Europe Foreign Ministers Fail to Bridge the Gap on Lifting Arms Embargo

Wassim Ibrahim, As-Safir newspaper*

"No agreement was reached among the Foreign Ministers of the European Union over arming Syrians," France's Laurent Fabius resumed the outcome of the daylong meeting in Brussels.
Diplomats announced that the EU had reached a political agreement on extending financial and economic sanctions on Syria, but failed to agree on extending arms embargo. This is what British Foreign Minister, William Hague, described as a door to arming the Syrians, although diplomats have confirmed that the EU government would abstain, for the time being, from delivering weapons to Syria.
Britain sees negotiations between the regime and the opposition, albeit difficult, as inevitable, even though it admits that supporting Geneva II aims to supply arms to the opposition and make military balance with the regime.
In response to a question as-Safir asked on the bases of negotiations during the EU meeting in Brussels, Hague recalled last year's Geneva agreement: forming a transitional government with the full executive powers through mutual consent.
He caught his breaths, as if he heard his last sentence echoing. He then commented, "This is a very difficult process. But we must try, because the alternatives are much worse. We want to take all the possible measures that would increase the chances of successful talks in Geneva." Accordingly, Britain sees that the best means to increase the chances of success is to provide the opposition with weapons.

A European diplomatic source, who had partaken in the meeting, told as-Safir that negotiations were "very difficult," indicating that Hague was firm in front of his counterparts. "Whether we alter the embargo, or Britain shall go on alone with this," the source quoted Hague as asserting, in terms of gearing up the Syrian opposition.

Clearly enough, everyone insists on Geneva conference, but the opposition and the regime are left to manage how to get there. Nonetheless, is there really any looming agreement on settlement? What is it that made the "sponsors" of Geneva II decide it was time to negotiate? What changed since Geneva I?
Hague considers that the momentum for Geneva II does not mean that an achievement has been made and that it will be laid on the table. He says that there is a need for a conference, whether in Geneva or elsewhere. "Let us gather people around a negotiation table to see if their positions have changed since last year," he says.

Optimists surely hope that efforts do not just beget bringing Syrians to negotiations, even though Hague hints that this is the only thing that has changed since last year.

A diplomatic source relays that European discussions on Geneva II touch on a peace process and does not just consist of a single negotiations round. On the other hand, Austria sternly objected to lifting embargo. It is actually endeavoring to solidify its arguments and grounds. It said nothing on concerns about its soldiers, who constitute more than 1/3 of the UN force in occupied Golan.
Austrian Foreign Minister, Michael Spindelegger, told as-Safir that the issue was relevant to the principles of the European Union. "In conflicts, we never sided with any party regarding delivering weapons. We are a peaceful community and this is how we would like to remain."

He maintained that there is a stable European rule, which is to continue pressing ahead against the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad. But he clarified that on the other hand, the EU must not get involved in this conflict by "simply" delivering weapons. "In my opinion, this would be a change of our policy adopted since years at the EU."

Geneva talks seem decisive, as all positions hint, including the thorny EU meeting.
The alternative suggested by the Austrian FM was not even close to assuaging Britain's intransigence, but rather an excuse to fortify it. Spindelegger explained that his proposal was to renew sanctions on Assad's regime, but not to lift arms embargo. "We can discuss more procedures to protect civilians in this conflict. We can talk about how to support the Syrian opposition and not imposing civil sanctions on them," he said.

Another diplomat said the whole matter was founded upon a political judgment. "On one hand, some were saying that lifting the embargo would threaten the whole Geneva course. Some, on the other hand, argued that this threat would be if military balance was not made between the regime and the opposition," he said.
Germany was trying to "build bridges" between the two stances at loggerheads, Foreign Minister, Guido Westerwelle, said. He insisted on the necessity to reach a joint European position because this would be the sole means to increase the clout of Europeans to wield the sought influence in the Syrian conflict and the looming Geneva meeting.

Yet even among the moderate group, some were tilting towards the British stance. In response to a question on the existing convergence, Dutch Foreign Minister, Frans Timmermans, told as-Safir that to him, it was crystal clear that if any party believed they could score military victory, they would not be excited to go negotiate in Geneva.

He mainly pointed at the regime, stressing that Assad, as they know him, will do anything to win, and perpetrate "more brutal and terrorist acts." "If amending arms embargo conveys a clear message to Assad that the other parties will manage to obtain weapons, I believe that the amendment will then be very useful."

In the end, there must be a middle solution, "because the European Union needs to exert every possible effort to make sure that parties are going to Geneva negotiations."

For his part, Turkey's Ahmet Davutoglu has called the European Union to lift embargo off the Syrian people. "If we failed to do so at the Security Council, we should at least support the right of the Syrians to defend themselves," the Turkish Foreign Minister said.

*translated by website team