Intervention remains a word that causes many diplomats to
gasp. To what extent does intervention become an occupation and is there a
point where intervention goes beyond a point of feasibility? Politicians have
learnt to live with the consequences amidst the tides of history of whether to
intervene within a country’s affairs. The demise of the Somali state was exacerbated
by the White House’s decision to remove US troops after the failed ‘Black Hawk
Down’ mission. The UN’s inertia in 1994 only led to greater intensity of
killings in Rwanda. Yet, politicians know all too well of the risks that
military action can ensue. The toxic-effect of the US-led invasion in Iraq in
2003 and the on-going stalemate in Afghanistan continue to poison the well of
intention.
For over 18 months, the battle between the Assad regime and
anti-government rebels has turned Syria into a warzone. Only recently Syria
could be described as one of the most stable nations in the region, yet today
it has the capacity to create an all out war in the Middle East. The reports of
mass artillery bombardments in the cities of Homs and Aleppo, plus the
massacres of women and children is creating a humanitarian disaster. With
estimates of over 25,000 deaths, possibly more, is a foreign-led intervention
an ideal proposition for the situation or is it bound to make the situation
worse?
 |
| Fight to the end? |
So far, the diplomatic efforts have produced little. Syria’s
historically strongest ally, Russia, has continuously refused to back sanctions
at the UN. A Libyan-style intervention or arming of opposition forces is deemed
impossible. Yet what other solutions remain? The West’s idea that Russia could
offer Assad and his inner circle political immunity in Moscow was voted down
too. To what extent are we prepared to turn a blind eye to justice in the
interest of peace and the deaths of fewer? Do we reach a threshold where
justice becomes immaterial?
Syria has not signed the International Criminal Court’s
treaty and therefore as things stand, Assad can face no international court. However;
it is true of anti-government troops as well. They may say they are killing in
the name of freedom, but no one can deny the massacres that have taken place on
either side. The original protests that led to children having their
fingernails removed have led to torture and summary executions. What they may
perceive as ‘natural justice’ on the battlefield cannot be translated as
humanly dignified. The country is systematically combusting, as are the rules
that most humans would see as sacred.
From a diplomatic perspective, is it simple to purely blame
Russia for blocking resolutions? Whilst no one can ignore the atrocities, who’s
not to say that on previous occasions other countries, particularly in the
West, have protected their own interests. There is a degree of old-school Cold
War politics. One could argue why Sri Lanka or Israel haven’t had any of their
politicians in the dock, these instances on paper show clear breaches of human
rights or crimes against humanity, yet impunity remains the watch word. There
are crimes and no one likes to see criminals to evade justice, but Syria and
Assad wouldn’t be the first to escape the net.
This war, as things stand, has more to come, and who knows
how long for. The fact Kofi Annan left his job as peace envoy shows how
difficult it is to overcome. If Assad already knows what could wait, then who
is not to say he will go out in glory as Gadaffi tried. Who’s not to say that a
quarter of a million more people may die through chemical weapons? Then again,
if he is brought to justice then how does one prove the atrocities? There are
very few journalists and do they have any proof? Not all news coming out of the
country can be verified.
Be sure, Assad is resolute but is weak. The question is what
do you do about it?
