Syria: Man's Inhumanity to Man

Many and sharp the num'rous ills Inwoven with our frame!
 
More pointed still we make ourselves,
 
Regret, remorse, and shame!
 
And man, whose heav'n-erected face
 
The smiles of love adorn, -
 
Man's inhumanity to man
 
Makes countless thousands mourn!
 
The poet Robert Burns in his poem above titled “Man Was Made to Mourn: A Dirge” refers to atrocities carried out by man. Conflict, especially in the domestic context, is part and parcel of politics. Whilst there are always different options to choose from and some people will remain dissatisfied with the result, for such a situation to erupt into violence that lasts for years is, however, quite unusual. The conflict in Syria has been raging for more than two-and-a-half years now and as the months have passed, so has the intensity of the violence increased, with periodic lulls.
 
This situation in Syria has been termed a civil war by some commentators. It is true that there are major divisions and clear cleavages within Syrian society, but it is also undeniable that external actors are also involved to varying degrees. Of those actors who are either involved or forced to take an interest in developments, five states head the list. They are the permanent members of the UN Security Council.
 
When issues of international peace and security arise and persist, it is this forum that must address the topic and offer a solution. The three Western states, the US, Britain and France, have taken on board an activist role, whereas Russia and China have preferred to focus on the principle of non-intervention. The primary conundrums facing these countries as well as the rest of the international community concern halting escalating violence in one state, preventing the spread of this conflict into other states and -- finally and most crucially -- whether chemical weapons have been used and if so, how to react to this grave and critical development.
 
Chemical weapons
 
While violence and mass deaths are never condoned, when violence is perpetrated not by the use of conventional weapons like bullets or bombs, but by using internationally banned weapons such as chemical ones, then the response must be qualitatively different and take on an urgency not witnessed before.
 
Precisely concerning the use of chemical weapons, a key treaty to bear in mind is the 1925 Geneva Protocol on Gas Warfare, which was agreed in the aftermath of mustard and other asphyxiating gas attacks of World War I. Given that Syria is a party to the protocol, it cannot use chemical weapons in war. Although war is generally accepted to be between two states, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia did declare “there undisputedly emerged a general consensus in the international community on the principle that the use of (chemical) weapons is also prohibited in internal armed conflicts.” The Geneva Protocol was improved and amplified by the Chemical Weapons Convention which came into force in 1997 and provided for extensive verification measures including on-site inspections. Although Syria, along with Angola, North Korea, Egypt and South Sudan, has not signed the treaty, 189 states are currently party to it, helping make it a part of customary international humanitarian law.
 
Bearing in mind that international law had been violated, US Secretary of State John Kerry gave a speech on Monday that left no doubt as to how seriously Washington is taking the charge against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime using chemical weapons: “The meaning of this attack goes beyond the conflict in Syria itself. … This is about the large-scale, indiscriminate use of weapons that the civilized world long ago decided must never be used at all, a conviction shared even by countries that agree on little else.” The last part of the sentence was directed at Russia, which has held steadfast that there is no evidence to link the al-Assad regime with the use of chemical weapons.
 
In a direct response to that stance, Kerry asserted, “Anyone who could claim that an attack of this staggering scale could be contrived or fabricated needs to check their conscience and their own moral compass.” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov responded by reminding everyone that “Paris and London are both calling for the destruction of chemical weapons in Syria even without approval from the UN Security Council. This is a very dangerous, slippery slope.” Needless to say, by referring to such an approval it was a clear message that Russia's objections to intervention must not be overlooked.
 
Question of sovereignty Intervention in international affairs has had a checkered past. During the Cold War, both superpowers accepted that their respective spheres of interest were sacrosanct. Overt interventions were out of the question, but clandestine, small-scale propaganda exercises were par for the course. The disintegration of the Soviet state, the ending of the Cold War and the ascent of democracy was accompanied by the elevation of human rights on the international relations agenda. This had been a major strategic tool with which to weaken the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War, especially witnessed through the negotiations that led to the creation of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. Through human rights, the legitimacy of the Soviet regime had been questioned and several civil society organizations in Eastern Europe, such as Charter 77, sprung up to defend the concept and implementation of human rights.
 
Due to state fragmentation and the emergence of new actors on the international stage, the post-Cold War era encountered tremendous challenges with regard to assisting foreign populations that faced violent authoritarian regimes. Ethnic cleansing became the defining feature of the Balkans in the 1990s and led to the deaths of at least 140,000 people, while the international community was divided over defending the concept of sovereignty or intervening in a domestic conflict. The Yugoslav crisis was finally resolved through the active diplomacy exerted by the US in bringing all parties together to sign the Dayton Accords in 1995.
 
