This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/29/world/middleeast/decision-to-end-syrian-arms-embargo-angers-russia.html

The article has changed 10 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 4 Version 5
Russia Says End of European Arms Embargo on Syria Harms Hopes for Talks Europeans Say Lifting of Syria Arms Embargo Puts Pressure on Russia
(about 5 hours later)
MOSCOW — A senior Russian diplomat said Tuesday that the end of the European Union’s arms embargo on Syria endangered the prospects for a peace conference next month backed by Washington and Moscow. PARIS — The European Union’s decision to lift its arms embargo on Syria, after a bitter, 13-hour debate in Brussels, is intended to put pressure on Russia and President Bashar al-Assad of Syria before peace talks scheduled in Geneva next month, with a message that the West will not allow the rebels to be defeated, senior European diplomats said Tuesday.
European Union foreign ministers failed on Monday to reach an agreement to extend the embargo, opening the possibility of new flows of weapons to Syrian rebel forces, though no European nation said it intended to begin supplying lethal aid to the rebels immediately. The decision is also intended to boost the more Western-aligned opposition and break the perception that it is being abandoned, while the radical Islamists of Al Nusra Front and its allies continue to get support from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the diplomats said.
The Russian diplomat, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said the end of the embargo “is a reflection of ‘double standards’ and could inflict direct damage to the prospects for convening the international conference,” according to a statement released by the Foreign Ministry. The idea is “to change the perception of Assad that he now has time on his side, with more support from Russia, Iran and Hezbollah,” a senior European diplomat said.
“You cannot declare the wish to stop the bloodshed, on one hand, and continue to pump armaments into Syria, on the other hand,” Mr. Ryabkov told journalists later, according to the Interfax news service. The decision to let the arms embargo lapse appears to be part of a broader effort by the pro-Assad and pro-rebel sides to enter the talks in Geneva next month with a stronger hand.
He rejected the notion that Russia’s support for President Bashar al-Assad of Syria constituted interference on behalf of one side in the conflict, saying that Russia was selling arms to “legitimate authorities.” He defended a plan to provide the Syrian government with advanced S-300 air defense missiles, saying the missile batteries would be a “stabilizing factor” that could deter a Western-led intervention. The West had calculated that rebel pressure on Mr. Assad would be so great he would enter negotiations from a position of weakness. But in recent weeks, Mr. Assad’s standing has at least temporarily been shored up. That may have figured into the European decision.
“We consider that such steps will restrain some hotheads from the possibility of giving this conflict, or from considering a scenario that would give this conflict, an international character with the participation of external forces,” he said. “Geneva will be hard enough, but without lifting the arms embargo, it would be nothing at all,” another senior European diplomat said, speaking anonymously in accord with diplomatic protocol.
Michael Mann, the spokesman for the European Union’s foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, said that it was “important to note” that the European Union’s declaration after its Monday meeting included a statement that member nations “will not proceed at this stage with the delivery of the equipment.” Britain and France were the prime movers in strong-arming other European Union countries to let the arms embargo on Syria lapse, while other of the union’s sanctions aimed more specifically at the Assad government were renewed.
He said the ministers will review their position before Aug. 1, after consulting the United Nations on the progress of the American-Russian initiative and on the engagement of the Syrian parties. Part of the debate in the long meeting, which ended late Monday night, was to promise that neither Britain nor France would begin to deliver any arms, if they chose to do so, until the beginning of August, to allow the Geneva peace process to get traction, the officials explained.
The ministers’ meetings on Monday, held in Brussels, were stormy. Britain and France sought to end the embargo; France had hoped for broad consensus, but the talks showed instead how deeply the European Union nations are divided on the issue of arming Syrian rebels. Officials of Britain and France, which have Europe’s most advanced militaries and are both members of the United Nations Security Council, argued that the arms embargo was so strict that it applied to many kinds of nonlethal supplies, from gas masks to secure communication devices. They also argued that lifting it will allow more flexibility in supplies and will mean that less will have to be supplied covertly.
Austria, the Czech Republic and Sweden strongly opposed arms shipments. They distrust large parts of the Syrian opposition and said they feared that the weapons would end up in the hands of jihadist groups. “This is a way to try to balance the Russian game and make it clear that the Europeans want to play ball around Geneva, but have this option open,” said Camille Grand, director of the Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris. “The message to both Assad and Moscow is that, ‘You’re not winning on all fronts, and we have a plan B that would make your military successes more difficult, that we can also play the protracted war scenario.’ ”
They also said that funneling arms to the opposition now, before the planned peace conference in Geneva, would undermine the chances of a deal with the Assad government. There were also fears that Russia would feel freer to send more weapons. The jockeying, however, may scuttle the long-shot peace talks even before they get off the ground. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov said that the European Union decision was “illegitimate in principle.”
The ministers did agree to continue economic sanctions against Syria. But in the absence of an agreement on the arms embargo, it is set to lapse after Friday, leaving the European nations to decide individually what to do. “A number of actions that are being taken — and they are not being taken without the involvement and support of our Western partners, including the U.S. and France — intentionally or unintentionally serve to disrupt the conference,” Mr. Lavrov said according to the Interfax news service.
