Brian Sayers - Syrian Support Group HARDtalk

decide if he was a man or a mouse. Now on BBC News, it is time for

HARDtalk. Western powers led by the United

States would dearly like to deal with a well organised, United and

anti- aside opposition in Syria. But right now, there is no such

thing, which has left to the west strategy tended it at best.

Supportive of the rebels but not without arms. Eager to seek

President Assad ousted but apprehensive about what will come

after. My guess today is Brian Sayers, chief lobbyist for the

Syrian support group. Just how Brian Sayers, welcome to HARDtalk.

Can we start about being clear about your role? New are a hired

consultants and lobbyists. Is that right? That is right. The Syrian

support group is a collection of largely US-based to Syrian

immigrants, Ex patriots. And they are committed to finding an army

and Syrian rebels inside Syria? Specifically to the military

councils of the Free Syrian Army. Not broadly all the rebels, but yes.

Are you doing this job because it is good business for you or you

passionately believe in the cause? I do believe in the cause. I

believe that we have to do something to bring down the regime,

to help as an international community, to bring democracy

inside the bidder for mosaic of Syria. I absolutely believe in the

course. Again, it is a business move for you. You are doing it

because they are paying you good money. I am tired, ERM staff, we

can debate whether it is good or bad money, but it is definitely a

cause that is worse for Bill Ing. I can look in my mirror in the

morning and be happy. -- were fulfilling. But it is not easy what

you are doing. You are spending an awful lot of time on Capitol Hill,

in proximity to the White House, trying to persuade the people that

matter that they needed to do much more to back the Syrian opposition,

in particular, the Syrian fighters on the ground. It is heavy going,

is it not? It is a lot of discussion, negotiation, it is

bringing forth the case which we think is important, people are

sympathetic and understanding, but what is clear is they cannot always

deliver with actions. I'm not sure it is not the only thing that is

clear. Many people in Washington have grave doubts about the

coherence, the unity, the co- ordination behind the Syrian

opposition. Agreed? Absolutely. Because they are in a mess. In the

opposition is a very big umbrella. If you bring it down to a small

umbrella, there is a Free Syrian Army which is more understandable,

if you bring it down to a smaller umbrella, it is the military

councils that we deal with, which represent about 60% of the Free

Syrian Army. In general, there is an opposition that a lot of people

have a hard time understanding. They have a hard time because they

are fighting like rats in a sack, to coin a phrase. We have seen the

French President talk about France's desire to recognise a

provisional government, in the United States unnamed officials

immediately shot that down, saying that it would be premature. The

over Archer reality is that the Syrian opposition is deeply and it

internally divided. -- overarching. You draw on two different things.

There is the civilian opposition, which is going through the

transition plan, which would normally be the civilian government

in the future, then there is the military side, the Free Syrian Army.

I would not say that the two eye in the same type. The political

opposition is being challenged immensely, to try to form some type

of unified government, if you move to the military side, we do have

military councils with a decent amount of command and control. I am

not going to say it is perfect, and there are problems in the country

and other groups that are there, but there is some kind of command

and control. Let's pick through the politics and the military. The

military is what you are after, because you are after money for

weapons, to put it bluntly. And in that issued, you have to recognise

that what you are able to offer in your Syrian support group is

nothing but a drop in the ocean compared to what is being offered

from Saudi Arabia, from Qatar, other Gulf states, Turkey as well.

You are a very minor player at, aren't you? At present. We would

like to turn that around. We would like to become a more major player,

and we think that the funds, some funds from Saudi Arabia, some funds

from Qatar, would actually be best placed it through the Syrian

support group, where we would have a universal F8 in trying to help

the vetted free Syrian army that we know, the military councils. But at

present, we have small funds, and we have what I call mum and pop

funds to help out. How much have you provided so far? And we have

not delivered any funds because we are still working on the logistics.

When one of your co-founders talked about being up and running with $7

million a month being funded, he was in cuckoo land. He was

anticipating what he would like to have. We do not have a crystal ball,

but I do not think that is entirely impossible. But right now, the

grand total of money that you had sent his is zero. But that is

largely because of logistical reasons. We have to set up on

Office, an account. Are you getting good access to do it President

Obama? And you have talks with the ambassador for the US ambassador

for Syria, who was a key player in formulating strategy, or the

special envoy to the Syrian opposition? I have talked with many

government officials, but as a matter of principle, I do not

disclose with who you talk to. you talking to officials in London

about what governments in the UK, Europe and Turkey may do for you?

