Arming the Syrian rebels would be an act of historic folly

Adding weapons to a civil war will only exacerbate Syria's suffering. The UK must not follow the American lead.

The US now claims the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government crosses its "red line", setting in train the "enormous consequences" Obama threatened last year. Yet it is essential we see evidence before we leap to conclusions – Iraq casts a long shadow. We also need greater clarity on what promises of "military support" actually mean. The west would be committing an act of historic folly if it decided to arm the rebels or provide other lethal equipment.

We do not have to follow the American lead. Sometimes good friends tell each other when they are going wrong. In answer to questions from myself and others, the Prime Minister has made it clear that there will be a full debate and vote in the House of Commons before we increase our aid to the Syrian rebels. MPs will certainly hold him to this promise.

Providing lethal support to the rebels, or directly intervening in this civil war, would be foolhardy in the extreme. We must guard against mission creep. The more we edge closer to direct involvement, the more we become responsible for events on the ground. And the more we would find it difficult to extricate ourselves.

How would we track and trace the additional weaponry to ensure it does not fall into the hands of extremists on the rebel side? We know that some factions, such as the al-Nusra Front, are forging links with terrorists and jihadists such as al-Qaeda. Some of the rebel groups have also committed atrocities. Short of placing troops on the ground, it would be very difficult to ensure that any weapons only reach moderate elements. Meanwhile, it beggars belief that some maintain that adding weapons to a civil war will not inflate or add to the suffering. Pouring more weapons into this conflict can only increase the violence and casualties. This is one reason why charities such as Oxfam, which have people on the ground, have publicly argued in recent weeks that the west should not arm the rebels.

We should also be aware of the possible consequences of any such policy beyond Syria’s borders. The debate so far has been couched in terms of the conflict within the country. But Syria represents a melting-pot for a proxy war that is being fought out either directly or indirectly at various levels: whether it is Sunni versus Shia, the west versus China or Russia, or Iran versus Saudi Arabia. Pouring more arms into Syria would not only escalate the violence within the country, it could also extend the conflict beyond Syria’s borders. This would be a mistake of historic proportions. Our track record of arming groups or individuals in the region is not good. We armed the Mujahideen in the 1980s and backed Saddam Hussein when he attacked Iran – only to subsequently find some of these weapons being used against us.

The west should instead redouble its other efforts. There is a huge humanitarian crisis, both in Syria and beyond its borders. Refugee camps in both Jordan and the Lebanon are desperately short of basic amenities. And yet, the west stands by and does very little. Meanwhile, our diplomatic efforts have been half-hearted. The Russians are the elephant in the room and they are organising a conference in Geneva. Yet the west plans to exclude Iran from the talks. This is madness. The old adage that you make peace with your enemies, not with your friends, is apposite. The situation inside Syria is desperate and we should not pass up any opportunity to resolve it, even if it requires swallowing a bitter pill.

We need to learn the lessons of history. Promoting democracy through force of arms is often counter-productive. Democracy is taking root across North Africa and the Middle East, which has received little by means of western aid or assistance. Conversely, it is struggling in Iraq or Afghanistan, despite the high cost to the west in blood and treasure.

Interventions in the past have tended to have an 'embedding' effect. If anything, they have had the unintended consequence of strengthening existing regimes. It is notable, for instance, that communism has survived longest in those countries that have engaged militarily with the west: Korea, China, Vietnam and Cuba. Persuasion through diplomacy and ‘soft power’ has often been far more effective.

Our record of intervention in the Middle East, in particular, has not been good. I fear with Syria it will be no different. Let us hope we do not repeat the errors of the past.

John Baron is Conservative MP for Basildon and Billericay and a member of the foreign affairs select committee

Syrian rebel fighters belonging to the Martyrs of Maaret al-Numan battalion leave their position after a range of shootings on June 13, 2013 in the northwestern town of Maaret al-Numan. Photograph: Getty Images.
Getty Images
Show Hide image

Is there such a thing as responsible betting?

Punters are encouraged to bet responsibly. What a laugh that is. It’s like encouraging drunks to get drunk responsibly, to crash our cars responsibly, murder each other responsibly.

I try not to watch the commercials between matches, or the studio discussions, or anything really, before or after, except for the match itself. And yet there is one person I never manage to escape properly – Ray Winstone. His cracked face, his mesmerising voice, his endlessly repeated spiel follow me across the room as I escape for the lav, the kitchen, the drinks cupboard.

I’m not sure which betting company he is shouting about, there are just so many of them, offering incredible odds and supposedly free bets. In the past six years, since the laws changed, TV betting adverts have increased by 600 per cent, all offering amazingly simple ways to lose money with just one tap on a smartphone.

The one I hate is the ad for BetVictor. The man who has been fronting it, appearing at windows or on roofs, who I assume is Victor, is just so slimy and horrible.

Betting firms are the ultimate football parasites, second in wealth only to kit manufacturers. They have perfected the capitalist’s art of using OPM (Other People’s Money). They’re not directly involved in football – say, in training or managing – yet they make millions off the back of its popularity. Many of the firms are based offshore in Gibraltar.

Football betting is not new. In the Fifties, my job every week at five o’clock was to sit beside my father’s bed, where he lay paralysed with MS, and write down the football results as they were read out on Sports Report. I had not to breathe, make silly remarks or guess the score. By the inflection in the announcer’s voice you could tell if it was an away win.

Earlier in the week I had filled in his Treble Chance on the Littlewoods pools. The “treble” part was because you had three chances: three points if the game you picked was a score draw, two for a goalless draw and one point for a home or away win. You chose eight games and had to reach 24 points, or as near as possible, then you were in the money.

“Not a damn sausage,” my father would say every week, once I’d marked and handed him back his predictions. He never did win a sausage.

Football pools began in the 1920s, the main ones being Littlewoods and Vernons, both based in Liverpool. They gave employment to thousands of bright young women who checked the results and sang in company choirs in their spare time. Each firm spent millions on advertising. In 1935, Littlewoods flew an aeroplane over London with a banner saying: Littlewoods Above All!

Postwar, they blossomed again, taking in £50m a year. The nation stopped at five on a Saturday to hear the scores, whether they were interested in football or not, hoping to get rich. BBC Sports Report began in 1948 with John Webster reading the results. James Alexander Gordon took over in 1974 – a voice soon familiar throughout the land.

These past few decades, football pools have been left behind, old-fashioned, low-tech, replaced by online betting using smartphones. The betting industry has totally rebooted itself. You can bet while the match is still on, trying to predict who will get the next goal, the next corner, the next throw-in. I made the last one up, but in theory you can bet instantly, on anything, at any time.

The soft sell is interesting. With the old football pools, we knew it was a remote flutter, hoping to make some money. Today the ads imply that betting on football somehow enhances the experience, adds to the enjoyment, involves you in the game itself, hence they show lads all together, drinking and laughing and putting on bets.

At the same time, punters are encouraged to do it responsibly. What a laugh that is. It’s like encouraging drunks to get drunk responsibly, to crash our cars responsibly, murder each other responsibly. Responsibly and respect are now two of the most meaningless words in the football language. People have been gambling, in some form, since the beginning, watching two raindrops drip down inside the cave, lying around in Roman bathhouses playing games. All they’ve done is to change the technology. You have to respect that.

Hunter Davies is a journalist, broadcaster and profilic author perhaps best known for writing about the Beatles. He is an ardent Tottenham fan and writes a regular column on football for the New Statesman.

This article first appeared in the 05 February 2015 issue of the New Statesman, Putin's war