Where was the world when the first 100,000 Syrians were killed? Where was the efforts for intervention when the first 2 million civilians, men, women, children and elderly fled from a conflict that didn’t care for collateral damage?
It’s nonsense that the western democracies have suddenly decided that the government of Al-Assad has allegedly crossed this “Red Line” and it’s in the world’s best interest to intervene now. If we are going to get pedantic about the moral correctness of using conventional weapons over chemical weapons, I just want to point out a few thing that have been overlooked:
Firstly, Syria is not a member of the Chemical Weapons Convention, it hasn’t signed or ratified the convention at all. Secondly, as the chemicals were used within Syria’s borders, they haven’t technically broken the Geneva Protocol either. As far as international legitimacy goes, the Syrian government is working more in the boundaries of international laws than America will be if they do intervene. The UN and a few of the UN Security Council member’s have warned the US on several occasions that an attack on the Syrian government without the Security Council’s permission would be against the UN Charter and so deemed illegal within international legitimacy laws.
There is definitely more going on than what is put across by the media or the governments involved. The evidence that the US and now France supposedly has hasn’t fully been explained. At the press conference address on Syrian intervention on the 31st of August Obama stated, “the United States presented a powerful case that the Syrian government were responsible on its own people” and detailed the statistics of the chemical weapons attack, but no evidence was explained or even acknowledged. It would be quite stupid if Al-Assad knowingly ordered or let his military use chemical weapons when his side was winning and especially when the world’s eyes were on Syria already. But there is no understanding what a dictatorship that doesn’t care for civilian lives is capable of, therefore one can’t completely rule out the possibility of the regime’s hand in the chemical weapons use either.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry makes a statement about Syria to reporters following his meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in U.S. Image credit: U.S. Department of State
What is most worrying of all is the change of mind by the US President; it seems to suggest that there are dark forces at play. Not only did Obama change his mind, so did John Kerry and Chuck Hagel, not to mention many others, all now wanting to punish Al-Assad for using chemical weapons to kill 1,400 people out of the 100,000 plus deaths (just under 1.4% of the total deaths). The hypocrisy of the supercilious stance America is taking on this chemical warfare based redline approach is embarrassing almost. The herbicide Agent Orange, not technically classed as a chemical weapon, used on the Vietnamese in the 1960s-70s still causes problems currently with an estimated 1 million Vietnamese born or developing disabilities and problems directly linked to Agent Orange. Not to mention the use of Napalm during the Iran-Iraq wars in 1998; the accounts of alleged White Phosphorus use in the Second Battle of Fallujah in 2005, as reported by the BBC news and in 2008 in the Gaza war, where the Israel military admitted to the use of White Phosphorus shells that exploded in densely populated areas of Gaza, and I could still go on.
This isn’t about the use of chemical weapons. This “Red Line” term, and the mention of Obama’s “credibility” echoes the Netanyahu UN speech on Iran’s nuclear program in which he had said “Red lines don’t lead to war; red lines prevent war”. If the American threat for military intervention isn’t a blatant warning to Iran, I don’t know what is.
The plans of this intervention, if peace talks are to fail, or the type of weapons that will be used of course have not been disclosed yet. If the target is the Sarin or the any chemical weapon stockpiles that were used on the civilians, then the air strike that is being planned can be disastrous as experts say any type of nerve gas has to be disposed of properly in high temperatures and with controls in place to prevent the gas from escaping, bombing them would cause a complete catastrophe, especially if reports are right about the chemical weapons being moved to more densely civilian areas. If the aim is to just to punish Al-Assad’s government for chemical weapon use, will they just get rid of the military capabilities Al-Assad can use, which would be completely contradictory, as they evidently don’t have an issue with the killing of civilians by conventional weapons. Or will they overthrow the regime completely, and then what happens to the country? Turkey seems to be the only nation trying to help the unify the Syrian opposition, to try and form a common belief or goal in order to prevent a more vicious factional fighting between the thousands of groups currently forming the opposition coalition against Al-Assad’s government.
FSA rebels cleaning their AK47s in Aleppo, Syria during the civil war (19 October 2012). Image credit: VOA News; Scott Bobb reporting from Aleppo, Syria
WHAT ABOUT THE PEOPLE!
Every-time I hear, read or watch an article or debate on military intervention in Syria I can’t help crying out “What about the Syrian people!”
The thing we can be certain about is that the losers of this conflict and any military intervention will be the further millions or overlooked refugees that will have to flee from the added danger of US, or allied air-strikes, as well as the already existing anti-regime fighting. A term that has been tossed around is that the intervention will be a way to “tell Syria not to kill civilians with Chemical Weapons but kill civilians legally”. It’s absolutely correct, as depressing as it is. In any of Obama’s, John Kerry’s or McCain’s addresses on Syria, there hasn’t been anything about a contingency plan or any plan to protect the civilians who are caught in the crossfire.
If the current peace talks fail the US has stated that it will pursue military intervention, meaning there would be no solution to the conflict in Syria. The UNHRC have said they have less than 50% of the funds required to support the influx of refugees and the UN refugee agency with the governments of Iraq, Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon, meeting on the 4th of September, have pleaded for countries to find “A political solution to end this cycle of horror” said UN High Commissioner for Refugees António Guterres in an agreed statement between the countries. Turkey’s Minister of Foreign Affair, Ahmet Davutoğlu added, “Today, we decided to have a joint working team and an action plan on how to create this global awareness”.
High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay, HRC President Laura Dupuy Lasserre and members of the HRC / OHCHR secretariat at the opening of the Human Rights Council urgent debate on Syria. Image credit: United States Mission Geneva
Any military intervention will cause an extensive increase in the exodus of Syrian people from Syria. There is a whole generation who have lived for the most part of the last two years without the simple comforts a child should be given. Starvation due to lack of funds and no opportunity to work is a serious problem, amongst depression and long-term mental problem, especially in women and children, caused by the traumatic events they have been through. Increasingly, there are reports of abuse and exploitation, and as the Syrian refugee count grows, so to does the opportunity for all forms of exploitation. Rape is the most common threat for refugees, and although the UNHRC take steps to prevent this, not all refugees are declared and stay in UNHCR refugee camps. The stigma around sexual abuse prevents the victims from seeking any help, even in UN camps. Most of these girls are 13 and 18 years of age, still children. Syrian refugees, as with all displaced people, are at high risk of suicide.
It’s a simple choice, spend the money that would have been used for any military intervention on protecting, clothing, feeding and educating the refugees instead, or if it’s only chemical weapons that are the problem, give the civilians chemical weapon protection. Don’t kill more people and bomb their country and their homes. These “dissidents” are innocent people, men, women, and children. Don’t curb their rights to live as human beings; treat them like human beings. Don’t let children and women be violated. That is my red line for humanity.
Further reading: http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/03/zakaria-syria-regime-change-wont-end-civil-war/comment-page-1/
About the Author
