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
No comments:
Post a Comment