view, no lethal support should be provided without the prior consent of Parliament. I suggest all too often in the past Parliament has left it too late to properly deliberate a number of our recent foreign policy interventions, including Afghanistan. It is essential that we do not repeat these errors when it comes to Syria.
John Baron is Conservative MP for Basildon and Billericay.
Comments