The floundering Foreign Office has come up with a new idea to halt the violence in Syria; pump more arms into the conflict.
Ever since the lunatic policies of the Bush/Blair neo-con partnership, the Foreign Office has lost the one skill such an institution must have. That skill is statecraft. Essentially this is a blend of strategic analysis, tactical application and realistic goals. It recognises that the ideal is rarely a viable option and the least damaging compromise is one which will protect human life without harming British national interests or those of its friends and allies.
There are a number of red lines. One of the special group of cardinal red lines concerns civil wars. A civil war is a civil war; it is a war in which civilians and militias take up arms against each other. Sometimes there are pro and anti government forces; sometimes there are two governments. Whatever the situation, outside powers must not intervene beyond humanitarian aid. Neither must they take sides. The idea is to contain the civil war within its borders, aid the suffering and discourage the fighting by promoting dialogue. Simple rules to remember are these. Ring fence the conflict, feed the people and starve the military of both sides of weapons and ammunition.
Russia and China looked at the chaos of Iraq and the failure of Afghanistan and agreed that they would in future oppose regime change by force imposed by the West. Then came the Arab spring. The West rubbed its hands, deserted its ally Mubarak and took up arms in support of the anti-Gaddafi forces in Libya. The results are that both fell but have been replaced with uncertainty and ineffectual government, leading to ethnic, tribal and religious tensions which tend to get worse rather than better. The Arab Spring has not turned to summer. In Syria it has turned into Hell.
When Mubark and Gaddafi went, the West, in particular Britain and France, thought Assad would be a pushover. They made the fool’s mistake, which became general Western policy, of insisting there could be no negotiations with Assad and his cronies and they must take off to a human rights trial before any talks could begin. At this point violence was sporadic and localised. The West tried to get its policy adopted by the UN Security Council, but here it was blocked by Russia and China, who regarded Assad as a useful client, ally is not the right word, and the least bad of a bad bunch of options. In particular Russia warned such a policy would lead to civil war. It has.
The West is left with an extraordinary agglomeration of factions with the common aim of toppling Assad but very different views of who and what should happen thereafter. Within this grouping Al Qaeda is a strong, perhaps the strongest, player. What a pickle. Hague then proposes sending arms to the rebels, but only to the rebels we like. The beleaguered French, whose government is in trouble at home, go along with this reckless proposal which is only a touch short of barmy.
The EU has reined the plan back to a more nuanced lifting of the arms embargo without actually endorsing the supply of arms. This at least prevents the sabotaging of the joint US/Russia plan for a peace conference. Meanwhile some things are plain about this war. There is no end in sight. It is getting worse. The suffering has reached the scale of a humanitarian disaster. Syria is being wrecked and the means of civilised daily life destroyed. Only a minority are engaged in the fighting on either side. The vast majority just want the fighting to stop.
From the West’s viewpoint there is another unwelcome outcome. The majority of the suffering civilians and especially the Christian community in whom the West should take an interest, agree that life under Assad was not all bad, parts of it were actually good, especially the secular nature of the State and the protection of religious minorities, and getting rid of him is no way worth the mayhem.