Quandary over Syria
On Saturday, the Arab League produced its strongest yet statement on the issue, calling upon the international community and the United Nations to “take necessary deterrent measures” against the Syrian regime in accordance with international law. However, the call stops short of firmly backing proposed US-led strikes due to objections from Egypt, Algeria, Lebanon, Iraq and Tunisia.
The League’s statement does provide a modicum of grist to the Obama administration’s mill to launch limited strikes of short duration on the regime’s military and command-and-control targets. It does imply that Arab states are on board, in principle. But international law is hazy when it comes to non-defensive strikes on a sovereign territory. Syria’s alleged use of chemical weapons, some legal experts say, breaches the Chemical Weapons Convention, but does that apply when Syria isn’t a signatory?
Moreover, a United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution, under Chapter 7, is out of reach as long as Russia and China wield their vetoes. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon has asked for peace to be given a chance and has “underscored” the UN Charter prohibiting strikes without a green light from the UNSC.
Britain’s David Cameron, arguably the most gung-ho European leader, was supremely confident of parliamentary backing when he recalled MPs from their summer break to vote in an emergency session of the House of Commons. From his perspective, it was inconceivable that Parliament would let down the UK’s closest friend across the pond. In the event, he badly misjudged the mood of the country shrouded with the ghost of Iraq (only one-in-four Britons support the UK’s involvement), as well as that of lawmakers in his own Conservative Party; at least 30 voted against, abstained or failed to show up.
Cameron was visibly reeling from the result but conceded to parliamentary authority and promised not to use the Royal prerogative that provides prime ministers sole discretion on whether or not to take the nation to war. Several British dailies published articles saying R.I.P. to the so-called UK-US special relationship. And, while President Obama said he understood, John Kerry’s speech, delivered the next day, in which he saluted supportive US allies, had a glaring omission. The UK didn’t merit a mention. Guardian and Telegraph readers joked that Britons would now be written-off as ‘fish ‘n’ chips-eating surrender bunnies, a hark-back to America’s backlash against the French who argued strongly against the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq.
Europe is equally split. Germany, Austria, Spain and Italy are taking a back seat, unlike the French President Francois Hollande who is convinced of the need to punish Bashar Assad and has pledged to join forces with President Obama as soon as he is in a position to give the go-ahead. President Hollande’s resolve was somewhat dampened by the ‘no’ vote across the Channel and, although, as president, he is not required to place the case before the French parliament, he has now chosen to do so armed with a four-page document evidencing Assad’s culpability, he says.
Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has his own reasons for not backing the White House. “A limited military action will not satisfy us,” he is quoted as saying. He is clamoring for regime change achieved by a Kosovo-style intervention spearheaded by NATO. On this occasion, NATO cannot be part of the equation unless its member countries are in agreement and, ideally, the operation is rubber-stamped by the UNSC.
If anyone was taken aback by Britain’s unexpected U-turn, nobody expected the dramatic, last-minute decision made by President Obama to seek Congressional approval, coming just hours or days before a much anticipated US military response that galvanized Syrians to stock-up on essentials or choose the moment to take vacations in Beirut — and Israelis to queue for gas masks.
Kerry has since emphasized the Commander-in-Chief’s authority to override Congress, but if he were to do so, the electorate would not be amused. Polls show that the majority of Americans are wary of getting embroiled in yet another Middle East war and an even greater majority is against military action without the blessing of the Congress, an absolute must, enshrined in the US Constitution. There are, however, precedents for American leaders taking unilateral action — Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Serbia and Bosnia. In this instance, it seems President Obama’s shoulders were not sufficiently broad to carry sole responsibility for the consequences of military intervention in Syria without a coalition of like-minded states, which is why he is asking Congress to share the burden.
Congress is currently in recess. Lawmakers will return on Sept. 9 to engage in debate. Kerry is certain that Congress will rally in favor of the president’s arguments. Others, like Rep. Peter King, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, is less certain. “I think it is going to be difficult,” he told Fox News, adding, there is an “isolationist” tendency among Republicans. Democrats are not united either. Kerry is pulling out all stops to convince the nation laying out the administration’s case on popular talk shows and lobbying members of Congress behind closed doors.
On the opposing side of this heated international debate is President Vladimir Putin who has rubbished assertions of Assad’s chemical weapons use as “utter nonsense” and has positioned a warship and a submarine in the eastern Mediterranean. Syria’s long time ally Iran has been sending mixed messages that indicate Tehran might be reluctant to take on US military might. Likewise, Hezbollah has announced that its involvement will depend on the extent of the US force.
In the meantime, Syrian regime officials and media are enjoying a laugh at President Obama’s expense. But with the US president’s credibility at stake, and when inaction would undermine America’s self-ascribed world policing role, the last laugh is unlikely to be theirs.
Punishing Assad would have deterrent value and might weaken the regime to allow for a more even playing field between regime forces and opposition fighters. But ultimately, conflicts are ended by negotiation and compromise. As Bertrand Russell rightly said: “War does not determine who is right —only who is left.” When the missiles stop, all eyes should be on Geneva 2.
[email protected]
Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect Arab News' point of view
