Monzer Akbik, member of the Syrian National Coalition HARDtalk

MPs backed David Cameron's call to extend military action.

Welcome to HARDtalk. Members of the international coalition against the

so-called Islamic State, including Britain, have been weighing up the

effectiveness of airstrikes on IS stronghold inside Syria in the

aftermath of the Paris attacks. But what impact has the intensified

military campaign against IS had My guest is Monzer Akbik

from the Syrian National Coalition, an umbrella organisation made up

of Syrian rebel groups. Does he believe their battle

against Assad has been re-energised Thank you for having me. We've seen

the 65 member coalition against ISIL strengthen as a result of the Paris

attacks in November. Is that something you welcome? What I

welcome is more attention to what is going on in Syria. Obviously there

are very bad guys, who are still there at large and are able to

commit atrocities against the Syrian people. More attention to Syria to

solve the humanitarian problem, to achieve some kind of ceasefire,

political transition, is welcomed by Arthur. More attention but it has to

be the right sort of attention. -- by us. You say atrocities committed

by the Assad regime and ISIS. I just give you a comment made by a Syrian

living in Lebanon, where she works in humanitarian areas, she asks you

to imagine what would happen if what is happening in Paris is happening

on a daily basis for five years and imagine that happening without

global sympathy for innocent lost lives, without the support of every

world leader condemning the violence. Do you believe there is a

double standard? That Syrian lives matter less than those killed in the

West? Somehow I agree to that. This is unfortunate. There are a lot of

countries who have expressed sympathy with the Syrian people and

they have expressed support for the Syrian people, to get rid of the

dictatorship of Assad. But that support was always short of

achieving a decisive end to this war. Why the double standard? Why do

people care less about the quarter of a million Syrians, who have died

as a result, directly or indirectly, of President Bashar al-Assad, and

those killed in Europe? Mary Mac it is natural that for the Europeans to

have more attention and interest for the things happening inside Europe

itself. Of course those attacks in Paris were appalling. We have

condemned them. We don't want anybody to be harmed anywhere in the

world. At the same time, we are asking for international attention

after nearly five years of Syrians losing their lives to broker a

solution in Syria stop white but you are getting more international

attention. -- in Syria. But it might be operating to your detriment. The

French Foreign Minister told a radio station at the end of November that

winning back the ISIL stronghold in Syria was a priority and required

bombings and troops on the ground, which could include Free Syrian Army

forces. Those are the rebel forces, Sunni Arab forces and why not, he

asks, Syrian regime forces? So, he is even suggesting that actually you

could go into alliance with President Assad's forces. They have

clarified those statements. They say such participation would be either

the track -- after the transition, after the dictatorship and

transition towards a transitional government. Of course there are many

elements that have to be excluded from this. There are at the militias

and Revolutionary guards who are fighting with Assad and there are

people who committed crimes. He clarified but he didn't retract the

why not Syrian regime forces, he said just within an internationally

agreed co-operation framework and so on. I mean, the point I'm trying to

make is 2013 you've got the French saying, we want to take action

against Bashar al-Assad's chemical weapons sites, they called him a

pariah and the US and UK backtracked, and yet now you find

them making these kinds of statements. It is a very different

spirit. It is conditional. After the transition, I would say that we have

already agreed, everybody has agreed, they say that the

institutions in Syria should be preserved. There should be reformed,

but preserved. When the dictatorship ends, Assad goes, then the remnants

of the Syrian army will continue normally after excluding the

elements, the criminal elements, and they will be united with the rest of

the Syrians to fight terrorism. We will talk about the transition and

the fact that this has been astute in the diplomatic track in parallel

to the military strategy, but that's a long way off. Let me put to you, a

colonel of the 30th infantry division, a rebel force, says Bashar

al-Assad has given the world two options. Either IS or his regime. It

seems the world has chosen Bashar al-Assad to support him. That's the

point I am making. He sees it in the way I have presented to you. He is

frustrated enough to make this statement. I don't think the world

has chosen Bashar al-Assad. The position has not changed. What I

noticed is that the priority has shifted towards confrontation of

ISIS. We can prove also that unless there is progress on the political

level, unless there is progress on the front of changing the regime,

there will not be progress also on confrontation of ISIS. Both things

are linked together. Sure. But you are not all speaking with one

voice. I know the Syrian National Coalition presents more than 30

blocs, but I give you another person who disagrees with what you say. The

leader of one Free Syrian Army group says, we fight the terrorism of the

regime first and then the terrorism of ISIL. So, he is actually putting

the priority is quite differently to how you have pictured it. You say

maybe we have to target ISIL first, he says you target the regime first.

