Philip Hammond: We will not enter into a 'poisonous' alliance with Assad
Foreign Secretary says that 'my enemy's enemy is not my friend' as he rules out sharing intelligence with Assad to take on Islamic State forces
By Steven Swinford, Senior Political Correspondent
2:16PM BST 22 Aug 2014
Britain will not enter into a "poisonous" alliance with Syria in its fight against Islamic State forces, the Foreign Secretary has said.
Ministers have faced calls from Tory MPs and military leaders to liaise with Bashaar al Assad's government on the basis that "my enemy's enemy is my friend".
However Philip Hammond has ruled out an alliance with the Syrian regime because it would "poison" Britain's relationship with moderate Sunnis.
"We may very well find that we are aligned against a common enemy but it would poison what we're trying to achieve in separating moderate Sunni opinion from the poisonous ideology of Isil if we were to align ourselves with Assad."
He made the comments after Lord Dannatt, the former chief of general staff, highlighted how David Cameron has been open to a relationship with Iran in dealing with the conflict.
He said: "The old saying 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' has begun to have some resonance with our relationship with Iran.
"I think it's going to have some resonance with our relationship with Assad. I think whether it is above the counter or below the counter, a conversation has got to be held with him.
"Because if there are going to be any question of air strikes over Syria airspace it's got to be with the Assad regime's approval."
Mr Hammond said that the government will review whether it provides moderate rebels fighting against the Syrian regime with weapons.
France has already announced that it has been supplying them and accused Britain and the West of bearing a "heavy burden of responsibility" for failing to intervene a year ago.
Mr Hammond also said that Britain will not put "boots on the ground" in Iraq. He said: "Putting western boots on the ground to fight would not only be something we would be very unlikely to get consent for but something that would not be helpful and has not been asked for.
[...]
EXTRACT - FULL @ SOURCE
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/11051137/Philip-Hammond-We-will-not-enter-into-a-poisonous-alliance-with-Assad.html
|
Bit of an interest in Middle East again.
Don't know what I'm on about, but I give it a shot understanding what's going on. LOL.
Thought it a rather odd statement from Hammond - ie the 'poisonous' bit.
Take it he simply doesn't want to get moderate Sunni Muslims off-side by getting on-board with Assad?
Given the mention of Iran, checked to see where they stand. Iran is Shia, so it's not Iran that's the issue?
Anyway, the statement didn't sound too friendly to me and I wonder why. What's the problem with Syria?
Looking at the article again, he's referring to the ISIL ideology as 'poisonous', so the headline is a bit misleading even though he said 'poison'
to what UK is trying to achieve.
The word poison reminded me of the chemical warefare accusations against Syria. From what I understand, Syria has been cleared. It has in fact been suggested in a rather impressive article that I read just yesterday, I think it was, that the chemical projectile was a CIA job (if I understood correctly).
That headline's really shitting me now. Unless they haven't quoted Hammond entirely, he's not saying he's not entering into a 'poisonous alliance' - he is merely saying that an alliance would poison to the end result they're aiming for. Even so, bit of an odd choice of words - not very diplomatic. Or am I wrong?
I don't know if I'm over-analysing this. It's getting like some brain twister. LOL.
Anyway, no boots on the ground and no holding hands with Assad.
But the bit about providing moderate rebels with weapons has me confused.
Which ones? If they're the rebels in Syria, isn't that in violation of the Assad regime's sovereignty?
Bear with me, I'm new and don't know what's going on. LOL.
Anyway, I found it interesting.
No comments:
Post a Comment