Even if Assad used
chemical weapons, the west has no mandate to act as a global
policeman
Hans Blix* -The
Guardian
By ordering air strikes
against Syria without UN security council support, Obama will be doing the same
as Bush in 2003
It is true that the UN
security council is not a reliable global policeman. It may be slow to take
action, or paralysed because of disagreement between members. But do we want the
US or Nato or "alliances of willing states" as global policemen either? Unlike
George Bush in 2003, the Obama administration is not trigger-happy and
contemptuous of the United Nations and the rules of its charter, which allow the
use of armed force only in self-defence or with an authorisation from the
security council. Yet Obama, like Bush and Blair, seems ready to ignore the
council and order armed strikes on Syria with political support from only the
UK, France and some others.
Such action could not be "in
self-defence" or "retaliation", as the US, the UK and France have not been
attacked. To punish the Assad government for using chemical weapons would be the
action of self-appointed global policemen – action that, in my view, would be
very unwise.
While much evidence points
to the guilt of the Assad regime, would not due process require that judgment
and consideration of action take place in the UN security council and await the
report of the inspectors that the UN has sent to Syria – at the demand of the UK
and many other UN members?
We may agree with John
Kerry, the US secretary of state, that the use of gas is a "moral obscenity",
but would we not feel that "a measured and proportionate punishment", like
striking at some missile sites or helicopter bases, is like telling the regime
that "you can go on with your war but do stay away from the chemical weapons"?
And what is the moral weight of the condemnation by nuclear weapons states of
the use of gas as a serious war crime when they themselves will not accept a
norm that would criminalise any first use of their own nuclear
weapons?
It is hard to avoid the
impression that the political and military developments now in overdrive stem
partly from pressure exerted by the rebel side to trigger an American military
intervention – by trying to hold President Obama to an earlier warning to Assad
that a use of chemical weapons would alter his calculation. Equally, if not more
important, may be a need felt by the Obama administration to avoid criticism for
being hesitant and passive – and appearing like a paper tiger to countries such
as Iran that have been warned that the US will not allow them to have nuclear
weapons.
In 2003 the US and the UK
and an alliance of "friendly states" invaded Iraq without the authorisation of
the security council. A strong body of world opinion felt that this constituted
a violation and an undermining of the UN charter. A quick punitive action in
Syria today without UN authorisation would be another precedent, suggesting that
great military powers can intervene militarily when they feel politically
impelled to do so. (They did not intervene when Iraq used chemical weapons on a
large scale in the war with Iran in the 1980s.)
So, what should the world
reaction be to the use of chemical weapons? Clearly, evidence available – both
from UN inspectors and from member states – should be placed before and judged
by the security council. Even if the council could only conclude that chemical
weapons had been used – and could not agree that the Assad regime alone was
responsible – there would be a good chance of unanimous world condemnation.
Global indignation about the use of chemical weapons is of value to strengthen
the taboo.
Condemnation is not enough.
With 100,000 killed and millions of refugees, the civil war itself is a "moral
obscenity". The council must seek to achieve not just an end to chemical weapons
use but an end to all weapons use, by a ceasefire. As was planned not long ago
by the US and Russia, the council must seek to bring about a conference at which
relevant parties and states can form an interim authority. The alternative is
continued civil war in Syria and worsening international
relations.
Is the ending of active
hostilities totally unrealistic? Let us be clear that the government in Syria,
as well as all rebel groups, depends upon a flow of weapons, munitions and money
from the outside. Much is reported to come to the rebels from Saudi Arabia,
Qatar and Turkey; and much is reported to come to the government from Russia and
Iran. The supplier countries have leverage. Agreement should be sought, under
the auspices of the security council, that all parties that have given such
support demand that their clients accept a ceasefire – or risk losing further
support.Wednesday 28 August 2013
*Swedish diplomat and politician. He
was Swedish minister for foreign affairs. Blix was also the head of the United
Nations monitoring, verification and inspection commission from March 2000 to
June 2003. In 2002, the commission began searching Iraq for weapons of mass
destruction, ultimately finding none.
Article: courtesy of THE OTHER NEWS INITIATIVES
Hakuna maoni:
Chapisha Maoni