Europe likely to stay on sidelines when U.S. ships arms to Syria rebels

[cqo_000]

Source: McClatchy Foreign Staff

BERLIN — When the Obama administration begins arming Syrian rebels through the CIA, something news reports say will happen within the next month, it probably will be acting without help from its European allies.

Despite the end of the European Union’s embargo on supplying weapons to the rebels, which expired May 30, experts see little will or appetite among European nations for adding more weapons to the bloody Syrian civil war. Not even the British, who were pressing just weeks ago for arming the rebels, are likely to do so.

The general notion in Europe is that if the so-called Big 3 – France, Germany and the United Kingdom – agree on a policy direction, they have the ability to get other nations to fall in line. In this case, Germany was strongly against the expiration of the embargo and it remains opposed to any arms sales in the region.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has announced that Germany won’t be arming anyone involved in the conflict. The Austrians, Belgians, Greeks and Irish have made similar statements.



Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/06/28/195325/europe-likely-to-stay-on-sidelines.html

[Wolf Frankula]

1. In Other Words

Let our bitch do all the work. The United States should mind its own business.

Syria is not our fight.

Wolf

[David__77]

2. The "little imperialists" were all talk when Obama had the right position.

They pressured for arms, arms, arms, and now that Obama has apparently caved into this pressure, and decided to give weapons to al Qaeda, the Anglo-French warmaniacs STFU.

[delrem]

3. This is exactly as inevitable as the prelude to Iraq.

and it is fucking disgusting.

[Alamuti Lotus]

4. how can they "stay on the sidelines" when they are already actively involved?

For example, the French embassy in Damascus is already a hub of supplies and money flowing to the takfiri bandits fighting the government. The Germans appear to be trepidatious, but the English are eager for ramping up the fight--just as long as its others doing the actual fighting, of course.

[Comrade Grumpy]

5. There is some grumbling about this in Congress, too.

A bill has been introduced to block funding.

And some Senate panel voted it's disapproval.

For what that's worth.

[LarryNM]

6. Why Should They Waste Their Resources When the US

is stupid enough to waste our own. And more $$$ for the multi-nationals. Why do multi-nationals rob the U.S.? Because that's were the money is.

[John2]

9. I don't think many

in the U.S. Government is stupid at all, when this is what they want anyway. They want regime change in Syria. It was probably their scheme all along, using the CIA. In other words, it was probably their baby. They are just calling the shots behind the scenes. When you have the General (idriss) using their command headquarters and now dressing his people in American U.S. army uniforms, with U.S. military equipment paid for by U.S. taxpayers dollars, it is their baby. It just offends me seeing the rebels in U.S. Army uniforms period!

[dipsydoodle]

7. Good

'nuff said.

[kitt6]

8. Not to mention that

all defeated by this President are for this unpopular move.

[pampango]

10. “There is a sense of guilt in Europe at seeing the Russians and Iranians continue to supply the

regime,” said Dominique Moisi, a security expert at the French Institute of International Relations in Paris. “But there is no enthusiasm for getting involved.”

David Butter, a security expert at London’s Chatham House research center, said that while Britain and France had issued statements backing up the assertion that Assad’s force had used chemical weapons – the rationale for the Obama administration’s arming of the rebels – the government of neither country had shown the will to get more involved.

“Before any weapons were actually shipped to the rebels, the government would have to get a vote through Parliament,” he said. “There are no signs of that happening.”

European countries are imposing an arms embargo evenly applied to all sides in the Syrian conflict. That is a good thing and would be even better if the rest of the world - Russia and Iran on one side and Qatar and Saudi Arabia on the other - would do the same. Starved of weapons the conflict would become much less violent and the massive civilian casualties would diminish. Unfortunately, we all know this is very unlikely to happen.

[Comrade Grumpy]

11. If the Europeans are evenly applying an arms embargo...

...how are those Belgian and Croatian weapons getting to the rebels?

[Alamuti Lotus]

12. That's just the miracle of Jesus!! *nt

[pampango]

13. The Saudis and Qataries don't make their own weapons but buy them from other countries.

If you are suggesting that the EU cut off all arms sales to SA and Qatar if they are sending some on to the rebels, I would agree with you. Of course, Russia and Iran make no pretense of arms embargo on Assad nor do they waste time funneling weapons through third countries.

It would be ideal if the supply of weapons to both sides was shut off. We know that the supply to one side is not going to end which makes the policy decision more complicated than if you could shut down weapons for both simultaneously. Unfortunately, "ideal" is not a word that applies to any part of the Syrian civil war.

China is the third largest weapons exporter. I would not be surprised if there were plenty of Chinese weapons in the region as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry#World.27s_largest_arms_exporters

[John2]

14. I don't agree with

your equivalence of comparing Russia and Iran supplying Assad with weapons and the Europeans or the United States supplying the rebels with weapons to overthrow the Syrian Government. Russia and Iran have treaties with the Syrian Government and have no obligations to terminate them just because the U.S. or Europeans demand it. Syria is just as much an Ally to them as Israel is to the United States. The Russians and Iranians are not stupid.

The U.S. and Europeans on the other hand have no treaties with the Syrian opposition. They also declared the Syrian opposition as the legitimate Government of Syria by proclamation only and not any kind of electoral process by the Syrian people. What they are doing should be illegal by International laws. The U.N. also has no authority to decide the who should govern Syria period. They are misusing the U.N. for regime change. That is not suppose to be the mission of the U.N.