Who 'owns' the R2P (Responsibility to Protect) Syria?

There’s saber-rattling in Washington.  There’s saber-rattling in Moscow.  Tit-for-tat talk.  Rattle-for-rattle.  Neither the USA nor Russia is under attack.  Neither country can claim that there is a threat to its security.  It's all about a country that is located almost 11,000km from the USA and about 5,500km from Russia.  Syria.

It all followed a chemical attack which Washington blamed on the Syrian President  Bashar al-Assad and then proceeded to launch some 60 Tomahawk missiles on the al Shayrat airbase.  US Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson warned that Russia was at risk of becoming irrelevant in the Middle East if it continued to support Assad.  

Damascus has denied US allegations, noting that the targeted area may have been hosting chemical weapons stockpiles belonging to Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) or Al-Nusra Front jihadists.  Moscow, in a wry dismissal, has alluded to the ‘events of 2003’ when the US representative (Colin Powell) insisted at the UN that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.   

Russian President Vladimir Putin observed that ‘the military campaign was subsequently launched in Iraq and it ended with the devastation of the country, the growth of the terrorist threat and the appearance of Islamic State [IS, formerly ISIS] on the world stage.’

They can laugh about it and they will

Just because the USA lied in 2003 does not mean that it will always lie and has done so in this instance.  On the other hand, that 2003 lie has given cause for any allegation to be properly investigated before any action is taken.  Russia in fact has called for such an investigation.  

Bolivian Ambassador to the UN, Sacha Llorenti lambasted the USA for its unilateral response, pointing out that the principle of multilateralism has been violated. He added that following the 2003 lie, the UN had set up modalities for dealing with such situations which included in the first instance independent and comprehensive investigations.  

But Washington does not care.  Washington rattles sabers.  Washington has promised to repeat military action in response to any possible new chemical weapon attacks.  Moscow has not blinked.  Russia (along with Iran) has responded likewise, telling the US to expect ‘response with force’ if ‘red lines are crossed in Syria’. 

There are no diplomatic niceties in the joint communique issued by the two countries: ‘What America waged in an aggression on Syria is a crossing of red lines. From now on we will respond with force to any aggressor or any breach of red lines from whoever it is and America knows our ability to respond well.’

It is hard to argue with Llorenti when he asserts that ‘the United States believe that they are investigators, they are attorneys, judges and they are the executioners. That's not what international law is about.’   The problem is that when any law is violated with impunity, that law ceases to be effective.  The problem with Llorenti’s argument is that it makes sense only if the UN makes sense (when it comes to multilateralism).  What we have is a monumental hypocrisy, a lie which makes it laughable when a liar is called out.  

If the UN cannot rein in the rogue state that is the United States of America, then we have to accept that Washington’s do-as-we-please ways in fact invite do-as-we-please from Russia, Iran or whoever.  It won’t take too long before we get to that terrible point where the question ‘who started it all?’ ceases to matter.  

Well, what’s new?  Isn’t this what ‘multilateralism’ has always been about?  Huff, puff, hot air and not much else? Lovely words that get lost in the misery?  Well, should we then shrug shoulders, raise and then lower eyebrows and wait for the next great example of hypocrisy?  

Perhaps we should use it to call to question certain groups and certain assumptions.  The International Crisis Group, for instance, has issued a statement following the US attack.  It is ‘an opportunity’ (yes, those words!) they say.  An opportunity to jumpstart diplomatic efforts, they say.  No mention of the legality of that attack.  Nothing on investigations.  The ICG takes the US narrative as valid.  

‘If regime chemical attacks were to continue (perhaps employing chlorine instead of the much deadlier nerve agent sarin), the U.S. might find itself compelled to launch additional, more significant strikes,’ ICG states.  Now this is certainly a cute license to trigger-happy Donald Trump.

What needs to be understood is that while these games are being played with Trump and Putin trying to out-stare one another and while outfits like the ICG tosses out character certificates to preferred aggressors, there are people who cannot stare, cannot blink and in fact are dead.  

This forces us to ask, ‘what happened to all those who were waving a flag called Responsibility to Protect?’  Is it about protecting Syrians from Assad?  How about the risks that Syrians face at the hands of the ISIS and a global thug wearing a Good Samaritan name-tag?

But wait, why should we even bother about these rag-tag outfits who are operating as approvers for the actions of preferred parties who don’t do too much apart from constructing legitimacy for aggression against the chosen enemies (of their chosen buddies), when the United Nations itself does just that when it is divested of the somber architecture and established procedures for the conduct of discussions?  

The UN’s impotency has been revealed once again. It is not a forum that can do anything of significance to prevent wars.  It can only pick on weaker nations that have for one reason or another fallen out of favor of the favored member states.  

Just imagine if Bolivia had taken the kind of initiative that the USA took in Syria.  The UN Security Council would not be discussing the legality of the particular action.  We won’t hear impassioned speeches of past errors, the reiteration of established procedures, calls for investigations and so on.  They would be discussing sanctions.  That’s if they didn’t authorize the USA to bomb the Bolivian capital.  

