Eric Byrne (Dublin South Central, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I am almost intimidated by Dr. Pierret's CV which is probably one of the most extensive I have ever read. It indicates that he is a very keen specialist and he has in-depth knowledge of the subject and who am I to challenge some of his proposals? However, I am a politician and we work in different worlds. Dr. Pierret works in the academic world and mine is in the pragmatic, grassroots engagement with the people.

The situation in Syria is horrendous. My sympathy, for what it is worth, goes out to the Syrian civilians who are caught up in this international madness, this holocaust, essentially. The degree of displacement and the number of refugees is unbelievable. The solid middle class and working class communities find themselves in camps and in desperation. We hear terrible reports about wealthy Saudi Arabians buying young girls from the camps. I do not know if these reports are true but it was mentioned at a recent public meeting in Athens.

We all ask the same question as to where we go from here. At the outset of this crisis the committee heard representatives who made the case for our support. Ireland decided to lend its support to the UN for aid assistance. Some of the representatives wanted aid to go directly to them in the field. These were opposition supporters at the time.

I have some suggestions to put to the witnesses and I ask for their comments. Should we be surprised at the role of the West? It seems to me that once al-Qaeda or Islamist fanatics and suicide bombers are equated with the opposition, it is inevitable that the West stood back and did not show the support to which the opposition was entitled. One cannot be blind to atrocities and the witnesses referred to the atrocities of the Assad regime. We live in the age of the Internet and we have been able to see the atrocities carried out by elements of the opposition. We are faced with a moral dilemma. Dr. Pierret referred to morality and the moral case. What Assad's people are doing is immoral. The Russians support Assad.

At around the time we had witnesses from Syria before the committee telling us about their experience, the United States Administration was referring to its red line policy, the red line being the use of chemical weapons, after which, we were told, the game would change. Of course, that did not happen. In fairness to the Russians, they did broker a deal with Assad to take chemical weapons out of the war zone. To what extent that actually happened is probably still open to question, but at least it was something. Having said that, it does not matter all that much whether a person dies from inhalation of some chemical or has a barrel bomb dropped on him or her. How does Dr. Pierret view the Russian involvement in basically bailing out the West, and the United States in particular? After talking about a red line and promising action would be taken if chemical weapons were used, the Americans did nothing. We might say that the Russians did at least do something.
There are elements of the conflict that have not been mentioned today, some of which are referred to in an excellent and saddening report in The Irish Timestoday. What is Dr. Pierret's interpretation of the role of Palestinians, Coptic Christians and other minorities who are caught up in the conflict? The article to which I referred describes the support for the regime among the people living in the historic valley where the language of Jesus Christ is spoken. It really is an incredible article which everybody should read. Are such people wrong to support Assad for coming in and providing the security they seem to need? In some cases, the loyalties of some of those who started out supporting the Arab spring seemed to have been usurped by other interests. On the question of Western attitudes, was there not a fear that if support was given to the Syrian opposition, all the young men from Britain who went to fight against Assad - indeed, there were even a few Irish lads who went out - would bring their fanaticism back to the West? This might have been another factor in the less than wholehearted support for the opposition. As I said, there are many forces at play in the region.
I did not know about the gains being made by the opposition, as referred to by Dr. Pierret, in the north, east and south of the country. Not being very familiar with the region, can I assume that one of those regions is where the Kurdish population is very highly concentrated? If there were ultimately to be a division of the country, is it right to presume that Assad would tolerate - one can hardly say he would be happy about it - those people being given their own homeland?
The morality of the issue is very hard to get one's head around because we do not know who is moral in the field. Dr. Pierret is suggesting that we should demand a stop to the barrel bombing, support the implementation of a no-fly zone and then arm the rebels. Several questions come immediately to mind. Who would be considered acceptable in the region to impose a no-fly zone? What agency might be capable of applying the moral prerogative to stop the barrel bombings? Finally, would arming the rebels really be a solution to the problems and conflicts in Syria?