'Europe asked Assad to make sure its citizens don't return after jihad in Syria'

It's been more than three years since the civil war broke out in Syria. Opposition groups of more than 100,000 rebels with over 83 nationalities have been fighting the Bashar al-Assad government.

In an interview to Viju Cherian, Syrian ambassador to India Riad Kamel Abbas claims that Britain, France and Germany asked the Syrian government to 'take care' of its citizens who have been radicalised and fighting in Syria. If Abbas' claims are true, the David Cameron government, along with François Hollande's and Angela Merkel's, has asked a foreign government to execute its citizens.

Abbas also claims that US interest in controlling the supply of oil in West Asia has led to the civil war, that the US encourages Boko Haram to keep a tab on Russia, and that it was the Qatar emir and Saudi Arabia's Bandar bin Sultan who were behind the two chemical attacks in Syria in 2013.

Excerpts...

  

Riad Kamel  Abbas

Over the past few years, Syria has been in the news for a civil war and resistance forces have been attacking the Bashar al-Assad government. According to the government, what's happening in Syria?

The protests in Syria have got so many aspects - cultural, political, social and, mainly, economical. The primary problem started after the discovery of huge gas reserves in Syria in 2010, both offshore and on land. Another reason was the United States' plan to have a gas pipeline from Qatar through Syria to the Mediterranean to economically fight Russia by exporting gas and oil to European countries. The US also wants a similar pipeline from Iran through Iraq and Syria to the Mediterranean. Syria is against the US project and the US and its allies have created unrest in Syria to topple the current regime. They want to install a government in Damascus that favours their plans in the region. The US wants to control the oil market.

Was there social tension between different religious or sectarian groups within Syria before 2010?

Syria is the only Arab secular country in the region. The US and their regional allies are trying to create a sectarian divides in Syria. But they will not be able to do so because the people of Syria are against Wahhabism. Sunnis are a majority in Syria but they, along with other sects and religious groups, are supporting the government.

If the people of Syria are with the Assad government as you say, then who are the people who are fighting the civil war?

Most of them are foreign nationals. Many of the Syrians who are part of the resistance are people wanted in Syria for breaking the law. We are fighting more than 100,000 mercenaries from across 83 nations. These people have support from the US, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

How is the Assad government addressing this problem?

How can we talk democracy to the Europeans, Pakistanis and West Asians who have come to fight in our country? We are talking to them by using force.

What is Qatar's interest in toppling the Assad government?

Qatar does not have an independent policy - they listen to what the US says. As far as Syria-Qatar ties go, years ago there were cordial ties. But ties broke when President Assad refused to join hands with Qatar to support US' attack on Libya. The Qatar emir personally called on President Assad in Damascus to request his support, but Assad refused.

…and Syria's ties with Turkey?

The Turkish Prime Minister called on our President in 2010 and told him that following the developments in Tunisia and Libya, he would advise Assad to allow the Muslim Brotherhood to join the Syrian government. Our President refused the idea stating that there was no place for a religious party in Syria.

 When Qatar's and Turkey's requests were turned down, they started creating problems.

You had said that al Qaeda is a US creation. Could you explain?

Armed opposition appeared in Syria after the US took a stand against Damascus. Where the US moves al-Qaeda follows. The US moved to Iraq, al Qaeda followed, and now the US is focusing on Syria and suddenly we have the organisation in Syria.

Similarly, Boko Haram in Nigeria is funded by the US. Russian oil giant Gazprom signed a deal with Nigeria for extracting and transporting oil. Right after this deal was struck, Haram gained strength and has created unrest in the country. This cannot be a coincidence.

You had also mentioned that ISIS is a US creation.

ISIS is a branch of al Qaeda which was created by the US. Al Qaeda is under different names in Afghanistan, Iraq and other countries. It's like the Muslim Brotherhood which goes in one name in Turkey, another in Tunisia and yet another in Egypt.

You had mentioned that European countries had approached the Assad government to 'take care' of Europeans who have been radicalised.

Intelligence chiefs of some European countries like France, Germany, Denmark and Britain had approached the Syrian government with a deal that if the Syrian government would 'take care' of radicalised Europeans fighting in Syria, Europe would not press charges of human rights violation against Syria. But our government said no to the offer. Out government said that if anyone was ready to surrender, he would be given amnesty and sent back to his country. Some of them who had surrendered were sent them back the way they came into Syria - through Turkey.

  

A handout image released by the Syrian opposition's
Shaam News Network after the Damascus attack

Has Syria's chemical weapons programme and the two attacks on civilians that took place in 2013 created a fear among its neighbours?

There have been two chemical attacks on Syrian civilians - one in Aleppo (March 2013 Khan al-Assal chemical attack) and the other in Damascus (August 2013 Ghouta chemical attack). The Aleppo attack was carried out by Qatar and Turkey. US President Barack Obama had said that Syria was not supposed to cross the 'red line' of using chemical weapons on its people. So the Qatar emir sent two of his intelligence officers to Yugoslavia to procure Sarin gas - as both Syria and Yugoslavia got their chemical weapon know-how from the erstwhile Soviet Union. Damascus had informed Moscow about Doha's plan. The Qatari agents handed over the gas to Turkish intelligence who trained al Nusra rebels how to use it. The rebels carried out the attacks in Aleppo.

