![]() |
UNSC |
Answering a reporter’s
question if bombing Syria is needed in order to preserve his credibility since
he was the one who set a red line, President Obama replied: “First of all, I
didn't set a red line. The world set a red line. The world set a red line when
governments representing 98 percent of the world's population said the use of
chemical weapons are abhorrent and passed a treaty forbidding their use even when
countries are engaged in war. Congress set a red line when it ratified that
treaty..."
It is true that
international law and treaties have prohibited the use of certain weapons
nearly a century ago. But UN Charter, the backbone of international law, also
had established the proper response to any breach of these treaties. Outside
the doctrine of self-defense from an imminent threat, no nation should attack another UN member state without authorization of the UN Security Council (UNSC).
If nations were to act unilaterally, would U.S. leaders ratify a treaty that
would allow, say the Soviet Union or China, to bomb the U.S. for actually using
illegal weapons in Vietnam and other places?
The credibility of the President
and that of the United States government will be further eroded if the President
stubbornly rushes to war without UNSC resolution or making the case for
self-defense. Attacking Syria under any other pretext will add to the image of
the U.S. as being a bully who acts above the law and for suspect reasons. The
UNSC could not act without evidence and part of that evidence was being
collected by UN Inspectors who were in Damascus when the chemical attacks took
place. Curiously, however, President Obama wanted to attack Syria (some
expected an attack on Thursday) when UN Inspectors had just arrived to the
scene.
Administration officials
will point out that they sought UNSC approval but China and Russia were not
supportive. The Chinese and the Russian leaders have argued that military action
can be taken only when credible evidence of use of chemical weapons is
presented. Russia’s president went further declaring that his country would
support military action against any party in Syria should evidence be presented
to the UNSC. That position seems more credible and logical than that of someone
wanting to act first and ask questions later.
The Administration
justified its desire to unilaterally attack Syria by arguing that (1) Russia
and China are preventing the UNSC from acting, (2) the U.S. has enough evidence
to prove that Assad and only Assad could and have used chemical weapons, (3)
the killing of civilians near Damascus is too obscene to ignore, (4) only the
regime has the capability to deploy chemical weapons, and (5) military action
is the only way to force Assad to come to the negotiating table.
These are utterly weak arguments
and grossly inaccurate statements.
First, Russia and China
said that they did not see any credible evidence that identify the perpetrators
and that they have evidence of their own that the Syrian opposition groups possessed chemical weapons and have used them in the past. In fact, allegations
of use of chemical weapons in at least three other places were the reason for
sending the UN Inspectors to Syria in the first place.
Second, there is always
room for additional evidence to convince responsible members of the UNSC to
authorize an extraordinary act, such as attacking a sovereign nation. Moreover,
if the UNSC veto system is what is preventing the UNSC to act responsibly, the
U.S. should join other nations that are calling for reform. But to complain,
now, about the use and abuse of the veto when the U.S. has used and abused it
more than the other four nations combined is indeed hypocritical and that is
what erodes the President’s credibility and that of the nation’s.
Third, the slaughter of
Syrians became obscene when the peaceful uprising was militarized and when
Qatar and Saudi Arabia provided dangerous weapons to fighters with sectarian
agenda, not today. Administration officials are quick to cite that 100,000
Syrians were killed. But what they will not cite is that 56,000 of 100,000 were
killed by the rebels. In fact, 41,000 of the victims are Alawites—Assad’s sect.
This disproportional killing of minorities is what sustains the regime: many
Syrians belonging to Alawite, Druze, Shi`i, and Christian minorities think
that Assad is the only man standing between them and a Taliban-like regime. Just
Thursday, al-Qaeda affiliates took over a Christian town forcing frightened residents to flee;
a mass slaughter is expected unless government forces retake the town soon.
Recently, al-Nusra fighters have attacked Kurdish towns, forcing many residents to
seek shelter in Northern Iraq. The Syrian regime could have collapsed during
the first three months if the world community provided a credible alternative
that will protect minorities from al-Qaeda affiliates and their sponsors.
Fourth, it is not an
established fact that only the regime has the capability to deploy chemical
weapons. That conclusion is not based on hard evidence; it is based on
deductive and inductive reasoning. Be that as it may, it is reasonable to
believe otherwise. Briefing leaders from the Friends of Syria group, the leader
of the Free Syrian Army stated that he commands more than 80,000 disciplined
troops who were members of Syrian armed forces and defected. With that being
the case, is it inconceivable that some of the officers who defected know where
some of the chemical weapons are and how to deploy them? Given the level of
cooperation between the rebels, is it inconceivable that such information and
knowledge was passed to extremist groups? Given the determination of Qatar and
Saudi Arabia to overthrow the regime at any cost, is it inconceivable that such
regimes provided crude chemicals that could be weaponized to rebels? Rebels have overrun many military installations in the past, is it inconceivable that they found some
chemical weapons at those sites? Indeed, the brutality of the regime as
described by its opponents is matched only by the cruelty of some rebel groups
as described by the videos and statements they themselves have released. To
romanticize the rebels and deaminize the government is destructive political bias or
willful ignorance.
Fifth, the idea that the
Syrian regime needs to be convinced by an act of war to attend political talks
is factually untrue. It is the so-called National Coalition of Syrian Revolution and Opposition Forces that refused to attend the proposed talks known as Geneva-2, not the regime. The U.S. administration is in fact incapable
of convincing the opposition groups to attend Geneva-2 because Saudi Arabia,
Qatar, and Turkey are opposed to a political settlement.
Lastly, the
Administration (see Kerry’s statements to Congress) is twisting the fact to
support its case for war when it quantified the rebels by stating that
“moderates” are stronger than “extremists.” One does not need classified
intelligence these days to know that that is not true. Still, the CIA, foreign
intelligence communities, and NGOs have all concluded that al-Qaeda-like rebelsare stronger and better equipped than fighters of the Free Syrian Army, the
so-called moderate opposition.
For any nation, the only
way to start a war against another country without UNSC authorization is in
self-defense. The President needs to make the case that the Syrian government
is an imminent threat to United States’ national security. He needs to make
that case to the American public and Congress. The credibility of the UNSC is
in acting within the framework set for it by its member states. Starting a war
unilaterally will weaken the only international regime that strives to maintain
world peace and security. The President ought to think about the long term
effects of his rush to war. After all, public opposition (under 29% support the attack provided that there are evidence that Assad used CW against civilians) to his desire to act in Syria was due, in part, to another U.S.
president’s rush to start another illegal war in Iraq. He ought to stop the
cycle not perpetuate it.
____________
* Prof. SOUAIAIA teaches at the University of Iowa. Opinions
are the author’s, speaking on matters of public interest; not speaking for the
university or any other organization with which he is affiliated.
No comments:
Write commentsShare your thoughts...