am talking to officials and I'm talking about a number of things,

about what we do, without there is scope for assistants, and how we

can work together. The reason I am quizzing knew about this, is that

there is a context, and the context is that clearly be US Admin, other

Western administrations, I did -- deeply worried that the dominant

influence among the fighters is coming from Islamist, Militant and

Jihad in networks, who in many ways, they appear to be a long-term

potential strategic threat to Western interests. All the more

reason to counter that with the support and eight that we can

provide, if countries can provide it, it is great. But to me, what

you are saying, is an argument for by the international community

needs to be more engaged. I am an argument for questioning the very

premise that you operate upon. If you are trying to raise money in

the West to help the Free Syrian Army, and I am telling you that all

the evidence suggests the Free Syrian Army is increasingly

dominated an employer must by Jihad D M Militant it interests, why on

earth with the West listen to you? -- jihadist and militant. And we do

not deal with the broad umbrella of the Free Syrian Army. We would be

giving to the nine military councils, with the commanders that

we know, that we had been talking to pore over a year, who had signed

a bill of principles, they have declared what they are fighting for,

and it is very important that we recognise part of the reason we

have these relations, is that we build these relationships with the

commanders on the ground. You talk about this word vetting, what on

earth demeaned that you that the military councils? -- do you mean.

We know who we are going to give money to. But you do not know what

you like -- what they are going to do with it. We do know. Some of

them will buy weapons, some of them will pay for salaries,... whose

hands were those weapons end up in? At the military council. Not the

frontiers -- the fighters on the front line. We know from human

rights organisation reports, many of the fighters on the front line

are committed jihadists. They are getting funding, the resources from

other countries are ready. They are not looking for our type of funding.

They did not care where the money comes from as long is it can buy

them a weapon. Which is why we would be imposing very strict

controls. One who would get the funding. There you are sitting in

the comfortable office in Washington. How on earth do you and

your colleagues in Washington expect to be credible when you say

that, we will impose controls on fighters on the ground in Syria?

is not in Washington. Our board of directors and members will be in

Turkey. They are in North America as I understand it. But we do have

some in Turkey. Turkey is an awful long way from Aleppo. When the

missiles are coming down and the response is coming from the Free

Syrian Army on the ground, I do not think they will be talking --

calling up Turkey. They do travel to Turkey quite a bit. But my point

is that the war is in Syria. There are people outside the country,

Syrians and their supporters to have strong views about the way the

struggle should be conducted, military or not, how it should be

organised, but there are people inside, and it looks like the

people inside are the dominant force when it comes to the

strategic direction of the opposition, and you are not in

sight. We are not physically insights but we are talking to

these guys on a daily basis. Have you been inside? I do not, because

my job is to be in Washington, it is to deal with the government

relations. But we sent the ball inside to talk to the commanders

and understand what the requirements are. -- people inside.

Has the Aleppo military commanders signed? Yes. As the chief in Aleppo,

he is responsible for the men who we saw on compelling video evidence,

lining up prisoners and shooting them in the head. You are talking

about a different group. They were FSA people inside Aleppo. There

were some FSA, yes, but it is not part of the military councils that

we are dealing with. You make it sound like it is a neat wall where

everybody has clear identification, and they only stay within the

parameters. As I understand it, it is a very complex battlefield,

conflict zone, and there are people who claim loyalty to the FSA, who

receive money and weapons from FSA sources, who frankly, when it comes

to the fight, fight by their own rules. Exactly, and they have a

different type of command and control. What is the meaning of all

this betting? Why shouldn't we support those who are fighting for

the future democratic Syria, because be., the very people who

you say are fighting for democracy, handout weapons to fight under the

banner of the FSA, a get weapons and money, and then conduct the

military operations in a way which completely contradicts your proper

And they would not receive funding from ours. You do not know that

because you do not know where the money goes once it has crossed the

border into Syria? Yes we do. thank you know I you're getting

told by people whose main interest is to get money to buy weapons.

They do not tell you exactly when they go? Nobody is going to be able

to track the end user for everything bar we have a set of

eight steps, a vetting process which requires a probation period,

it requires principles to be signed. If we find that there is any type

of contravention to the Geneva Convention, we would stop the

funding. You read the press reports, Washington Post reporting from on

the ground, very courageous reporting where a group is using

fighters, G Hardee is from Morocco, Tunisia, Lebanon, if you found that

any of your money is going to a group like that you would stop it?

We would stop it. If they had not signed up to the proclamation...

What if they had? We would stop it as well. So the proclamation is

meaningless? It is if it is not being carried out on the ground.