The Damascus attack happened the day UN inspectors were supposed to visit the Aleppo attack site. It was later found that the second attack was carried out by Saudi Arabia. Bandar bin Sultan, who was the then director general of Saudi Intelligence Agency, had given this to jihadi fighters in Syria to use it on senior officials and accuse the Syrian government for the attack.

(This interview appeared in the HindustanTimes on October 21)

 

'ISIS is an American myth'

Many European countries — including France, Germany, Denmark and Britain — have asked the Bashar al-Assad government to ‘take care’ of Europeans who have been radicalised and are fighting in Syria.

These startling revelations were made by the Syrian ambassador to India, Riad Kamel Abbas, on Wednesday. “Intelligence leaders of many European countries came to Syria to meet officials”, Abbas said, and offered to not press charges of human rights violation on the Assad government if Damascus made sure that they (European citizens fighting in Syria) did not return to Europe. They fear that these fighters might return to their countries and radicalise more people at home.

Speaking at an interaction with the media arranged by the Indian Women’s Press Corps in New Delhi, Abbas was critical of the role of Turkey, the US and its West Asian allies. “ISIS is an American myth, which gets direct support from Tayyip Erdogan’s Turkey and is funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar”.

“Al Qaeda appeared in Syria after the US invaded Iraq. Before that there was no al Qaeda in Syria. It is clear that al Qaeda was created by the US and it is supporting ISIS.” Abbas also said that the UN was not helping Syria and is under the US’ control.

As fierce fighting is underway in Kobane, Abbas expressed little hope in the government in Ankara.

The ambassador, however, appreciated the Modi government’s stand of not joining the US’ coalition against ISIS.

(This news report appeared in the HindustanTimes on October 17)

Britain is not helping India's fight against terror

The 9/11 attacks were a turning point in the fight against terror. Many countries joined hands with the George W Bush administration to fight this scourge. The general consensus, which holds true even now, was that terror recognises no national boundaries and nations should come together to fight this evil, whatever else their differences may be. Britain is an active member in the United States’ ‘War against Terror’ coalition — it didn’t think twice before invading Afghanistan and Iraq. Given this the October 13 Hindustan Times news report that London has denied New Delhi evidence on operatives of the terror outfit Babbar Khalsa International until India repealed the death penalty is baffling.

Kuldeep Singh Brar

The Babbar Khalsa International (BKI) is a terrorist organisation that is fighting for Sikh separatism. While it was active during the eighties and well into the nineties, it has since been on the decline. Of the many murders carried out by the group over the decades, the most notorious was the 1995 suicide attack on the Chandigarh secretariat in which then chief minister Beant Singh was assassinated. The BKI was back in the news in 2012, when four men associated with the group in London attempted to kill Lt Gen Kuldeep Singh Brar, who commanded Operation Blue Star in 1984.
India had, under the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT), requested Britain to provide information on the BKI’s fund-raising activities. Britain refused to share the details about the operatives. This move by London is illogical and defeats the efforts to fight terror. The war against terror is a concerted effort in which data and expertise must be shared for effective results. The irony here is that the BKI is a group proscribed by Britain since March 2001. The debate on the death penalty should not hinder this effort and help terror groups exploit these differences. Britain’s reluctance poses tough questions: Does this mean that Britain would not share information with a nation that is yet to abolish the death penalty? Would Britain refuse to share information with the US, in which 32 of the 50 states still have the death penalty? If ISIS or al Qaeda operatives were to work out of Britain against India, would London not cooperate with New Delhi? Britain, which has been a victim of terror itself, surely knows better than to be so obdurate on this issue.

A united West Asia to fight ISIS: It's easier said than done

The Islamic State (ISIS), by beheading two American citizens, has drawn international attention and has made US President Barack Obama send American troops as military advisers to Iraq. In his speech last week, Mr Obama stressed the need for a coalition of countries to tackle ISIS. Britain has decided not to be directly involved but France and Australia have extended support. US secretary of state John Kerry is in West Asia, stitching together a coalition of regional players. Several Arab countries have reportedly reciprocated, expressing willingness to join in airstrikes on ISIS. The details are yet unclear, but forging a grand coalition amid the complex politics of West Asia is easier said than done.

John Kerry with Arab leaders after the Jeddah meet on ISIS

The role of Arab governments, especially Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE, in the growth of ISIS is well known. So why would they now want to destroy ISIS? The rise of ISIS, a Sunni terror group, which targeted Shias and other minorities, was acceptable  — even desirable — for Sunni kingdoms in West Asia. For them ISIS’ anti-Shia drive meant the ultimate weakening of Iran, the Shia heavyweight in West Asia. However, the equation changed the moment ISIS revealed its grand plans for an Islamic caliphate. Put differently, the snakes in the backyard have turned homeward. Also many countries fear that their local Sunni population might get influenced by ISIS. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and others put their forces on alert in July since the caliphate was declared.
The US does not want Iran and Syria to be part of the coalition, thereby making it a largely Sunni group. Turkey’s reluctance to join the coalition also weakens the drive against ISIS. Ankara is wary of the Kurdish resistance in the country and 49 Turkish diplomats are in ISIS’ custody. But it shares a 1,200-km-long border with Iraq and Syria and can choke ISIS by tightening its border and stopping the flow of oil from ISIS-controlled areas. It needs to be seen how much the US and its allies will be willing to attack ISIS in Syria without aiding the Bashar al-Assad government. The regional coalition should also check terror groups in, say, Libya, Egypt, etc. Focusing solely on ISIS and leaving other groups is half the job done. ISIS, through its call for an Islamic caliphate, is hoping to rekindle the passion for Arab nationalism. More importantly, it wants West Asia to unite and oppose Western powers that have ‘subjugated’ the region for more than two centuries. Given this, there is a grain of truth when Mr Obama said that “…this is not our fight alone” and “nor can we take the place of Arab partners in securing the region”. The success of the coalition depends on a united West Asia that overlooks sectarian and national differences. Unless the Arab nations take up the fight, the attack on ISIS will be viewed as Western propaganda against Islam and the region — and ISIS will continue to terrorise the world.

ISIS: Is Obama doing the same mistake Bush did in West Asia?

                                   Barack Obama                Pic: Telegraph

US President Barack Obama’s strategy, which he unveiled on Wednesday, against the Islamic State (ISIS), had the stench of a stale dish. Only a week ago when he was asked about the US’ strategy on ISIS, Obama said: “We don’t have a strategy yet.” He was criticised for this response and Wednesday’s speech was expected to minimise that damage. The US president’s plan involves attacking the ISIS in Iraq and Syria, increasing assistance and training for all forces fighting ISIS (except the Bashar al-Assad government), cutting off the funding and recruitment channels for the terror group and continuing humanitarian assistance to those affected.
Obama has done the right thing — though late in the day — in deciding to pursue the ISIS “wherever they are”, but his strategy leaves many questions unanswered. There is no clarity on the specific roles of the US’ coalition partners. There is no stipulated timeframe— experts estimate will take two to three years to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the ISIS.
After the 9/11 attacks, Washington was quick to respond, first by invading Afghanistan and later Iraq. As The New York Times’ Carlotta Gall in The Wrong Enemy: America in Afghanistan, 2001-2014 writes: “…by going to war in 2001, the United States was walking into the Islamists’ trap. It was just what al Qaeda wanted: for Afghanistan to serve again as a battleground for Muslim fighters against a superpower”. Is the US repeating the same mistake and walking into an ISIS trap?
While speaking about sending troops to the region, Obama said: “…American forces will not have a combat mission — we will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq.” The usage of the word “dragged” gives the impression that in 2003 the US was forced to invade Iraq. This is not true.
The US invaded Iraq in search of fictitious weapons of mass destruction and left an ineffective ‘democratic’ government, headed by Nouri al-Maliki. Not only did Maliki favour Shias but he also cracked down on protests and alienated the Sunnis. Chelsea Manning, former US army intelligence analyst, recently said the US did nothing to stop the “brutal crackdown against political dissidents by the Iraqi Ministry of Interior and federal police”. This prepared a fertile ground for al Qaeda to recruit and build its network in Iraq.

                                                                                                     Pic: CBS News

Nothing explains Obama’s dilemma better than the crisis in Syria. Since pro-democracy protests broke out in 2011, the US has been trying to overthrow the Bashar al-Assad government. The US and its allies in the region have been aiding various rebel groups and the Central Intelligence Agency has been running training camps in Jordan for the Free Syrian Army, which is fighting against Assad. If ISIS bases are attacked in Syria, Washington will be indirectly helping Damascus, thereby strengthening Assad. It would be interesting to see how Obama plans to weaken the ISIS in Syria and at the same time not give Assad an advantage.
The plan to train and aid rebels is a myopic one — and Obama should know it. In July, the Pentagon said that it was difficult to identify ‘moderate rebels’ and train them against Assad. The rebels are an amorphous group of fighters, many of whom are pro-al Qaeda. Obama’s idea of picking the best among the worst is similar to America’s perception of the ‘moderate’ Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
After the hasty retreat from Iraq and setting a deadline for pulling out of Afghanistan, Obama had shown an obdurate reluctance to intervene in foreign conflicts. Obama, especially in the second term, has focused on internal matters, leaving foreign policy to his secretary of state, John Kerry. Obama’s foreign policy arc has been so limited that suddenly Sarah Palin’s “they’re our next door neighbours” comment on Russia looks brighter.
Obama’s speech came on the eve of the 13th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks and if the US is at the drawing board, chalking out plans after more than a decade in the region, one would at least expect Washington not to repeat past mistakes. However, Obama’s move to aid rebels sounds more like his predecessor George W Bush’s ‘War on Terror’. And that’s not good news.
(This appeared as an article in the Hindustan Times on September 12)