It’s all happening in Syria, folks.  For now, maybe we can call it ‘a show’ and watch from the sidelines.  After all Syria is more than 5000km from Sri Lanka.  But what if Sri Lanka became tomorrow’s Syria?   Sacha Llorenti may lash out at the USA at a hastily arranged emergency meeting of the UN Security Council.  The ICG would bend over backwards, touch its metaphorical heels and salute the USA for ‘opportunities produced’.   Trump and Putin would indulge in a game of who will blink first.  There would be Sri Lankans who won’t be watching though.  They won’t be able to blink.  They’d be dead. 

Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer.  Email: malindasenevi@gmail.com.  Twitter: malindasene.

Read more

From Here to ‘Houla’

Those who are tagged ‘World Leaders’ are those who have two things: money and power.  Those who have intellect and have contributed to the alleviation of disease or have made life easier are called scientists.  Those who hone sensitivities are called artists.  World leaders call the shots.  The others are peripheral to history or rather historiography, 

We live in times where world leaders preach democracy, peace and justice.  We live in times where these same benefactors of humankind and prophets of decency and civilization are also guilty of unimaginable crimes against humanity.  George W Bush is a war criminal, it has now been acknowledged.  Tony Blair has not been named and shamed.  Tony Blair and David Cameron too.  Barack Obama who bailed out robber barons who caused a global financial meltdown and who incarcerated the victims who cried ‘foul’, the same man who Rev. Jesse Jackson called a war criminal (‘Those who own the drones are war criminals,’ Geneva, March 2012), was given the Nobel Prize for Peace in a way akin to someone being named ‘Man of the Match’ before the toss.

We got the ‘Houla Massacre’ in Syria, courtesy a media industry that went to town at end-point and scarcely murmured about all that went before, not to mention its scandalous myopia and shy-making when the authors of war criminality have addresses in Washington DC, London, Paris etc.  It’s all about ousting unfriendly regimes and getting the world to cheer war criminals re-christened as benefactors of oppressed peoples.  If you want to know the script, go to Page 14 of this newspaper. 

It is all about R2P or ‘Responsibility to Protect’, the 21^st Century name for ‘White Man’s Burden’.  And the ‘protectors’ can, if they so wish, bypass the worst butchers and swoop down on relatively benign polities.  Has happened, is happening and will probably happen again. And the ‘protectors’ can always count on help from within, for no country on earth has a population that cheers its leaders en masss.

Now there have been times when helplessness prods people to call for help, but help-calling in general although done in the name of ‘the people’ are essentially exercises in power-capture.  In general, it is best that people deal with the horrors that rule them, sometimes even elected by them, by themselves.  Even the strongest of regimes have weaknesses. No one is invincible.

This however is not about regime change but about resisting interference.  Strong states resist better, naturally.  Strong governments are more resilient than weak ones. 

There are all kinds of ‘strong states’. They need not be ‘democracies’.  Military juntas, monarchies, totalitarian systems and theocracies have proved to be as strong as certain democracies.  And there’s nothing to say that one type less popular than another, unless of course you happen to be an uncritical consumer of drivel dished out by Washington-friendly media.

But is Sri Lanka under threat?  All countries are and those (like Sri Lanka) which are reluctant to follow Washington-scripted policies are particularly vulnerable; and a threat is often more potent than its execution, Ksawery Tartakower, the Polish chess grandmaster noted more than a century ago .  We must also add the arm-twisting neighbor India into the equation, the machinations in Geneva and the veiled and open threats issued against Sri Lanka to get the full picture of intent. 

What does the domestic picture look like?  Bleak.  We have a constitution that is made to make dictators.  We have institutional flaws that no one is interested in correcting while those pointing out error have themselves benefitted from the same when in power or else have so aided and abetted spoilers (like the LTTE) to be taken seriously by the masses.  There is corruption.  There is power-abuse.  Checks and balances are woefully inadequate.  We can be thankful for the more-than-a-small-mercy of not having to deal with terrorism, but that won’t erase away the abiding anomalies, systemic flaws and the truth that citizen is not insulated by arrogant and thieving politician. 

All these, in light of what one may call the ‘Houla Doctrine’, are eminently exploitable by external forces who may appear to be regime-haters but in reality have no love for people or nation (unless as exploitable labour, ‘plunderable’ resources or convenient bases for military purposes). 

Two things need to be done.  First of all, we must be aware of the possibilities, the avenues that the interferer may take and the allies they may depend on.  Secondly, we must become stronger as a nation. 

The first is easy.  The second, tough.  Strong government is not the same as strong nation.  A strong nation is one that can make a government that is strong, effective and just.  And this, in spite of a flawed constitution, bribe-taking politicians and officials, a pathetic opposition, easily purchasable academics and media personnel, and racketeers masquerading as civil society activists.    

On thing is certain.  We are not Bahrain.  We are not Saudi Arabia.  We won’t be granted favours.  Neither are we Syria. Yet.  And that ‘yet’ is something that can be taken out of the sentence without too much difficulty.   

   

 [The Nation Editorial, June 3, 2012]

Read more