Skip to main content

Advertisement

Advertisement

West should not rush into action

It is true that the United Nations Security Council is not a reliable global policeman. It may be slow to take action, or paralysed because of disagreement between members.

Protestors rally against a proposed attack on Syria in central London. Photo: REUTERS

Protestors rally against a proposed attack on Syria in central London. Photo: REUTERS

Follow TODAY on WhatsApp
Follow TODAY on WhatsApp

It is true that the United Nations 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 United States or NATO or “alliances of willing states” as global policemen either? Unlike Mr George Bush in 2003, the Obama administration is not trigger-happy and contemptuous of the UN 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, Mr Obama, like Mr Bush and Mr Tony Blair, seems ready to ignore the council and order armed strikes on Syria with political support from only the United Kingdom, 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 Security Council and await the report of the inspectors that the UN has sent to Syria?

We may agree with US Secretary of State John Kerry 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”?

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 Barack Obama to an earlier warning to Mr Bashar Al 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.

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 of the UN Charter.

ENDING THE CIVIL WAR

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 ’80s.)

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 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.

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. THE GUARDIAN

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Hans Blix was head of the UN weapons inspection team in Iraq from 2000 to 2003.

Read more of the latest in

Advertisement

Advertisement

Stay in the know. Anytime. Anywhere.

Subscribe to get daily news updates, insights and must reads delivered straight to your inbox.

By clicking subscribe, I agree for my personal data to be used to send me TODAY newsletters, promotional offers and for research and analysis.