This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/15/should-eu-arm-syrian-rebels

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Should the EU agree to arm Syrian rebels? Should the EU agree to arm Syrian rebels?
(7 months later)
Shashank Joshi: Yes. It's an urgent and worthy objectiveShashank Joshi: Yes. It's an urgent and worthy objective
France and Britain are intensifying their demands that Europe lifts its arms embargo and allow weapons to be sent to Syria. Paris and London hope to push Washington into stepping up from its present backseat role – giving tacit approval to Arab arms going in, and vetting rebel groups – to a more proactive position. And they want to put pressure on Russia to dilute its support for Assad.France and Britain are intensifying their demands that Europe lifts its arms embargo and allow weapons to be sent to Syria. Paris and London hope to push Washington into stepping up from its present backseat role – giving tacit approval to Arab arms going in, and vetting rebel groups – to a more proactive position. And they want to put pressure on Russia to dilute its support for Assad.
It remains far from certain that they will succeed. If they do, it's inevitable that weapons will seep out of Syria's borders and away from the designated groups. Critics say that "militarising" the conflict will just prolong the war. But the war is spinning out of control anyway, and the risks of arms provision must be put in context.It remains far from certain that they will succeed. If they do, it's inevitable that weapons will seep out of Syria's borders and away from the designated groups. Critics say that "militarising" the conflict will just prolong the war. But the war is spinning out of control anyway, and the risks of arms provision must be put in context.
The analogy with Afghanistan in the 1980s is misleading. When Saudi and Qatari weapons wound up in the hands of radical Islamists last year, the US did not simply shrug its shoulders as it had done 30 years earlier when Pakistani arms went to the most extreme of the mujahideen.The analogy with Afghanistan in the 1980s is misleading. When Saudi and Qatari weapons wound up in the hands of radical Islamists last year, the US did not simply shrug its shoulders as it had done 30 years earlier when Pakistani arms went to the most extreme of the mujahideen.
Rather, the US seems to have pressured Saudi Arabia into switching track, going through Jordan rather than just Turkey, and targeting more moderate and secular rebel factions. Videos from southern Syria vindicate this stance: the more pragmatic parts of the Free Syrian Army do seem to be the beneficiaries.Rather, the US seems to have pressured Saudi Arabia into switching track, going through Jordan rather than just Turkey, and targeting more moderate and secular rebel factions. Videos from southern Syria vindicate this stance: the more pragmatic parts of the Free Syrian Army do seem to be the beneficiaries.
Indeed, part of the British and French calculation today is that it is better for their intelligence services to be picking the recipients of arms rather than leaving it to countries like Qatar, which were handing out guns like candy. Moreover, the risk that arms will "leak" must be balanced against the danger that, without outside support, moderate rebels will be eclipsed by the better-resourced extremists.Indeed, part of the British and French calculation today is that it is better for their intelligence services to be picking the recipients of arms rather than leaving it to countries like Qatar, which were handing out guns like candy. Moreover, the risk that arms will "leak" must be balanced against the danger that, without outside support, moderate rebels will be eclipsed by the better-resourced extremists.
Arms will not by themselves tip the scales – that would require a much greater effort and more sensitive arms, such as shoulder-fired missiles, than Hollande or Cameron would stomach.Arms will not by themselves tip the scales – that would require a much greater effort and more sensitive arms, such as shoulder-fired missiles, than Hollande or Cameron would stomach.
But this is not the point. Arms are intended to change the balance of forces within the rebel ranks. When one looks at the rapid rise of Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaida's front in Syria, and the mounting frustration of moderates, it is clear that this is an urgent and worthy objective.But this is not the point. Arms are intended to change the balance of forces within the rebel ranks. When one looks at the rapid rise of Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaida's front in Syria, and the mounting frustration of moderates, it is clear that this is an urgent and worthy objective.
Jonathan Steele: No. It would escalate the death toll on all sidesJonathan Steele: No. It would escalate the death toll on all sides
Lifting the embargo on arms to Syria's rebels is wrong in principle as well as misguided in its timing. The civil war is stalemated.Lifting the embargo on arms to Syria's rebels is wrong in principle as well as misguided in its timing. The civil war is stalemated.
Although government forces regain territory in some places while the opposition moves forward in others, the basic military position is a strategic deadlock.Although government forces regain territory in some places while the opposition moves forward in others, the basic military position is a strategic deadlock.
It is true that the government has supremacy in the air, and uses this ruthlessly, but it would require a huge delivery of anti-aircraft weaponry for the opposition to make a dent, especially as Russia could nullify the opposition's new capabilities by increasing its supplies. Meanwhile, the death toll on all sides would escalate. There is also no guarantee that the weapons would not fall into the hands of the anti-western jihadis who already play a major role.It is true that the government has supremacy in the air, and uses this ruthlessly, but it would require a huge delivery of anti-aircraft weaponry for the opposition to make a dent, especially as Russia could nullify the opposition's new capabilities by increasing its supplies. Meanwhile, the death toll on all sides would escalate. There is also no guarantee that the weapons would not fall into the hands of the anti-western jihadis who already play a major role.
The worst thing about adding western arms to those the rebels already get via Qatari and Saudi funding would be to increase the illusion of eventual victory. Why would the opposition negotiate if western cavalry, or at least arms supplies, are about to come over the hill?The worst thing about adding western arms to those the rebels already get via Qatari and Saudi funding would be to increase the illusion of eventual victory. Why would the opposition negotiate if western cavalry, or at least arms supplies, are about to come over the hill?
Far better to widen the embargo and include Russia and Iran, while letting the UN mediator, Lakhdar Brahimi, work on getting a ceasefire.Far better to widen the embargo and include Russia and Iran, while letting the UN mediator, Lakhdar Brahimi, work on getting a ceasefire.
Negotiations advance when both sides realise they cannot win.Negotiations advance when both sides realise they cannot win.
A breakthrough came in January when Moaz al-Khatib, the leader of the Syrian National Coalition, dropped the call for Assad to resign before the opposition would talk. Assad also changed and said his government would talk to the opposition.A breakthrough came in January when Moaz al-Khatib, the leader of the Syrian National Coalition, dropped the call for Assad to resign before the opposition would talk. Assad also changed and said his government would talk to the opposition.
Khatib's courageous move met with resistance from colleagues. For the EU to lift its embargo would be a slap in Khatib's face, when the EU ought to help him to convince his hardliners that they need to compromise. Otherwise they are condemning Syria's civilians to yet more months of inconclusive, but catastrophic, civil war.Khatib's courageous move met with resistance from colleagues. For the EU to lift its embargo would be a slap in Khatib's face, when the EU ought to help him to convince his hardliners that they need to compromise. Otherwise they are condemning Syria's civilians to yet more months of inconclusive, but catastrophic, civil war.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.