Syrian opposition groups have been beseeching the West to give them more weapons to fight the Assad regime in Damascus. But Europe and the United States are reticent.
The initial arms embargo imposed on both sides by the European Union expires on March 1. Whether or not the ban should be extended was a hotly debated issue at the EU foreign ministers meeting in Brussels on Monday (18.02.2013), which finally ended with a vote to extend the sanctions.
German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle had urgently warned against lifting the embargo because it could trigger an arms race. "That would lead to a further escalation of violence and many more victims," the minister said. Britain, in particular, had strongly supported loosening the arms ban, especially for anti-regime rebels.
Political, military, humanitarian and ethnic considerations played an important role behind the pros and cons of a weapons embargo. The thrust of most arguments was that military equipment for the Syrian opposition - no one in the West, at least, appears to be thinking about supplying the Assad regime - would most probably fan the flames of the conflict.
Fighting would become even more intense, peace researcher Michael Brzoska told Deutsche Welle. So far, the rebels have been fighting with small arms, said Brzoska, who is director of the Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy at the University of Hamburg in Germany. If rebels were to get heavy weapons, the level of violence would clearly increase, he said.
Embargo opponents want to strengthen the rebels
Supporters of arms deliveries to the rebels want to improve the military clout of the Syrian opposition. "If they get more punch, they could win the war faster and ultimately reduce the number of victims," says Brzoska, explaining the rationale of the embargo opponents.
The Israeli Syria expert, Eyal Zisser, the former director of the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle East Studies in Tel Aviv points to the moral aspects. It is only understandable that Syrian rebels expect help from the international community, he notes. After all, "they are being brutally massacred by government troops." Their argument, says Zisser, is, "It is only fair to supply them with weapons so that they can defend themselves against the regime."
Weapons embargo is porous
The arms ban imposed by the EU, the US and other countries has been porous right from the start. Qatar and Saudi Arabia, in particular, are said to be supplying the rebels with money and arms. To what extent Turkey is also supporting the opposition is not clear, says Brzoska. Furthermore, Lebanese arms dealers are smuggling material into Syria. Brzoska also noted that secret supplies are channeled to the rebels from the West. "Already deliveries are coming from Western intelligence services, but not much is known about them," he said.
More than anything, the various resistance groups operating inside Syria want portable surface-to-air missiles, says Zisser. So far, the rebels have little to defend themselves with against the regime's warplanes. They have mostly small arms and anti-tank rockets, he noted. Brzoska pointed out that rebel fighters are also keenly interested in getting mortar launchers to respond to the long-range artillery fire from the Syrian army.
Arms for Islamists a concern
One of the key concerns among supporters for continuing the weapons embargo is the prospect that if modern weapons technology were delivered to Syria it could end up in the hands of radical Islamist groups.
With these arms, the groups could expand their influence and prestige in a Syrian post-war order. It can also not be excluded that these weapons, one day, could be turned against Western targets. Zisser sees anti-aircraft missiles in the hands of Islamists as a very real danger. He argues that since the Syrian opposition has no unified political or military leadership, it would not be possible to fully monitor all weapons deliveries. "Once you send the weapons, you never know where they will end up," he warned.
In Brzoska's view, those who support arms deliveries have included radical groups in their rationale. If Europe were to deliver military equipment it would have more influence than if these weapons just came from the Gulf States, he says. "Shifting away from the conservative Arab states toward European countries is arguably a better instrument for ensuring that groups more aligned with the West get the weapons, Brzoska noted, summarizing the logic of those who want to end the arms ban.
All the while, the Assad regime can apparently count on continued supplies from abroad. Syrian ally Russia, has reduced its deliveries to Damascus to push Assad toward the negotiating table, says Brzoska, "but arms are still arriving from Russia." Furthermore, Iran is presumably skirting the international embargo to send weapons to Syria through its proxy, Hezbollah, in Lebanon. And last but not least, Damascus almost certainly has enough weaponry stockpiled from the Cold War days to continue fighting for a long time.