Which is more important? He expresses that because the

pressure, the military Pesce from the regime side is much more than

from the ISIS side. -- military pressure. The Free Syrian Army is

fighting since the beginning of 2014. This fight continues. But

there is enormous pressure from the regime, together with the Iranian

Revolutionary guards and militias, and the Russians who came in from

the 30th of September, bombing the rebels, they are attacking and are

on the offensive everywhere in the south, in Damascus, the coastal

mountains, south of Aleppo. There is huge pressure from the regime right

now. That's why it is a priority. These people have to defend

themselves and they have to defend the people and the villages and the

territory they have. When I ask you which is more important, very

simply, priorities, because there is a thought that you can't do both at

once, as a former chief of defence said. He said we want to deal with

Islamic State and also get rid of Assad. That is not plausible. Can

you do both at the same time? Both at the same time? It is possible,

but you can't reach a decisive end. You can't completely eradicate ISIS

and have a sustainable campaign that will lead to a complete success,

unless the danger from the regime and his allies is succeeded or

ends. One is not more important than the other? They are both important.

The confrontation of ISIS must continue but you can't reach a final

result with ISIS unless you get the most important, the biggest front,

that is the regime. That has to be some kind of ceasefire or a

political solution. Something has to happen in order for all of the

people to make a sustainable and successful campaign against ISIS. In

the context of all of this debate we have in the British House of

Commons, for instance, we heard the debate there and saw the intensified

air strikes by the Russians and French after the Paris attacks, a

sickly for you is this good? -- basically. Is this good for the

Syrian opposition? What is good for the Syrian opposition is that they

get support for the Syrian people to end the bloodshed and to end the

criminals in Syria, who are the Assad regime and ISIS. Wheel

airstrikes do that? The airstrikes alone cannot do that. -- will. We

have to have boots on the ground and they are the Free Syrian Army, the

rebels. The rebels can and have before defeated ISIS and they can

defeat ISIS with the support of air force from the allies. At the same

time, they have their hands full now, fighting the regime and the

regime is on the offensive everywhere, with the Iranians and

Russians. So, it is not that ISIS is the priority, or of Assad is the

priority, what we need to do is have a ceasefire on the regime front

first, in order for the rebels to be able to get rid of ISIS. It will be

in a relatively short time. You are saying that you have this temporary

truce, or a truce, with the government and it is the rebel

fighters on the ground who will take on ISIL? For Syria and the world?

When David Cameron says he reckons there are about 70,000 Syrian

moderate armed forces on the ground, and he says not all of them

are ideal partners, the by the 70,000 is the figure he gives, he

says there's a further to divide doesn't troops on the ground Syrian

rebels, that aren't good partners for the coalition. Do you think that

sounds about right? Yes, there are even more than that. The Syrian

rebels are from the people. They did not start the war. The regime

started the war on the people, Cosby wanted a change. So, it is difficult

to define a number, because they are basically coming from the society

itself. But there are more than 100,000, I think. Do they have

everything they need? One wonders why, if they have this capability

that you say they have to take on ISIL, they have done that already.

That was a thought that the chairman of the UK House of Commons Defence

Select Committee has said. Where are these magical 70,000 people and why

have they been unable to roll back ISIL? In terms of hard work, they've

always been under armed compared to what regime has. In terms of why

they have not taken ISIL, there have been fighting ISIS since about two

years and they continue to fight ISIS. I would have to emphasise the

danger from the regime front being much higher than ISIS. Both ISIS and

Assad are killing innocent civilians, but Assad ten times that

of ISIS. They have to defend their villages and cities. Really their

priority is to fight the force that is killing them in greater numbers

and that is the regime? Yes. That's the point I'm trying to make.