Four years later, when Kosovo bore the brunt of Belgrade's wrath, the UN Security Council came to an impasse over intervening in this particular domestic conflict. Supporters of humanitarian intervention put forward the case that, especially after having failed to save almost a million Rwandans during that country's genocide, a moral obligation was hanging above them. States should not only protect their own citizens from genocide as well as from war crimes and crimes against humanity, but the international community was equally obliged to help other states in preventing such atrocities. The matter revolved around what type of action would be appropriate and legitimate.
 
Such abhorrent episodes of genocide and ethnic cleansing certainly remind one and create fears concerning what the anarchist Mikhail Bakunin wrote 145 years ago: "The State, therefore, is the most flagrant, the most cynical, and the most complete negation of humanity. It shatters the universal solidarity of all men on the earth, and brings some of them into association only for the purpose of destroying, conquering, and enslaving all the rest.”
 
n 1999, without a Security Council resolution and despite intervention being vehemently opposed by China and Russia, NATO intervened militarily in Kosovo and swiftly halted all Serbian attacks on the territory. The reason given was to stop a humanitarian catastrophe.
 
R2P
 
Sponsored by Canada, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) was established in 2000 with the aim of developing a universal political consensus concerning how and when the international community should respond to emerging crises involving the potential for large-scale loss of life and other widespread crimes against humanity. From this, a new norm began to emerge referred to as the “Responsibility to Protect” -- shortened to “R2P.”
 
The key feature of this is when a “state in question is unwilling or unable to halt” its own population suffering from grave harm. In such an instance, it becomes the international community's responsibility to intervene in order to protect people. Having said this, certain criteria and thresholds were identified providing precautions over when and how to enforce R2P.
 
At first, there has to be strong evidence that such crimes have taken place. Following this, all peaceful measures, such as diplomacy and economic sanctions, must be tried and seen to be ineffective. Finally, when the threshold has been crossed and no effective result has been reached, then and only then can military force be used, specifically aimed at stopping atrocities while protecting the civilian population. The R2P doctrine, or view, has nothing to say about punishing state transgression; it only concerns itself with acting to stop an ongoing massacre. This view accepts a legal framework for the international community concerning the use of military force that could take place through a regional coalition, or what has come to be popularized as a "coalition of the willing.”
 
Last month UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon published a report titled “Responsibility to Protect: State Responsibility and Prevention.” Its conclusion highlighted his criticism concerning the “collective failure to prevent atrocity crimes in the Syrian Arab Republic.” He accepted the ethical dimensions the situation created as it had placed a moral burden on both the UN and member states, but he did clearly indicate that it was the UN Security Council that had to be far more active in tackling this problem; he said the council “in particular [are] those who have primary responsibility for international peace and security.” On Wednesday, Ban once more drew attention with his remark that the “body interested with maintaining international peace and security cannot be 'missing in action.' … The council must at last find the unity to act. It must use its authority for peace.”
 
The questions that worry the Western members of the Security Council concern whether any military action will be open ended or not. What will be the exit strategy of any forceful action? So far all indications are that any action will be an incisive and not a decisive one. The central goal concerns protecting the sanctity of the rejection of chemical weapons use. Countries that have used such weapons must not only be punished, but equally important, they must be seen to be punished, however punitively.
 
Syria and its all too few allies will definitely portray any military action as interfering in domestic affairs. They will go even further as to assert that it is an attempt to encourage a preferred side in the conflict. After all, Damascus has already declared that it was the rebels who used chemical weapons on their fellow citizens. Until now, there has been no official international evidence to the contrary. Seasoned analysts await Kerry's promise the US has “additional information about this attack, and that information is being compiled and reviewed together with our partners, and we will provide that information in the days ahead.”
 
To conclude, one can argue that the vile character of man is synonymous with his existence and exemplified by his actions. Equally, however, the saintliness of man has also been witnessed since the dawn of time. This circularity has been well illustrated by Burns in another verse from the same poem:
 
Yet, let not this too much, my son,
 
Disturb thy youthful breast:
 
This partial view of human-kind
 
Is surely not the last!
 
The poor, oppressed, honest man
 
Had never, sure, been born,
 
Had there not been some recompense
 
To comfort those that mourn!
 
Advocates of “intervention” are certainly not angels, nor are those opposing “invasion” the devil in disguise