William Hague, Britain’s foreign secretary, emphasized on Tuesday that Britain had not decided yet whether to supply weapons to Syrian rebels. But he did not seek to disguise deep differences with Moscow. “Our policy is decided by us in the United Kingdom, not by Russia or anybody else,” he told the BBC. The deputy foreign minister, Sergei Ryabkov, in a statement called the European Union decision “a reflection of ‘double standards.” Later, he said, “You cannot declare the wish to stop the bloodshed, on one hand, and continue to pump armaments into Syria,” according to the Interfax news service.
“We don’t approve of Russia’s own supplies to the regime,” he said. “Russia has blocked at the U.N. Council every attempt that we have made so far to bring an end to this conflict so far, so we have found new ways of working with them. But it doesn’t mean our policies or views are identical.” A senior European official, told of the comment, said that Russia, which has been pumping arms into Syria, might “take its own words to heart.”
Mr. Hague added: “The long-term supply of weapons to the regime from Russia and from other countries has not helped this situation, therefore we do all have to think of the options we can pursue.” Mr. Ryabkov, who has been seen as collegial to Western diplomats in the nuclear talks with Iran, insisted that Russia, by contrast, was selling arms to “legitimate authorities,” not supplying rebels. He defended a plan to provide Syria with advanced S-300 air defense missiles, saying that they would be a “stabilizing factor” that could deter a Western-led intervention.
Russia has been providing a range of weapons to the Syrian government, despite international pressure — particularly from the United States and Israel — to slow or halt such support. Israel carried out an airstrike in January against trucks near Damascus that were reportedly transporting SA-17 surface-to-air missiles that Russia had sold to Syria; according to Israel, the weapons were being sent to Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite militia, which backs the Assad government. Russia, on the request of Washington, Europeans and Israel, has not yet delivered those missiles to Damascus. Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon of Israel said on Tuesday that if the S-300s “arrive in Syria, we will know what to do,” suggesting that would again threaten an escalation with another Israeli strike. Previously, Israel has said it will act in Syria only to prevent sophisticated weaponry from going to Hezbollah or Iran.
The more advanced S-300 missiles would present a formidable obstacle to any effort to conduct air operations over Syria, like imposing a no-fly zone. The Israeli defense minister, Moshe Yalon, noted on Tuesday that “the shipments have not been sent on their way yet, " but, in comments reported by The Associated Press, he warned that if S-300 missiles reached Syria, “we will know what to do.” The Syrian opposition, meeting in Istanbul for six days, has been deeply divided and has not yet decided whether to take part in the Geneva talks, as Washington has requested. And the opposition has complained that the arms needed most — surface-to-air missiles to hit government aircraft — have been denied them by the United States and its allies, fearing their eventual use against Israel or Jordan. It is also unlikely that Britain or France would supply such weapons now or later.
Before Russia reacted on Tuesday to the developments in Brussels, Guy Verhofstadt, a former Belgian prime minister and leader of the grouping of centrist parties in the European Parliament, said that Britain and France “should be congratulated on taking the lead.” Even as Europe lifted the embargo, it is increasingly hard to deliver weapons only to Western-friendly forces who say they favor a democratic Syria that protects minorities, as opposed to the radical Islamists, critics have argued.
“The longer we leave the Syrian opposition to fend for themselves or depend on support from Qatar and other Arab countries, the less influence we can exert over the outcome, and the greater the risk they will turn toward extremism,” he said. “Given that the balance in the rebellion may have already shifted to the most radical groups, I see the decision as more of a bargaining tool with the Russians,” said Mr. Grand of the Foundation for Strategic Research.
But Anna MacDonald of Oxfam, an international aid organization based in Britain, said she was disappointed that the embargo was lapsing and at the lack of European unity on the issue. “Ministers sent out mixed signals,” she said. “What was needed was an unequivocal stance that the E.U. will do everything it can to stop the bloodshed and prevent a deadly arms race in Syria, which would have devastating humanitarian consequences.” The E.U. decision is also seen as another step in the “full internationalization of the Syrian war,” said George A. Lopez, a professor at Notre Dame’s Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies.
Secretary of State John Kerry and Sergey V. Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, met in Paris on Monday evening to try to lay the groundwork for talks that would bring together representatives of Mr. Assad’s government and the Syrian opposition. The Assad government has indicated that it was prepared to attend, but the Syrian opposition is still picking new leaders and has not decided whether to take part. The decision also puts the focus on Washington, which has so far refused to provide arms to the rebels.
Mr. Kerry said additional meetings between American and Russian officials would be held to work out “how this conference can best be prepared for the possibilities of success, not failure.” The Europeans argue that “their actions are aimed both at bolstering the rebels militarily and indicated to Assad that he cannot survive without a political agreement to end the violence,” Mr. Lopez said. But “to the chaos within Syria is now added confusion, as all eyes turn to the U.S. for its decision in the wake of this war expansion.”
“Both of us, Russia and the United States, are deeply committed, remain committed, to trying to implement the Geneva 1 principles, which require a transitional government by mutual consent that has full executive authority, in order to allow the people of Syria to decide the future of Syria,” Mr. Kerry said. Reporting contributed by Ellen Barry in Moscow and Isabel Kershner in Jerusalem.
The expectation is that the meeting will be held by mid-June.

Ellen Barry reported from Moscow and James Kanter from Brussels. Reporting was contributed by Stephen Castle from London; Nick Cumming-Bruce from Geneva; Hania Mourtada from Beirut, Lebanon; and Michael R. Gordon and Steven Erlanger from Paris.