Please forgive me the title.
The United Kingdom Government is drafting a resolution - that by the time most read this, will already have been submitted - for intervention in Syria, following the use of chemical weapons in the country. There is still some confusion about which of the two sides in the conflict used the gas, although most evidence (according to US intelligence) points towards the culprit being the Syrian government.
So, here we are again. Standing on the precipice of yet another war in the Middle East, and not because of the standard upon which we should judge international combative measures but because of the use of a slightly different kind of bomb. I do not wish to suggest that we should not condemn the use of biological or chemical weapons, but what I will say - as a very quick point that does really deserve greater attention - is that we should not be condoning the use of even conventional weapons designed to kill large groups of people. Plenty of civilians have already died in Syria as a result of regular explosives and firepower. It is also hypocritical of any nation carrying nuclear weapons to outlaw weaponised gases, when they hold a bomb capable of inflicting far more damage and whose effects lasts a much longer period of time with very few treatment options.
Back on the main point, the question is: should we intervene in Syria? Most of the top brass in the UK, USA and even the United Nations agree that we are now beyond asking such questions now that the style of warfare has changed, but I don't agree, and here's why: we are talking about getting involved in a civil conflict. This is a war that has not yet crossed borders, and so whilst should garner the attention of the international community, should not provoke them into involvement.
If we take the chemical attack into consideration, a Reuters poll four days ago suggested that just 25% of the US population would support military intervention in Syria. In the UK, a YouGov poll placed that figure at about the same (in regards to using long-range ballistics against the country). I should point out of course, something that the mainstream media may not do, that you have to look very carefully at the wording of those polls.
Generally though, there is only a smattering of support for international involvement in the country, and I agree. The conflict in Syria - whilst it has external support from Israel/Lebanon/Iran etc. - is still largely contained within the country itself, and is a civil war. Over the course of the past year or so, NATO has been considering several options, all of which should not be entertained largely because of precedence.
Sending arms to Syrian rebels? I direct you to Afghanistan, 1987. The Mujahideen and the forerunner to Al Qaeda were very grateful.
Military intervention? Afghanistan again, 2001. And Iraq. Somalia.
Despite the apparent altruism that factors into the willingness of Western nations to get involved in a country writhing in turmoil where there are few natural resources - least of all oil - to exploit, this is not a fight that belongs to us. Syria is a political black hole, but it does not mean that we should not aim to rescue innocent stragglers within it.
If there is one thing that the international community can do, it's provide an exit for those Syrians that have no interest in being involved in the conflict. Utilising our relationship with Turkey, Cyprus and position in Iraq the United Nations Security Council should seek only to assist in the asylum of uninterested civilians, and not get anywhere near the fighting itself. There is only one circumstance where military intervention could be considered legitimate in my view, and that is if the United Nations itself was able to mobilise a force flying under its own banner to put an end to the conflict based on a declaration pertaining to human rights and violations of international law, not popular sentiment or the lobbying of interested parties (including governments).
Unfortunately, the UN does not possess such a force, and so we are in a position that whilst awkward and uncomfortable is fairly clear cut. Until such time that bombs start falling or bullets fly across international boundaries, this is a civil war and a conflict that should not be led in particular directions by external forces. Especially when neither side can claim to have the moral high-ground based on the outside support they do have: the Syrian rebels also have the regional support of Al Qaeda and Hamas.
Hmm. Slippery slope, meet pot and kettle.
The resolution:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23864124
The Reuters poll:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/25/us-syria-crisis-usa-poll-idUSBRE97O00E20130825
A YouGov poll from February:
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2012/02/08/foreign-intervention-syria/
I will warn you about the use of fuzzy flowcharts, especially ones that need updating every couple of months, but still handy:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2013/08/BSm0bOBCYAAAph6.jpg
Wednesday, 28 August 2013
Saturday, 10 August 2013
Cold in Sochi, Hot in Moscow
Who here thinks that we should boycott the Winter Olympics being held in Russia in 2014? Everyone? Huzzah!
Yes, I know my immediate reaction is to go against the tide, but how else can I possibly alienate myself and therefore feel unique?
There is a growing sentiment now around the world - felt very prominently here in the UK at the moment - that we should either ban or boycott the Winter Olympics that are due to be held in Sochi in 2014. Prolific broadcaster Stephen Fry recently got into a bit of a tiff with Prime Minister David Cameron about the issue, where Fry is essentially petitioning for the IOC to take the Olympics away from Russia to make a point to its government and specifically President Vladimir Putin. That point being:
"Dear Mr Putin, would you mind awfully leaving the lovely homosexuals alone?"
As I'm sure most are aware, Russia passed a law in June forbidding anybody from passing information about homosexuality to persons under the age of 18, showing not just a blithe disregard for the science behind "being gay" but also ignorance of the gay community in general. It makes it a lot easier to victimise a group of people if you can make outrageous claims of brainwashing and the spreading of propaganda.
In response the IOC has actually decided to take into consideration the anti-gay law in a decision making process to continue with the Sochi Olympics. CNN reported a couple of days ago that the IOC have decided not to withdraw the games from the city, based on a definitive statement by one of its members:
"I don't feel there is a problem whatsoever. Russia has their laws. Each athlete can have their own private life, so we won't call upon people about this and that. This law has to be respected. We are here for the World Championships and have no problem whatsoever and I'm not worried at all."
- Lamine Diack, IAAF President
Just for some perspective, this is what the IOC President Jacques Rogge had to say on the matter:
"The Olympic charter is clear. A sport is a human right and it should be available to all, regardless of race, sex or sexual orientation. As far as the freedom of expression is concerned, of course, this is something that is important."
Very diplomatic. It seems the IOC have managed to confirm a key factor in this whole debate that has been ultimately misconstrued: whilst it is clear that the Russian Government is homophobic, the law they have passed is not actually outlawing homosexuality, just essentially condemning it. I'm not saying that's a good thing at all, but I'm trying to build up to the next point.
Can we stop making the comparisons to Nazi Germany? Yes, Russia is starting to show the hallmarks of fascism in its early days, but I do not think Sochi 2014 can be adequately compared to Berlin 1936. For a start, the crux of the point - Jesse Owens, the African-American who won a gold medal - is ludicrous. According to Owens himself, Hitler's treatment of him at the games (who shook his hand when he won) paled in comparison to the treatment he received from his own government when he returned home an Olympian. Those that are saying that we should hope a gay athlete wins an event to illustrate a point to Mr Putin based on this argument are wallies: the Berlin Games, and Owens' win, took place in 1936. Three years later World War II and the subsequent, unrelenting extermination of anybody who wasn't white, hetero or Christian began. I don't think Jesse Owens had much of an impact on Mr Hitler.
If we as a human race outside of Russia can act in unison, then we essentially have three options. Accept the Sochi Olympics and get in the scrum for tickets; boycott the games and let down the teams sent there to compete; or take the games away from Russia and have them somewhere else.
I don't agree with Number 2, for hopefully obvious reasons, and I think there's been some miscommunication where the media are reporting "have-the-games-elsewhere" and "boycott" as the same thing. They're not the same thing. Boycott the games and you ignore their existence, potentially endangering the gay athletes sent there due to the lack of interested media coverage. Move them somewhere else is the line I would be on.
Unfortunately, even this option seems out of the question now, and I do fear that the IOC are pressing ahead not because of assurances from the Kremlin but because it's now too late. Whilst it would be nice to move the Olympics to some other country that could really use it and aren't stomping on human rights (although, good luck finding that country) it's probably not feasible at such a late stage.
As an aside, something that riled me about Russia recently as well was US President Obama's snubbing of a visit to the Kremlin. Not because of a law passed by the Duma essentially damning human rights...
But because of the asylum of a man who sought to utilise his.
Yes, I know my immediate reaction is to go against the tide, but how else can I possibly alienate myself and therefore feel unique?
There is a growing sentiment now around the world - felt very prominently here in the UK at the moment - that we should either ban or boycott the Winter Olympics that are due to be held in Sochi in 2014. Prolific broadcaster Stephen Fry recently got into a bit of a tiff with Prime Minister David Cameron about the issue, where Fry is essentially petitioning for the IOC to take the Olympics away from Russia to make a point to its government and specifically President Vladimir Putin. That point being:
"Dear Mr Putin, would you mind awfully leaving the lovely homosexuals alone?"
As I'm sure most are aware, Russia passed a law in June forbidding anybody from passing information about homosexuality to persons under the age of 18, showing not just a blithe disregard for the science behind "being gay" but also ignorance of the gay community in general. It makes it a lot easier to victimise a group of people if you can make outrageous claims of brainwashing and the spreading of propaganda.
In response the IOC has actually decided to take into consideration the anti-gay law in a decision making process to continue with the Sochi Olympics. CNN reported a couple of days ago that the IOC have decided not to withdraw the games from the city, based on a definitive statement by one of its members:
"I don't feel there is a problem whatsoever. Russia has their laws. Each athlete can have their own private life, so we won't call upon people about this and that. This law has to be respected. We are here for the World Championships and have no problem whatsoever and I'm not worried at all."
- Lamine Diack, IAAF President
Just for some perspective, this is what the IOC President Jacques Rogge had to say on the matter:
"The Olympic charter is clear. A sport is a human right and it should be available to all, regardless of race, sex or sexual orientation. As far as the freedom of expression is concerned, of course, this is something that is important."
Very diplomatic. It seems the IOC have managed to confirm a key factor in this whole debate that has been ultimately misconstrued: whilst it is clear that the Russian Government is homophobic, the law they have passed is not actually outlawing homosexuality, just essentially condemning it. I'm not saying that's a good thing at all, but I'm trying to build up to the next point.
Can we stop making the comparisons to Nazi Germany? Yes, Russia is starting to show the hallmarks of fascism in its early days, but I do not think Sochi 2014 can be adequately compared to Berlin 1936. For a start, the crux of the point - Jesse Owens, the African-American who won a gold medal - is ludicrous. According to Owens himself, Hitler's treatment of him at the games (who shook his hand when he won) paled in comparison to the treatment he received from his own government when he returned home an Olympian. Those that are saying that we should hope a gay athlete wins an event to illustrate a point to Mr Putin based on this argument are wallies: the Berlin Games, and Owens' win, took place in 1936. Three years later World War II and the subsequent, unrelenting extermination of anybody who wasn't white, hetero or Christian began. I don't think Jesse Owens had much of an impact on Mr Hitler.
If we as a human race outside of Russia can act in unison, then we essentially have three options. Accept the Sochi Olympics and get in the scrum for tickets; boycott the games and let down the teams sent there to compete; or take the games away from Russia and have them somewhere else.
I don't agree with Number 2, for hopefully obvious reasons, and I think there's been some miscommunication where the media are reporting "have-the-games-elsewhere" and "boycott" as the same thing. They're not the same thing. Boycott the games and you ignore their existence, potentially endangering the gay athletes sent there due to the lack of interested media coverage. Move them somewhere else is the line I would be on.
Unfortunately, even this option seems out of the question now, and I do fear that the IOC are pressing ahead not because of assurances from the Kremlin but because it's now too late. Whilst it would be nice to move the Olympics to some other country that could really use it and aren't stomping on human rights (although, good luck finding that country) it's probably not feasible at such a late stage.
As an aside, something that riled me about Russia recently as well was US President Obama's snubbing of a visit to the Kremlin. Not because of a law passed by the Duma essentially damning human rights...
But because of the asylum of a man who sought to utilise his.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)