International attention is focused on Syria, but more on ISIS

strongholds and how you can get these diverted views to come

together to your benefit. ISIS is a symptom of the disease and the

disease was in the beginning that the Assad regime waged a war against

the people and affected political punishment against the people,

because the people wanted change and they have the right to change and

they have the right to call for freedom, dignity and change towards

democracy. This is the main problem and I don't think that the ISIS

problem could be completely resolved on both this problem is. What about

the thought that has been floated by some, the Foreign Minister of the

United Arab Emirates has said that the UAE will send in ground troops

to Syria. And he has said that he would back international efforts to

set up a regionally led coalition to intervene, to fight in Syria. He

says the Saudi-led coalition fighting in Yemen is an alternative

model. Is that something you would welcome? Arab, Muslim troops on the

ground in Syria? Helping you in your fight, vote against ISIL and

possibly the regime? Or does it become too messy?

We have welcomed before more intervention from our friends and

allies. Remember when there was the chemical attack in 2013, we have

welcomed intervention from the West. The Saudis and and varieties are our

brothers and our allies. It would be to the benefit of the Syrian people.

That is something that you, as an opposition spokesperson, could save

boots on the ground, the airstrikes are not enough. No proper combat

ground troops, you think there could be an Arab coalition coming in?

Anything that will save Syrian lives and will help Syrians and this

tragedy and suffering and to help Syrians get rid of those criminals

of ISIS and Assad. Anything that will help in that direction. And

what about Turkey? Turkey is being pushed by the Americans and French

to do more to close its border with Syria, because they say ISIL

fighters are moving in and out of the country. What is your view on

that? A lot of coalition members are based in Turkey. Ten days ago there

were a few villages north of Aleppo in Syria that were liberated from

ISIS control by the rebels with the help of Turkish air force and

American drones. The talks are already hitting ISIS and supporting

the same goal of getting rid of both ISIS and Assad. There is a view from

a foreigner American official that says Turkey is not the store water

Nato partner it once was. It is more an ally in name and in fact. It has

done little to staunch the flow of foreign recruits. Of course, the

Turks can answer for themselves. The questions could be addressed to a

Turkish spokesperson. For us, we have not seen any evidence the Turks

are not against ISIS. It is a very mixed picture on the ground. We have

uranium forces supporting President Bashar al-Assad, Lebanese Hezbollah

fighters fighting alongside them, the Russians with a airstrikes

against both ISIL strongholds as well as on Syria and opposition

fighters. You have got that problem. All of this has to be reconciled.

You look at the diplomatic track, the negotiations that have started

in Geneva and Vienna, although Syrians were not invited to those

talks. That is the only way there will be a resolution to what is

going on, do you access that? What came out Vienna was somehow

encouraging. For the first time in such a meeting, there was talk about

a ceasefire that everybody agrees on. Including the big five. And

there was talk about a schedule for the transition. At the beginning of

the year, there will be negotiations. In May, a transitional

government body will be established and then it will move the country

towards elections. An election should be completely supervised and

monitored by the United Nations. Whatever written has been

encouraging. But you have to be cautiously optimistic. The Russians

have agreed on a ceasefire, they have agreed on a ceasefire, but on

the ground water than 95% of the strikes are against moderate rebels.

They said the ten to bomb ISIS and they are not doing that. They are

supporting the Assad regime on the ground. The actions are completely

contradicting what they are saying. What we need to do is to know what

the Russians' intentions. The West need to call their bluff on the

ceasefire matter and call for that ceasefire. The Russians can affect a

ceasefire if they want. That is the? -- the question as well. If you can

get the Russians to agree with that, Assad can agree with that. There is

a view, what about the Iranians? Where do they fit into all of this?

There might be even keener supporters. The Iranians also have

to agree to a ceasefire. They have about 30,000 troops, 5000 of them in

the national guard, 25,000 of militia that are supported by Iran.

These people also eventually have to agree to a ceasefire and leave the

country. You mention Russia and you say it can tell Bashar al-Assad to

do this. But don't you Syrians have to say to the Russians, will you

military bases surrounded by Western military bases in the region. They

have got these two in Syria, a good relationship with the Assad regime.

You have to protect Russian interests, don't you? We have told

the Russians several times about this. We have talked to them about

these matters. They always refuse to engage in such dialogue. The problem

is the