The G 20 meeting in St Petersburg has further exposed and
deepened international divisions on Syria. President Barack Obama believes that
the Syrian government is responsible for last month’s chemical weapon attack in
Damascus, whereas as the Russian President is convinced that the rebels staged
this attack to discredit the Syrian government.
Today, chemical weapons use
by any government would be considered unpardonable because of the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention(CWC) that outlaws their
production and use and enjoins destruction of exisiting stocks. That Syria is
not a signatory shields it technically from an infringment, but, given the
evolution of international humanitarian law, a pre-meditated use of such
weapons by a state even within its own territory would not be internationally
tolerated.
Which is why the facts on
the ground must first be established impartially in the Syrian case. Only then
can a consensus be built on steps to punish and deter those responsible. Only
on-site inspection by a UN team and its report can provide an objective basis
to proceed.
Unilateral
America’s Syria policy, as
well as those of its close allies, has been one-sided from the start. They have
sought a regime change in Syria by providing the rebels with funds and arms.
They have made public statements repeatedly that President Assad’s days are
numbered. Syrian opposition leaders have been officially received and given
political recognition. The western media has generously purveyed unverified
stories of human right violations in Syria sourced from rebel outfits. The
Syrian President has been demonized incessantly. The good faith of the US and
others when they liberally accuse Syria of humanitarian misdeeds lies eroded as
a result.
Unfortunately, even before
the UN inspectors could begin their work, the US and its key allies determined
that the Syrian regime was guilty. Such alacrity in reaching this conclusion
without physical presence and investigation on the ground puzzles. Evidence
from partisan rebel sources can hardly be considered reliable. Are the powerful
technical means at US’s disposal sufficient to reach definitive conclusions so
quickly in a highly murky situation? And if its evidence is so unimpeachable,
why cannot it be fully shared with others?
After all, the stakes
involved are consequential in terms of state sovereignty, UN’s role and authority,
peace and stability in a volatile region and the humanitarian consequences of
external military intervention as Libya and Iraq showed. Russia has found the
evidence presented by the US unconvincing and queries the standard US response
that more cannot be shared as the intelligence is “classified”. US claims to
possess irrefutable evidence is contested by others because in Iraq’s case the
same intelligence sources purveyed pumped-up information to make the case for
intervention. The Russians, in turn, have presented a detailed report which
finger-points at the rebels for the chemical weapons attack.
Growing Opposition
To make the UN report
irrelevant to their decision to “punish” President Assad, the US announced even
before the team could begin its work that its mandate was to determine if
chemical weapons were used, not who used them, besides alleging that the team
was not given access to the site for five days, and that constant bombardment
of the area by the Syrian military was intended to destroy all evidence.
Failing to make a case for intervention at St. Petersburg, the US and others
are now willing to wait till the UN report is submitted, but they have
effectively untied their hands already.
President Obama’s declared
willingness to strike at Syria even without UN approval confirms this. He is
seeking US Congressional approval as if that can replace UN approval and
legitimize US action against a third country with which the US is not at war
and which has not committed any act of aggression against it. President Putin
has declared that such Congress-approved US action would constitute aggression
and that US unilateralism will fuel insecurity globally.
President Obama claims that
the “international community” wants action against Syria seems to exclude
Russia, China, India, Brazil, South Africa and many others from its ambit. To
their credit, NATO, the EU and major countries like Germany do not support
military action. The Pope is opposed; the UN Secretary General has cautioned
that action without UN approval would be against international law.
Popular opinion even in the
US, UK and France is against military action, with the UK parliament
restraining the Cameron government from joining the US and many senior French
politicians opposing military intervention and pressing the government to seek
parliamentary approval.
India’s Position
Too much focus on the
US-Russia spat over Syria is distorting perceptions about the merits of the
Syrian situation. To argue that Russia is responsible for the blockage in the
UN Security Council because it is either protecting its selfish interests or its
position is morally skewed begs the question whether the disinterested US stand
is fired with a superior moral purpose alone, in which Israel, Saudi Arabia,
Qatar, Turkey, Iran, the Hezbollah, the Shia-Sunni conflict are non-existent
factors.
The argument that if Assad
goes unpunished, other dictators would use chemical weapons and US interests
and security are therefore threatened is exaggerated. While Myanmar and Israel
have not ratified the CWC, only Angola, North Korea, Egypt, South Sudan and
Syria have not signed it. Unlike Syria, none of these countries is in the
throes of a civil war and the danger from North Korea is nuclear.
India’s position at St.
Petersburg was correct: the use of chemical weapons in Syria is deplorable if
true, the responsibility for it should be determined without bias and any
action should be taken only with UN approval.
Rendering justice is
important but who has committed the crime should also be clear.
