I've been wanting to do a post on Syria for almost as long as it's been in the news, but until now, I never really came to a judgement on whether we should intervene. And, to cut a long story short, I still haven't reached a verdict. It's all very murky. Did the president of Syria, President Assad, use chemical weapons on people protesting against his presidency? Or did the so-called terrorists (in Assad's words) launch the attack against the government forces? There is little doubt that there was a chemical attack on the outskirts of Damascus, killing "hundreds of people" (according to the BBC), and US President Barack Obama has previously stated that any attack by chemical weapons is a "red line" that should not be crossed. The United Nations is unlikely to sanction military involvement with Russia and China on the Security Council, allowing both countries to veto any resolution, leaving individual countries to decide on their course of action. The UK Parliament voted on the prospect of military action (interestingly, before UN inspectors, sent to investigate who attacked who, returned with their report) and said that the UK should not get involved militarily. And it's not just Parliament who are against military intervention. The public also want to stay out of the Syria crisis. According to a YouGov poll, just under three-quarters of people agreed with Parliament that the UK should stay out of any military attacks on Syria, and less than half agree that if there were further chemical attacks, the UK should launch missiles against the Assad regime. It seems the UK is now reluctant to charge straight in to military action in the name of "justice". But why?
Well, firstly, I think the recent memories of Iraq and Afghanistan plague our minds. The deaths of our servicemen and women in these two regions (179 and 444 respectively), with relatively little achieved, has made us reluctant to enter into new conflicts. Also, public opinion suggests that the Government should try to fix the problems here (specifically the economy and immigration) before trying to fix problems elsewhere in the world, especially as we don't have any money to spend. Even though David Cameron and Barack Obama have both ruled out putting "boots on the ground" (i.e. sending soldiers in), clearly the public is worried that one thing could lead to another, resulting in a full-scale army invasion of the region. In addition, any military action would certainly raise tensions between whoever launched an attack (probably the US and/or France) and Russia and China. At a time where US-Russian relations are tense because of the Edward Snowdon case, the US may not want to antagonise the Russians any more than they have done.
The judgement on whether the UK is "right" to stay out of the crisis will depend heavily on hindsight. If, as in the case of inaction over Rwanda in 1994, the killings continue, and the rest of the world continues doing nothing, or continues to offer aid, but no firm resistance, then it will turn from a civil war in to a genocide. But, if there is intervention, and that intervention is vague and unplanned, then, as in Somalia after the UN-led intervention in 1992, the country is likely to continue a downward spiral in to becoming a failed state.
There is also a big debate over what is morally "right". Should, as the West argues, the citizens of a country be free from oppression and violent abuse? Or, as Russia and China argue, should a country be able to do anything it likes to it's citizens within it's own borders? This difference of opinion has dominated global politics since the end of the Cold War, and even before then. Cases such as human rights abuses in North Korea, nuclear weapons development in Iran and enforcing no-fly zones over Libya have led to many disagreements between the main powerhouses of international politics.
I suppose that the only "right" way to deal with Syria is to convince representatives of both the Syrian regime and the rebels to the negotiating table, to try to hash out a peace deal, but as Kofi Annan (former UN Secretary-General) has already tried this route with his failed six-point-peace-plan, there doesn't seem much hope of a diplomatic solution.
So, what is the "right" solution? I don't know. There doesn't seem to be one. In this situation, it seems like you can't please all of the people all of the time. As I said previously, a lot will depend on hindsight. If it is revealed that there have been more chemical attacks, there will no doubt be more calls to intervene militarily, or if there is a reduction in civilian deaths, then the decision not to intervene would have been the right one. Only time will tell.
No comments:
Post a Comment