Implications of Syrian war for Africa’s security, by Dele Cole

[TGD]

 • Faults super powers' roles

THE looming full scale war by world powers over Syria may have dire consequences for the fight against terrorism in Africa if groups perceived as sympathisers of terrorist organisations win any phase of the war.

Besides, beyond humanitarian reasons, the current poise of the West to confront the Bshir Al Assad regime in Damascus may in the end turn out to be that of a familiar old pattern employed to maintain and sustain the strategic national interest of proponents bent on fashioning out a United Nations (UN) Resolution to help "salvage" Syria.

Making these submissions in a chat with The Guardian on the issue, Ambassador Patrick Dele Cole said it is therefore not out of place for African governments and the general populace in countries such as Nigeria to closely watch the events unfolding in Syria in the days ahead.

According to UN figures, no fewer than 93,000 people have been killed since the conflagration broke out in Syria between the Asad regime and rebel fighters.

Ambassador Cole's concerns came even as it emerged at the weekend that the UN's investigative committee is still unable to determine which side used chemical weapons in the on-going conflict and just as reports of Syrian rebels being armed intensify and fears of more bloodshed mount.

Last week, the United States (U.S.) President Barack Obama finally affirmed that the Syrian regime had crossed the red line as its intelligence confirmed the use of chemical weapons and banned substances... The American government then announced a shift in its modus, maintaining that it would henceforth give direct military support to the rebels. The pronouncement makes it difficult to rule out a collusion course between the U.S., Russia and maybe China, especially as there was no radical change in the understanding reached on the matter during the recently-concluded G-8 summit in Northern Ireland.

Paulo Pinheiro, chairman of the UN commission's inquiry into rights violations in Syria, declined comments at the weekend on evidence received from the U.S., the United Kingdom (UK) and France which, they claim, shows Syrian President Bashar Assad's forces using chemical weapons.

"We are not able to say who has used chemical agents or chemical weapons and we are very worried about the chain of custody of the substances," Pinheiro told reporters after an informal meeting with UN Security Council ambassadors.

But Cole, a former Nigerian envoy to Brazil, maintains that any success by people who have links with terrorist or extremist networks is likely to be copied by different groups, especially in Africa where countries such as Nigeria are struggling to cope with insurgencies that have now been proven to have external links.

He said: "Of course these groups are also watching what is currently going on and what would be going on in Syria. Now, they would copy what they regard as success in the Syrian fighting. They have no idea where differences cling. For instance, it is wrong to consider al-Qaeda as a kind of supreme body, giving out information..." This may well suggest that there is a whole lot of dynamism in the groups' operations that should be correctly tracked.

Ventilating on the scenario that may emerge in Syria giving the entrenched positions, Cole said: "It all sounds to me the way in which the matter of Iraq was orchestrated. Remember, there was 9 11 then, they said Iraq had weapons, then managed to bring out a UN Security Council Resolution which was passed even when there was a UN inspector who had not submitted his report. They bombed Iraq and then started to find reasons to justify that act."

He maintained that the difference this time around is that "Russia has a big interest in Syria. Their only major outlet- military base outside Russia is in Syria. Russia's only naval base outside her territory in the Mediterranean is in Syria. In this regard, if Asad were to lose, the thinking by Moscow is that the emerging new leader is not likely to follow them."

According to the former top diplomat, President Barack Obama's standpoint on the balance of power and survival game is easily understandable." For instance, President Obama told Israel: "Stop building new settlements in the West Bank. The condition is that if you stop, then we get the other side to stop bombing you. But in Obama trying to stop Israel, Israel then made a statement on the red line. Nothing of the sort had happened in Syria because the belief was that the rebel could unseat Asad. Now, they are saying the war turned because Hezbollah is there.  Iran is there. They are saying that these factors helped Asad to win in Quaisar. But why should Hezbollah be better than the Syrian army? They came in and changed the equation and so, there is this talk about chemical weapons, that 150 people have been killed."

"I think it (resolution) is orchestrated to get the West to go in and do there what they did in Libya. They have been funding these guys through proxies, Arabic language development etc. But the problem is they do not know who and where and in whose hands the weapons are getting to. I am not surprised that we are having this sort of situation with Boko Haram. France took interest in Mali because over half of France is powered by atomic energy. So, always it is the U.S. national interest. 'Make sure you contain Iran because Iran is supporting Syria, also Hezbollah, Iran had earlier declared U.S. and Israel as enemy number one."

He continued: "Yet we know that no American politician wins whenever the Jewish votes are against them.  Since 1967 war, Syria has not allowed one bullet to be fired into Israel. Their only shared border is in the Golan Heights. Now if that evaporates, it will be fighting a proxy war. We cannot say what will be happening... So, they will do what they did in Libya. Get a resolution, which on the surface looks innocuous and then use this to justify their action because the wording on the resolution (the draft being phrased) does not mention Asad but (David) Cameron is saying Asad is going."

Apparently drawing strength from Paulo Pinheiro's comments, UN experts investigating the use of chemical weapons say they need to further access Syria to determine where the alleged chemical weapons have been used. But Syria has thus far refused to grant them entry, citing concerns for their safety and doubts about their impartiality, as neither China nor Russia were allowed to participate.

Pinheiro's commission had said in a report published this month that there were "reasonable grounds to believe that chemical agents have been used as weapons."

The Friends of Syria which met last week in Doha, Qatar, did not come up with anything outside the debates on how to arm the rebels more.

President Barack Obama said on Friday that the U.S. will leave about 700 combat equipped troops in Jordan after a training exercise there, which would increase the number of U.S. troops stationed there to almost 1,000. The U.S. announced earlier that it will leave Patriot missiles and warplanes in the country.

On its part, the European Union (EU) had lifted its arms embargo on Syria last month, while French and British leaders  have been speaking favourably also about arming the rebels. There are however increasing concerns about the Islamist, extremist element within the Syrian rebel forces.



The Guardian