People against war: Supporters of the anti-war group Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (ANSWER) Coalition participate in a rally in Washington DC, in opposition to a possible US military strike in Syria. – EPA
For nearly all countries including the US, a military attack on Syria will only make things worse.
TEN years after US President George W. Bush attacked Iraq, his successor Barack Obama is set to do it with Syria.
A secular Muslim autocrat in West Asia, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein,
was accused of possessing weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) so he
“had” to be removed. Back then, Senator Obama had accused Bush of an
unjustifiable and unnecessary war based on a flimsy pretext.
Now a
secular Muslim autocrat in West Asia, Syrian President Bashar Assad,
stands accused of using chemical WMDs. No evidence against Bashar had
been presented before Washington’s decision to punish Syria.
Obama’s supporters may say it is a little different this time – just a
little, though not much. Saddam’s case involved accusations of WMD
possession, while Bashar’s involves accusations of actual use.
But what real difference is there once the bombs begin to drop? The
arguments and circumstantial “evidence” so far are insufficient to
support even a misdemeanour in a civil court, let alone a serious action
such as war.
Just as the so-called evidence against Saddam’s Iraq was false, the same may be said of the case against Syria so far.
At a time when the US needed to convince the international community to
support action against Syria, no evidence against Bashar had been
offered. It nonetheless seemed sufficient to get Washington on the
warpath again.
The White House says there is no doubt that Syria
had used chemical weapons, but doubts persist. The Syrian government
insists it did no such thing.
The issue concerns allegations of
chemical weapons use in an area controlled by rebel forces just outside
Damascus on August 21. The result – about 1400 civilian deaths.
Critics of military action ask why Syria had agreed to a UN arms
inspection if it had just used banned chemical weapons, why it should
target civilians including children who were not against it, and why it
should do so knowing the likely international consequences. They also
question the reliability of the evidence linking the incidents to the
Syrian government, and the credibility of the source of the alleged
evidence itself.
At the same time, motives also exist for
falsifying evidence to blame Syria, so that US military action would
weaken or dislodge Bashar. The beneficiaries are within and outside
Syria.
The strongest “evidence” against Damascus comes from
Israel, specifically Unit 8200 of the Israeli Defense Forces that
supposedly intercepted the Syrian military’s electronic communications.
According to Prof. John Schindler at the US Naval War College, Israel
then fed this information to Washington and London for follow-up action
against Syria.
Bashar’s Syria is the latest Muslim country in
West Asia to be undermined by Israel, following Iraq, Libya and Egypt.
In quietly promoting Western military action against these countries,
Israel need not spend a single dollar or risk a single soldier’s life.
Western countries inclined to military action often find they have to
depend on Israel. They lack the kind of intelligence information on the
ground that Israel has, regardless of whether that information is
trustworthy.
This also happens to benefit various militant groups
hoping to seize power after Bashar – up to a point. Israel expects them
to disagree among themselves and neutralise one another as Syria
disintegrates, leaving the door open to Israeli interests.
In a
US poll on Friday, 52% of respondents believe that once Bashar falls,
Syria would be split. Over the medium and long terms, Israel would be
the only beneficiary of another dismembered Muslim nation.
Within
Syria, the considerable but still limited military strength of the
various opposition groups has meant an armed stalemate while Bashar
remains in office. The only factor likely to make a difference is
Western military intervention, if that could be “arranged”.
On
Thursday, an Associated Press news report said Washington remained
uncertain where Syria stored its chemical weapons. US intelligence
officials acknowledged that proof of Syria’s use of these weapons was
still unclear, and that they were even less certain of Bashar’s guilt
than they were of Saddam’s.
On the same day, a report released by
the British government revealed that London did not understand why the
Syrian government would want to use chemical weapons as alleged. Yet
Britain was prepared to support the US position that Syria was guilty,
nonetheless.
Meanwhile, the overwhelming majority of
international opinion is set against military action. This includes the
general populations in Britain and the US.
The US Congress is
divided on the issue and insists that its prior approval is needed,
while the British Parliament on Thursday voted to oppose military
action. But US officials have said none of this would change their
plans.
Russia says no evidence exists of chemical weapons use,
much less to link the Syrian government to such use. China says the UN
Security Council should not be pressured on deadlines to approve any
action before UN inspections are complete.
UN Secretary-General
Ban Ki-moon appealed for calm and for enough time for UN weapons
inspectors in Syria to complete their job. Their mission ends this
weekend.
Former chief UN arms inspector Hans Blix, in a similar
situation a decade ago when the US had already decided to attack Iraq,
now questions the right of any country to attack Syria even if it had
actually used chemical weapons.
Despite the international ban on
chemical weapons, no international law obligates any power to attack a
country for the use of WMDs. The US itself is not restrained against its
first use of nuclear WMDs.
The official US line is that
“punishing” Syria is not intended to topple Bashar. In the heat of
hostilities, however, nobody can guarantee there would be no regime
change, especially when US forces meet with resistance and risk
international embarrassment for not achieving anything substantial.
The US case for an attack also claims the “immorality” of Syria’s
alleged chemical weapons use. But the moral argument is defeated when an
attack could result in more civilian deaths and suffering than the
supposed use of chemical weapons.
The International Committee of
the Red Cross has warned that any action that escalates the Syrian
conflict would only result in more civilian suffering. Unesco said the
looting of Syria’s rich cultural heritage had already begun.
White House spokesman Jay Carney insisted that logically, there was no
doubt about the Syrian government’s guilt. But logic remains the biggest
impediment to the US argument.
Attacking another country can be
legitimate only in a case of self-defence or when approved by the UN
Security Council. The latter requires endorsement by all the UNSC’s
Permanent Five members.
A US attack cannot cite self-defence
because Syria did not attack the US. Neither will there be UNSC
approval, since Russia and China are likely to vote against.
Nonetheless, the US proceeded to attack Iraq in 2003 even after China
abstained. Obama may now outdo Bush by attacking Syria when both Russia
and China object.
US bombs may also hit chemical weapons
stockpiles, releasing poison gas and killing many more people. But then
only Syrians would be affected.
Obama’s standing in the Muslim
world has declined considerably since its height with his 2009 Cairo
speech. Where actions speak louder than words, that decline is also
happening in the developing world in general.
BUNN NAGARA is a Senior Fellow at the Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) Malaysia
it is very knowledgeable content about development.
ReplyDeleteThanks friend
Wholesale Army Navy