For Paris and London, in Syria: lift the arms embargo or chaos!
(BRUSSELS2 at the European Council) The decision has not been taken. But it's just like. When a French leader and a British leader express, loud and clear, extensively, with a few details that they are in favor of delivering arms to the Syrian opposition, that all other solutions, political ones in particular, have failed , that the situation there is serious and that the destabilization of an entire region is near, this is not a bluff or a "trick" to go up in the polls.
We are here in front of a real decision-making, and a possible change in the Syrian conflict which has already lasted for 2 years. The Franco-British offensive is, this time, well prepared. Paris like London (the two former mandatory powers of Syria...) have ammunition in their satchel. And in front of the press - as in front of his counterparts - F. Holland unrolled a panoply of arguments to convince (in particular on the control of the weapons, to see point 4). The majority is not acquired... but the shock is on the way. Explanations... The discussion will now continue in another forum.
The objective of the Franco-British manoeuvre: to convince the partners.
Contrary to what President Hollande asserts, the majority of Europeans are currently opposed to lifting the embargo. But "spirits move". Even Germany, often put forward - wrongly - as being the leader of the opponents, is feeling its way. Chancellor Merkel did not want to clearly indicate her position, referring to her Minister of Foreign Affairs. And within the CDU, the Libyan affair, and the isolation of Germany, were experienced as a real "trauma" that everything will be done in Berlin to avoid such a berezina. Both Italy and Belgium are changing, asking for guarantees on arms deliveries. On the other hand, neutral or non-NATO member countries (Austria, Sweden, etc.), the Netherlands or the Czech Republic remain fiercely opposed to any lifting of the arms embargo. “We have to convince, put forward our arguments, show that there is a step to take” explains François Hollande. The decision can be taken at the latest before may “, even before. “I believe that Europe must decide in the coming weeks ". And if there is no agreement between Europeans?, the French president refuses to use the word "veto". But it's just like: We will take our responsibilities ».
Ammunition from Paris and London
The first is legal. The arms embargo decision, like the other sanctions, is valid for just three months, until the end of May. For lack of renewal, all the sanctions fall (weapons like the others). It is no longer up to the anti-embargo to argue that it should be lifted, it is up to the pro-embargo to justify that they are right. It will be difficult...
The second is political, the two countries are not alone. Within the Union, those who. Outside, the United States, Turkey and the Arab League, and even personalities such as Israeli President Shimon Peres consider the delivery of arms necessary. It weighs...
The third argument is of a media nature. The massacres continue, the reports accumulate. It will be very difficult for some European leaders to justify their inaction to their own public opinion. The bloody reality in Syria may well sweep away the last hesitations. Governments that are against will have to come and explain themselves to their public opinion says a diplomat.
The arguments to convince
- The situation is getting worse on the spot, thehe Syrian regime is armed, the political path is doomed. " The number of victims is increasing day by day explains François Hollande. We find ourselves faced with a clear will to use all means, military, to strike its own people. (The conflict has caused) 100.000 victims for 2 years”. « All the initiatives to open political discussions, a political transition have been ruined (...) Nothing could be obtained from the regime of Bashar el Assad. François Hollande acknowledges, himself, that his position has evolved. " I have long thought that the delivery of non-lethal weaponry would suffice. We are in an asymmetry, with a regime that obtains weapons, materials, uses them, has chemical weapons and threatens to use them. ».
- The destabilization of neighboring countries is near. " There are direct consequences in Lebanon ” emphasizes the president. It should be remembered that refugees today form between 10 and 20% of the population in Lebanon and Jordan. And as one diplomat explained, the " Hezbollah increasingly supports the Assad regime”. (...) "The greatest risk would be to do nothing to let Bashar's regime (to massacre the population), that desperate groups take refuge in terrorism, the greatest risk is chaos..."
- The presence of chemical weapons? “There are fears, threats about the use of chemical weapons said President Hollande during his press conference last night. Comment taken up, a notch below however today. " We have no information. The regime would be taking an extremely high risk if it used them. » According to some diplomatic information, "there are strong indications of the use of a chemical weapon on a small scale In other words, tactically on a scale smaller than the size of a village.
- Arms control will be provided by the CNS, Arab League countries and technical assistance. " France has every guarantee that the supplies of materials would be in hands that would not be those of the fundamentalists. (...) The Coalition gives all the guarantees. And it is because it provides them that we can consider lifting the embargo. There will be support, technical assistance, assistance that will be provided and will avoid a certain number of losses. (...) Countries assure us that they will be able to ensure control, of the countries of the Arab League »
Nb: concretely this could mean that there will be one or more units specially dedicated to these types of weapons (especially ground-air), that there will be "trusted persons" (former soldiers on site, dual nationals , Arab contractors...) inserted in these units, in charge of verifying that the weapons.
Incidentally, responding to a question from B2, President Hollande acknowledged that " weapons delivered to insurrection in Libya ended up in other fields and other places, in Mali and also in Syria (Nb: to fundamentalist and jihadist groups). But, he immediately added, this is further proof that " for weapons it is better to control them than to let them circulate without control”.
On the Club, the detailed positions of several countries following the European Council
Read also: