It must be made clear to Assad that he won’t succeed, Blair tells Rudaw

Rudaw - Davos

In a wide-ranging interview with Rudaw’s Hemin Lihony former British Prime Minister Tony Blair said that there's a disagreement about the position of Bashar al Assad in Syria, but the west must be in a position that would make it clear to him that he is not going to succeed. Blair says that ISIS might be defeated today but the radical ideology will remain and practiced by such groups as Boko Haram, al Shabaab, Jabhat al-Nusra, and half a dozen other groups. “So what have we got to do? The first thing is we have to have the force capability to fight these people wherever they are,”

On the question of the Sykes-Picot borders Blair said that they were drawn in “a completely different era and time” adding meanwhile that dismantling those borders should not the priority now. “I don't think right now is the moment when we can conclude these questions.”

The former British prime minister admires the Kurdish brave fight against ISIS, saying, “Well I want first of all to place on record my admiration for the Kurdish forces and their bravery, their determination, their commitment,” adding “we have got to give every support we can to those who are fighting this battle on the ground because they're fighting for me as well as for you.”

Rudaw: Thank you for accepting our request, Mr. Blair. Welcome to Rudaw.

Tony Blair: Thank you. It's a pleasure.

For many, and I am sure you are one of them, the most dangerous development in recent years is the rise of radical Islam again. It's a direct threat to Europe and the world and global security. So why have we seen this rise again, while al Qaeda has been weakened?

I think we have to understand several things about this radical Islamism, which is the biggest security threat the world faces today. The first is that this is something that has got very deep roots. I mean, it first came to Western consciousness particularly after 9/11. But actually when you track back in history now, you can see its roots have gone deep over a period of decades. And it's based on a perversion of religion. But nonetheless, it's based on a set of religious beliefs that are deeply destructive.

Secondly, it is an ideology and what is important is to fight not just the violence but also the extremist ideology that gives rise to the violence. And thirdly, it's a global problem today. It's not just in the Middle East. It's in the Far East, It’s in Central Asia, it's in Africa. In fact, it's even in our own countries in Europe. So I think we need a strategy that is comprehensive and that works both in the short term to defeat the violence but in the longer term to defeat the ideology.

 

Some argue that this ideology is a product of the sectarian and corrupt governments in the region. Would you agree?

I think the issues of whether its poverty or corruption or lack of development, these all play a part. But I also think you can point to countries that are poor and underdeveloped but don't have this problem of extremism. So this is why I think we've got to look at this not simply as a matter that is caused by social problems and challenges, but it is also an ideology, as I say, based on a perversion of religion. And I think we have to deal with that aspect of it as well. And the truth is today there are many allies that we can have within Islam to fight this perversion of the religion. But we do have to fight it at every level. We could help countries develop. But if we didn't deal with this problem, then we would still have a big challenge. And by the way, it would be far harder for them to develop. So across a whole belt of Africa today, the biggest single problem they have inhibiting their development is the rise of this extremism.

Do you think the Arab Spring has contributed to the current turmoil and this rise of political Islam, radical Islam?

I think that what the Arab Spring has done is shown that people are not prepared to put up with lack of basic rights, inability to influence their governments, and a feeling that they're powerless and that their country is ruled by a small elite. Now, I think in addition to that, what you had in the Arab Spring was effectively two groups of people coming together in a common objective of toppling the existing order. So that you had, what I would call liberal minded people and on the other side you had Islamists, and they came together and united to defeat the old order. But then of course there's the profound disagreement about what comes next because these are two different visions of society. So I think the Arab Spring was the inevitable product of political structures and the inability of these countries to move forward over a long period of time. The trouble is, what the Arab Spring has also done is once you get rid of the old order, if there's then disorder and chaos, into the vacuum comes these extremists.

Yesterday we had al Qaeda. Today is ISIS. In order to not have a more dangerous group than ISIS, what should the governments in that region do? International community responsibility – what do they have to do?

So I think we have to do several things. Because you could get rid of ISIS and you've still got Boko Haram, al Shabaab, Jabhat al-Nusra, half a dozen other groups. And then as I say you've got this broader ideology. So what have we got to do? The first thing is we have to have the force capability to fight these people wherever they are, terrorizing and brutalizing civilian populations. And there is no answer to this that doesn't involve the use of that force capability. Secondly, I think we have to tackle the education systems in many countries where young people are educated to a view of the world that's close-minded to those that are different. You know the world works today by people reaching out across the boundaries of faith and culture and race and nation. This ideology is a close-minded, narrow view of the world that says if you're not like me, you've a different faith, a different view of the faith than me, then you're my enemy. So we have to attack that ideology as well. And thirdly, we have to make sure that we are countering these messages on the internet and social media I think in a far more effective way than we're doing now. And finally there has to be, and I think there is now, the debate within Islam about a modern view of Islam that allows peaceful coexistence with others and allows Islam to take it's rightful place in the 21st century. So this is, you know, this is a big challenge and it's a generational one.

 

Do you think there's some Muslim countries that have to do more?

Well, I think that with each of the countries in the region – look, I regard the Middle East as undergoing this long process of transition. And, in this long process of transition, countries are going to have to reform and change and move towards what I would call religiously-tolerant societies and rule-based economies.  That's the only thing that works today. Because globalization and the internet and migration and travel pushes the world together. So if people are coming together across these boundaries of faith and culture and there's an ideology that pulls them apart, that's when you get the danger.

How do you see Obama's strategy to 'degrade and destroy' ISIS?  It's about two years, airstrikes couldn't weaken the group. They are still strong. Do you think airstrikes are enough to defeat this group?

I think, and I've said this for several years, I think airstrikes alone are never going to defeat a group like this. You have to defeat them on the ground. Now at the moment, the Americans, the UK and others are helping those on the ground like the Peshmerga and others who are waging this battle. But in my view, if we say we're going to defeat ISIS, we have to take the measures necessary to defeat them. And I think that is important not just in Syria and in Iraq, in Libya, wherever they are.

You mentioned that airstrikes are not enough. So don't you think that you cannot defeat this group without Western boots on the ground?

Well, I have always argued that there isn't a choice between nothing and the numbers of troops we had in Iraq or Afghanistan during the time I was prime minister. If we want to defeat ISIS on the ground, we are going to have to do whatever is necessary. Now actually, the United States has stepped up its support significantly to those fighting ISIS on the ground. That is important. But, in the end, if we say it's a guiding principle that ISIS must be defeated, then in my view, it's important that we follow that through, that we do defeat them, and that we defeat them as soon as possible. I mean this is a, these are brutal, terrible people who have no place in the civilized world so for me the fight against ISIS right now is something that we have to prosecute with every single possible means we can at our disposal.

If you were prime minister of Britain, what would you do?

If I was prime minister of Britain, I would be taking whatever measures are necessary to defeat ISIS.

Do you agree with the current government's policy against ISIS?

Look, I think the current government, particularly given the political constraints within which the present prime minister is operating, is doing what it believes is politically feasible right now. But I do, as I've said many times over these last months, if we want to defeat these groups, we have to make sure that we have the capability to do it.

Another question about the strategy of the international community. What do you see as the single biggest weakness of the strategy right now?

I think we've got to understand in the international community that this is a deep problem. It's going to be a problem that we confront and eliminate over a long period of time. But we cannot allow these terrorist groups to take parts of territory, to hold it, to terrorize and brutalize civilian populations. And we have to show, and commit sufficiently, that our determination to defeat them is clear, and so that they now, wherever they are, they're going to be confronted, taken on, and eliminated. And I think that there's always a short term and a long term. And the short term is absolutely essential that we take whatever measures necessary to prosecute this fight effectively. And in the longer term, as I say, I think that the single biggest weakness of our long term strategy is that around the world today, we have millions of young people who, educated in school systems formal and informal, millions of them educated to a view of the world that's deeply prejudiced against those who are different. And this issue to do with the long term education of young people is absolutely essential. And we need a view of religion and its relationship with politics that is fit for the modern world. And one that says we're going to run a state in this specific religious way and anyone who doesn't agree with us is our enemy, that is, that's a world view that is incompatible with the way the 21st century operates. So I think, in a sense, the problem, the challenge for the West is it's got to understand the depth of the problem, the scale of it, and therefore the need at every level, short term, medium term, long term, to

take the measures necessary to defeat it.

 

Much of the conflict right now has a religious dimension, especially between Shia and Sunni in the region. Do you think religion itself could be a means of ending this
conflict?

My foundation now works on this very problem of how we counter extremism based on a warped view of religion. We track extremism across the world. We have a website where you can literally see everyday what is happening across the world. We do in depth analyses and studies. And, you know, one part of the fight has to be about people who are of religious faith standing up and saying we will not have our faith abused in this way. And, whether it's Islam versus other religions or sectarianism within Islam, all of these things have got to be taken on and taken on as a matter of religion and not just as a matter of politics.

How does the major disagreement between Russia and America affect the ongoing war on terror?

Well, it's a difficult situation because there are real issues between Russia and the United States, particularly over Ukraine. On the other hand, I think there is a, and there's a disagreement of course about the position of Bashar al Assad in Syria. But on the other hand, I think there are real common enemies here. And the reality is we're going to have to cooperate to a degree and should cooperate in the fight against this extremism since this, as I say in my view, is the biggest challenge we face.

Do you think the direct engagement of Russia is helpful to have a political solution in Syria?

I think the engagement of Russia will be necessary. But I think what is important is that we get a transition in place that can allow the country to reunite and allow the different factions within the country, which have developed over time and which where there is now, obviously, after a very bitter conflict, very bitter feelings, we have to have a new solution for Syria that allows this transition to happen. And allows, in the end, the people of the country to govern the country with proper principles of the rule of law and democracy.

So are you still supporting a no-fly zone proposal?

I personally think it's important –

Even after Russian engagement?

Yeah, because I think that it's important for us to be in a position, as I've said over these last years, where it is absolutely clear to President Assad that he is not going to succeed.

Will he survive?

I don't think long term there is a future for President Assad in Syria and I think that would be unacceptable to the majority population there. But I think we're going to have to debate and find a way forward that allows this transition to happen over time.

Do you agree with those who are asking him to go now?

Well, I think, I totally disagree with what he has done in Syria. But the reality is, where we are today, we're going to have to come together as indeed the Vienna process is trying to establish, we're going to have to come together to try and find a solution.

 

William Hague wrote an article, he said the UK and its allies should be open to redrawing borders of the Middle East. Directly he claimed that Sykes-Picot is about to die. Would you agree with him?

You know I've, over these last years there have been many debates over Sykes-Picot. We've just got to realize the boundaries were drawn in a completely different era and time. But they were also drawn at a time when the populations of the Middle East were very small, go back a hundred years the population of Iraq was probably only 2-3 million, and where the oil wealth of the region had either not been discovered or not been developed. So we're in a very different, difficult and different situation today. I however think there are a whole series of questions that are probably, not at this moment in time, those that can be answered very easily. So, you know, I think we have to recognize that right now there is a security issue and that is the principle issue we have to take on.

Are you still with those who are asking for unity of Iraq and Syria?

I think, obviously the form of government is going to be a huge matter of debate. But I don't think right now is the moment when we can conclude these questions.

But in reality, many think that Iraq and Syria are fabricated states. They only exist on the map.

This is true.

How can we bring them back again as those two countries?

Right, but as I always say to people, whether this was the right way to approach things in 1916 or in the years following, whether this was the right approach then is an open matter. But it was the approach taken and now we are where we are. And we've got to be, now I know this is obviously a very hot topic within Kurdistan, we've got to be careful right at this moment of having debates that will divide allies that need to be together.

In Kurdistan yes this is a very heated debate. But don't you think this is against the will of many people in Iraq, that they have to stay with Iraq while there is a very big disagreement between Erbil and Baghdad?

No, I totally understand that. But I think when you look at the detail of the questions that have to be resolved in order to find a way forward then, you know, these questions are going to be very, very difficult. And they're very difficult particularly when you take the Kurdish people as a whole and ask what will happen. So I'm, I retain the view that, right at this moment, the important thing is to combine against the enemy.

Now the Kurds in Syria and Iraq are the most effective ground force against ISIS. They retook many places from that group. The Kurdish leaders blaming the international group for not sending enough help, they are still using the old weapons, they are facing a big financial crisis, Baghdad didn't send their budget, and the government, KRG, is about to go bankrupt actually. It hasn't paid public services for three months. Do you think the international community has a big responsibility to help these forces now they are fighting on behalf of the world?

Well I want first of all to place on record my admiration for the Kurdish forces and their bravery, their determination, their commitment. They're fighting this battle not just on behalf of the Kurds but on behalf of all of us. So yes, I mean as I've said many times over these last months and years, we have got to give every support we can to those who are fighting this battle on the ground. Because they're fighting for me as well as for you.

 

But they're not getting support.

No, and they should be. It's essential in my view that we give support to those who are waging this battle for all of us. And that we do it in a way that recognizes the tremendous sacrifice that people are making.

The KRG is under pressure, is about to go bankrupt.

I agree. This is why we need to take action.

How do you see the situation right now in Turkey and the emerging again of the conflict between Kurds and the government?

Well, this is again a very complicated and difficult situation. But I think we need to recognize right now that this battle against ISIS is the single most important thing. And we need to recognize and support those who are fighting it. And, you know, this is why, I think, right now if we understand how important this is to our own security then that should give us the right attitude to come to the help of those people who are not just in this as a matter of theory, but are actually putting their lives on the line every day in order to fight it properly.

Thank you so much for joining us.

Thank you so much.