All those who still believe that the West should intervene militarily
in Syria – and that includes David Cameron and William Hague – would be
well-advised to take a good look at the UN's report on Libya,
which gives a grim assessment of the country's plight in the aftermath
of the overthrow of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi two years ago.
The UN team reports that the country is awash with political assassinations and is teeming with illegal arms, including components for chemical weapons.
Two years after Britain and France spearheaded the military campaign to overthrow Gaddafi's dictatorship, the UN report makes no bones of the fact that, without Gaddafi's authoritarian regime no longer in power to keep the country's warring tribes in check, large tracts of the country have now become ungovernable, with all the implications that will have for Western security.
"The continuing volatile situation in Libya in general, and in the eastern and southern parts of the country in particular, is a source of grave concern," the report bluntly states. "Targeted political assassinations, criminal activity and attacks and threats against the diplomatic community continue to plague the country, including Tripoli."
And yet, rather than being chastened by their experience in Libya (Britain's support for overthrowing President Mubarak in neighbouring Egypt can hardly be deemed a triumph either), Cameron and Hague seem determined to inflict the same chaos on Syria.
Only yesterday Mr Hague and his French counterpart Laurent Fabius reiterated their determination to continue supporting the rebels, despite the fact that, as the Daily Telegraph has reported, nearly half the rebel fighters are jihadists or hardline Islamist groups linked to al-Qaeda, which means that less than one third of the opposition forces can be regarded as "palatable" to Britain.
No one in their right minds wants to see the Assad clan remain in power. But after what has happened to Libya, another country that suffered for decades under a brutal dictatorship, we need to think seriously about what might happen to Syria if Western powers such as Britain and France succeed in their effort to help the rebels overthrow the Syrian government.
At a time when the West's main priority, following yesterday's UN report that sarin was used on the outskirts of Damascus last month, should be to destroy Syria's chemical weapons, it is hard to see how the British and French government's pledge to continue arming the rebels is going to help matters.
For the decomissioning of Syria's chemical weapons to work, the West needs to demonstrate that it is working in the interests of all Syrians, not just the rebels.
By taking sides at this sensitive juncture in the conflict, the West is taking a dangerous gamble, one that risks turning the country into another Libyan-style basket case.
By Con Coughlin
telegraph
The UN team reports that the country is awash with political assassinations and is teeming with illegal arms, including components for chemical weapons.
Two years after Britain and France spearheaded the military campaign to overthrow Gaddafi's dictatorship, the UN report makes no bones of the fact that, without Gaddafi's authoritarian regime no longer in power to keep the country's warring tribes in check, large tracts of the country have now become ungovernable, with all the implications that will have for Western security.
"The continuing volatile situation in Libya in general, and in the eastern and southern parts of the country in particular, is a source of grave concern," the report bluntly states. "Targeted political assassinations, criminal activity and attacks and threats against the diplomatic community continue to plague the country, including Tripoli."
And yet, rather than being chastened by their experience in Libya (Britain's support for overthrowing President Mubarak in neighbouring Egypt can hardly be deemed a triumph either), Cameron and Hague seem determined to inflict the same chaos on Syria.
Only yesterday Mr Hague and his French counterpart Laurent Fabius reiterated their determination to continue supporting the rebels, despite the fact that, as the Daily Telegraph has reported, nearly half the rebel fighters are jihadists or hardline Islamist groups linked to al-Qaeda, which means that less than one third of the opposition forces can be regarded as "palatable" to Britain.
No one in their right minds wants to see the Assad clan remain in power. But after what has happened to Libya, another country that suffered for decades under a brutal dictatorship, we need to think seriously about what might happen to Syria if Western powers such as Britain and France succeed in their effort to help the rebels overthrow the Syrian government.
At a time when the West's main priority, following yesterday's UN report that sarin was used on the outskirts of Damascus last month, should be to destroy Syria's chemical weapons, it is hard to see how the British and French government's pledge to continue arming the rebels is going to help matters.
For the decomissioning of Syria's chemical weapons to work, the West needs to demonstrate that it is working in the interests of all Syrians, not just the rebels.
By taking sides at this sensitive juncture in the conflict, the West is taking a dangerous gamble, one that risks turning the country into another Libyan-style basket case.
By Con Coughlin
telegraph
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق