STRIKING
SYRIA: ILLEGAL, IMMORAL, AND DANGEROUS
Whatever Congress may decide, a US military strike
against Syria would be a reckless and counterproductive move.
By Phyllis Bennis: is a Fellow of the Institute for Policy
Studies and of the Transnational Institute in Amsterdam. Last Modified: 02 Sep 2013
All
of that led to the drive towards war slowing a bit. But it didn't stop. And
that's a problem. Because whatever Congress may decide, a US military strike
against Syria will still be illegal, immoral and dangerous, even reckless in
the region and around the world. Congress needs to say no.
ILLEGAL
However
frustrated US presidents may be with the UN Security Council's occasional
refusal to give in to their pressure, the law is clear. The United Nations
Charter, the fundamental core of international law, may be vague about a lot of
things. But it is unequivocal about when military force is legal, and when it
isn't. Only two things make an act of war legal: immediate self-defense, which
clearly is not the case for the US The horrific reality of chemical weapons
devastated Syrian, not American lives. This is not self-defense. The other is
if the Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, authorises
the use of force in response to a threat to international peace and security.
That's the authorisation President Obama knows he cannot get - certainly Russia
and China would veto, but right now a British veto would certainly be a
possibility if Cameron wanted to respond to his public. And it's not at all
clear a US resolution to use force would even get the nine necessary votes of
the 15 Council members. The US is thoroughly isolated internationally.
The
problem for President Obama is he still is determined to use military force, despite
the requirements of international law. He says he doesn't need that authority -
that maybe he'll use the 1999 Kosovo precedent to "go around" the
Security Council. The problem, of course, is that the 1999 US-NATO assault on
Serbia and Kosovo was illegal - faced with a sure Russian veto, Bill Clinton
simply announced he would not ask for Council permission. Instead, he would get
permission from the NATO high command. But aside from the hammer-and-nail
problem (if you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail; if you're NATO
military leaders looking for re-legitimation, everything looks like it needs a
military solution), nothing in international law allows NATO to substitute for
the Security Council. The Charter was specifically designed to make it difficult
to get authorisation for military force - its whole raison d'etre is to stand against
the scourge of war. So any new decision to go to use military force without
Council authority means that use of force is illegal.
Right now,
in Syria, that means that members of Congress have the chance to prevent
another illegal US war. If Congress should approve it, likely for political or
partisan reasons that have nothing to do with Syria, their vote would mean
direct complicity in an illegal and immoral war.
IMMORAL
Pentagon
officials have confirmed what logic tells us all: every use of military force
threatens civilian lives. More than 100,000 Syrians have been killed in this
civil war so far, and hundreds more were killed in what appears to be
(remember, we still don't know for sure) a chemical strike last week - US
cruise missile strikes won't bring any of them back, and more important, won't
protect any Syrian civilians from further threat. To the contrary, low-ranking
conscript troops and civilians are almost certain to be injured or killed.
Reports out of Syria indicate military offices and more being moved into
populated areas - that shouldn't come as a surprise given the nature of the
Syrian regime. But the knowledge makes those contemplating military force even
more culpable.
DANGEROUS
A US
military strike on Syria will increase levels of violence and instability
inside the country, in the region, and around the world. Inside Syria, aside
from immediate casualties and damage to the already shattered country, reports
are already coming in of thousands of Syrian refugees returning from Lebanon to
"stand with their government" when the country is under attack. It
could lead to greater support to the brutal regime in Damascus. In Kosovo, more
Kosovars were forcibly expelled from their homes by the Serbian regime after
the NATO bombing began than had happened before it started; Syrian civilians
could face similar retaliation from the government.
A US
strike will do nothing to strengthen the secular armed opposition, still
largely based in Turkey and Jordan, let alone the heroic but weakened original
non-violent democratic opposition forces who have consistently opposed
militarization of their struggle and outside military intervention. Those who
gain will be the most extreme Islamist forces within the opposition,
particularly those such as the Jubhat al-Nusra which are closest to al-Qaeda.
They have long seen the US presence in the region as a key recruitment tool and
a great local target.
There is
also the danger of escalation between the US and Russia, already at odds in one
of the five wars currently underway in Syria. So far that has been limited to a
war of words between Washington and Moscow, but with the G-20 meeting scheduled
for next week in St Petersburg, President Putin may feel compelled to push back
more directly, perhaps with new economic or other measures.
Crucially,
a military strike without United Nations authorisation undermines the urgent
need for serious, tough diplomacy to end the Syrian war. The US just cancelled
a meeting with Russia to talk about negotiations; a couple of months ago,
Russia cancelled one. They both must be pushed to meet urgently to arrange and
implement an immediate ceasefire and an arms embargo on all sides in Syria.
And finally,
what happens the day after? If Syria retaliates against a US missile strike -
with an attack on a US warship, or a US base in a neighbouring country, or on
US troops in the region, or against Israel ... do we really think the US will
simply stand back and say "no, this was just a one-time surgical strike,
we won't respond"? What happens when that inevitable response pushes the
US closer towards direct full-scale involvement in the Syrian civil war?
The word
to Congress now must be - you got the vote. That's important, because now you
can use that vote to say NO to military action.
WHAT
SHOULD THE US DO?
First
thing, stop this false dichotomy of it's either military force or nothing. The
use of chemical weapons is a war crime, it is indeed what Secretary Kerry
called a "moral obscenity". Whoever used such a weapon should be held
accountable. So what do we do about it?
- First, do no harm. Don't kill more people in the name of enforcing an international norm.
- Recognise that international law requires international enforcement; no one country, not even the most powerful, has the right to act as unilateral cop. Move to support international jurisdiction and enforcement, including calling for a second UN investigation to follow-up the current weapons inspection team, this one to determine who was responsible for the attack.
- Recommend that whoever is found responsible be brought to justice in The Hague at the International Criminal Court, understanding that timing of such indictments might require adjustment to take into account ceasefire negotiations in Syria.
- President Obama can distinguish himself powerfully from his unilateralist predecessor by announcing an immediate campaign not only to get the Senate to ratify the International Criminal Court, but to strengthen the Court and provide it with serious global enforcement capacity.
- Move urgently towards a ceasefire and arms embargo in Syria. Russia must stop, and must push Iran to stop arming and funding the Syrian regime. The US must stop, and must push Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Jordan and others to stop arming and funding the opposition, including the extremist elements. That won't be easy - for Washington it may require telling the Saudis and Qataris that if they don't stop, we will cancel all existing weapons contracts with those countries. (As my colleague David Wildman has said, why don't we demand that the Pentagon deal with arms producers the way the Department of Agriculture deals with farmers - pay them not to produce weapons? And then the money can be used to retool their factories to produce solar panels instead of Tomahawk missiles, and the workers stay on the job….)
- Stand against further escalation of the Syrian civil war by voting no on any authorisation for US military strikes.
==============
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario