Give Peace... OK, At Least Weapons Destruction, a Chance
So, quite a lot has happened on the Syria front since last I talked about it. In a nutshell, Obama had asked Congress to approve any military action against Syria, and debates/explanations/lobbying was underway to try to convince a skeptical lawmaking body - and public- and some suspected Obama actually hoped to lose this vote. Yet Secretary of State John Kerry did his part, going around to our allies to secure support internationally. Yesterday, a journalist asked him what Assad could do to avoid an attack, and he said (off the cuff, and possibly sarcastically) that he could hand over all of his chemical weapons to international control and destruction, but he won't. At which Russia was like, hmmm, that sounds like a plan. And then Syria said that sounds good, and China approved. The UN began drawing up plans for how this transfer might work.
Today, things really accelerated. France drafted a resolution saying that Assad would admit he used chemical weapons and turn over his stock or France and the US would attack. Russia said it won't support that, since it denies Assad used the weapons. Its proposal has Assad reveal where his weapons stores and facilities are to the UN and select international actors, sign the Chemical Weapons Convention and turn it all over to be destroyed by international community. With no threat of violence.
So, the differences between the proposals are triflingly small on the international scale, and I am really hopeful that a proposal/resolution will be made soon. This would be a fantastic win for the UN, showing that it can work the way it's supposed to to resolve international disputes. It actually is a peaceful body primarily, where countries join together and agree on certain things because it is in their collective best interests and not because some nation is threatening them. Idealistic, and utopian, true, but if it works now that would go a huge way toward increasing its standing and credibility.
Not the least because here Russia and France are taking the lead, two countries that have been kind of out of the international arena for a while. France so much so that people wonder if it still deserves its permanent Security Council spot. I personally welcome this, both from an international perspective and a US one. This situation perfectly illustrates a dilemma we as the sole superpower face: we are the only country capable of using military might to defend others and stand up for our morals, and yet we are weary of foreign quagmires after being burned a lot recently. Here, then, we see other nations stepping up to the plate, providing other ways for our principles and the world's norms to be upheld without the US being the police force. The rest of the world is fed up with us taking that role.
And people are worrying that without the resolution being binding, Assad will just do nothing after all. And that is a valid concern. If you look at his background, though, he seems pretty worldly and shrewd, and I don't think he'd provoke things again. And even if he did, Syria would have signed the Chemical Weapons ban. And that, dear readers, is binding as far as the international community is concerned. Article XII, paragraphs 3 and 4 state, the Conference may recommend collective measures to States Parties in conformity with international law.
4. The Conference shall, in cases of particular gravity, bring the issue, including relevant information and conclusions, to the attention of the United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Security Council.
So, if the convention is violated, "collective measures" i.e. sanctions or even a strike, which the US and France would for sure be behind. Once it signs, Syria has every reason to uphold it. It knows that if it actively flouts the US enough, eventually Congress will vote to act. And, if it goes back on its word, it will make its ally Russia look bad on the international stage, like it backs double-timing countries or can't "control" its own supposed friends. Russia then has motivation to see the ban carried out which it is lacking now.
There's also the International Criminal Court as a possibilty, albeit an exceptionally longshot one. First the US, then Syria would have to recognize its jurisdiction for any sort of trial to take place. Since the former won't happen, we can forget the latter. If the US wants to lead the world, lead it in supporting the ICC. (/soapbox)
None of this touches on Russia's own spotty record with human rights norms... and both it and the US have chemical weapons stockpiles in violation of the convention. So it's not entirely cut and dry, of course, but I still think that this proposal has every possibility of success.
And Obama should embrace it too. His goal is to protect the Syrian citizens from chemical attacks; if the weapons are under UN control, or the control of another country (can you imagine the outrage if Russia gassed Syrians??), they aren't going to be harming anyone. Win-win.
The fact remains that the Syrian civil war is still raging, and Syrians are still killing each other in huge numbers with conventional weapons, some of which are being supplied by the major players discussed here. It's not the international community's place to intervene in civil wars. So don't intervene. Don't supply either side with weapons (anathema, I know, since arms are a big export commodity for many nations). That is intervening, because that is influencing the outcome in big ways. Maybe use that money to help refugees instead. They should be the real focus here, not power plays between Obama and Putin and Hollande.
Today, things really accelerated. France drafted a resolution saying that Assad would admit he used chemical weapons and turn over his stock or France and the US would attack. Russia said it won't support that, since it denies Assad used the weapons. Its proposal has Assad reveal where his weapons stores and facilities are to the UN and select international actors, sign the Chemical Weapons Convention and turn it all over to be destroyed by international community. With no threat of violence.
So, the differences between the proposals are triflingly small on the international scale, and I am really hopeful that a proposal/resolution will be made soon. This would be a fantastic win for the UN, showing that it can work the way it's supposed to to resolve international disputes. It actually is a peaceful body primarily, where countries join together and agree on certain things because it is in their collective best interests and not because some nation is threatening them. Idealistic, and utopian, true, but if it works now that would go a huge way toward increasing its standing and credibility.
Not the least because here Russia and France are taking the lead, two countries that have been kind of out of the international arena for a while. France so much so that people wonder if it still deserves its permanent Security Council spot. I personally welcome this, both from an international perspective and a US one. This situation perfectly illustrates a dilemma we as the sole superpower face: we are the only country capable of using military might to defend others and stand up for our morals, and yet we are weary of foreign quagmires after being burned a lot recently. Here, then, we see other nations stepping up to the plate, providing other ways for our principles and the world's norms to be upheld without the US being the police force. The rest of the world is fed up with us taking that role.
And people are worrying that without the resolution being binding, Assad will just do nothing after all. And that is a valid concern. If you look at his background, though, he seems pretty worldly and shrewd, and I don't think he'd provoke things again. And even if he did, Syria would have signed the Chemical Weapons ban. And that, dear readers, is binding as far as the international community is concerned. Article XII, paragraphs 3 and 4 state, the Conference may recommend collective measures to States Parties in conformity with international law.
4. The Conference shall, in cases of particular gravity, bring the issue, including relevant information and conclusions, to the attention of the United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Security Council.
So, if the convention is violated, "collective measures" i.e. sanctions or even a strike, which the US and France would for sure be behind. Once it signs, Syria has every reason to uphold it. It knows that if it actively flouts the US enough, eventually Congress will vote to act. And, if it goes back on its word, it will make its ally Russia look bad on the international stage, like it backs double-timing countries or can't "control" its own supposed friends. Russia then has motivation to see the ban carried out which it is lacking now.
There's also the International Criminal Court as a possibilty, albeit an exceptionally longshot one. First the US, then Syria would have to recognize its jurisdiction for any sort of trial to take place. Since the former won't happen, we can forget the latter. If the US wants to lead the world, lead it in supporting the ICC. (/soapbox)
None of this touches on Russia's own spotty record with human rights norms... and both it and the US have chemical weapons stockpiles in violation of the convention. So it's not entirely cut and dry, of course, but I still think that this proposal has every possibility of success.
And Obama should embrace it too. His goal is to protect the Syrian citizens from chemical attacks; if the weapons are under UN control, or the control of another country (can you imagine the outrage if Russia gassed Syrians??), they aren't going to be harming anyone. Win-win.
The fact remains that the Syrian civil war is still raging, and Syrians are still killing each other in huge numbers with conventional weapons, some of which are being supplied by the major players discussed here. It's not the international community's place to intervene in civil wars. So don't intervene. Don't supply either side with weapons (anathema, I know, since arms are a big export commodity for many nations). That is intervening, because that is influencing the outcome in big ways. Maybe use that money to help refugees instead. They should be the real focus here, not power plays between Obama and Putin and Hollande.