The Syrian government accuses many fighters at as terrorist. The

Russians say outside forces are pursuing their own agenda inside

Syria, allegedly, the US, Saudi Arabia, Qatar. Due not think the

sort of thing you're telling me today about what you want to

achieve inside Syria and the money and weapon you want to put in,

simply reinforces their argument? That series being used as a battle

ground for outside forces and influencers to meddle? As I said

before, our objective is to help the Military Council's in an

organic structure. We want to help those guys that on the ground, who

have signed this proclamation, who want a unified multi-ethnic Syria,

and we will do everything we can. We would prefer to see that we are

actually supporting the guys who were going to be a part of the

future of a democratic Syria. I have no problem funding for that.

The deer have any problem with what is happening in Aleppo. Even to

quiet Rebel fighters themselves, 70% of the city is with the regime

but most of the fighters from the rebel forces are not from a Aleppo

itself, they are from outside, many from outside the country, does that

raise moral issues about whether the citizens and civilians of a

Aleppo are being treated fair by the rebel fighters? It is

problematic. That Iran other fighters have now. What Colonel

Keating in Aleppo is trying to do is to bring those who fight and a

his command under the fold and under the proclamation that he has

signed. At the same time, let us be clear, no-one has really said that

the regime has control of a Aleppo at this point. I have no evidence

that the regime... It is carrying out hit-and-run tactics. The leper

is in a state of conflict. Absolutely. Multiply that around

the country, the death toll is now close to 20,000 or behold. I am try

to get a sense of your moral position. You are a former NATO and

US official, you have a record of being involved in the policy, is

there a conflict here about you trying to get money and weapons

into a conflict whereby there is no immediate end point. The moral

question is that if you do nothing I would have a problem sleeping at

night. The best thing to do is to get support into the hands of those

military officials that believe that they are fighting for the new

Syria. For the mosaic and multi- ethnic Syria. They want to go back

to the villages and towns, they want to the normal life at that

they have had. To say that it is better off morally acceptable to do

absolutely nothing, they gives the argument again, to the outside

forces that are providing supplies and money and weapons to those

fringe groups that have nothing to do with serious, that they're there

to fight inside Syria for a period of time. You are talking about the

jihadist forces? You are clearly worried about them? The point is,

you are on the same side? They are fighting the regime but that is

about all you have in common. that is a big point. You have ended

up getting Inst -- involved in a conflict where your key allies,...

They are not allies. Forgive me, poor when there is a battle like

there is in a leper, frankly, they are allies. -- a leper. Allies are

people who you can call on to get help. We have complete agreement in

what we're doing. We get to the same basis together. We trained

together. In this case, this is a decentralised issue. A lot of did

she Hardy's fight separately. -- a lot of that jihad us. There is so

complicated message you are giving. And give us money we can funnel

into the Free Syrian Army but particular elements and understand

that at the very same time they might be fighting alongside people

who we now are actually extremely dangerous to Syria's future -

militants. You have to trust us that the money and weapons we

finally in will not get to the bad guys on our side, there will only

get to the good guys on our side. It is not going to be a perfect

situation by we're trying to do the best we can with what we are given.

When you read that there are increasing numbers of Syrian

Christians who are fleeing the country alongside the many sore

knees, -- Sunni, and the nightmare for Christians in Syria is when the

revolution took an Islamist foes, this is not the modern country we

had. When you see in this performance and where it is going,

D have grave doubts? I would tell me that woman, there is also a

Jesuit who was kicked out of Syria and for 30 years, the regime

brutalise the people. I have nothing against the mother and her

experience but father Palo would tell you he lived under a Mafia

state and that right now is the time for the opposition for the FSA

to try and fight that mafia state and to try and bring a democratic

country for all serious. Is it really the time to fire for

outsiders to parlay in with more weapons and money for weapons. I

leave you with the quote from two of Syria's political prisoners: We

cannot accept Syria been transformed into a theatre of

regional and international conflict. You are part of that. What we're

trying to do is to bring peace, to reduce the casualties on the ground.

The last thing we want a more killings. We want stop the killing.

By taking out a Saab assets, the planes,... That cannot happen

without more active Western and US and Arab involvement? None of that

is a realistic prospect, is it morally right to continually called

for weapons and money to going when a frankly, this, but, for the

rebels is unwinnable. We have talked about weapons as a strategy

to take out Assad. It is better to take these assets to reduce the

casualties. We have always talked about helping out with field

hospitals that help Christians, Alawites, the regime, the soldier

who is captured, these are the things that we are talking about.