Since the alleged chemical
weapons massacre perpetrated by the government of Syria upon its own people two
forces have been in motion. The first, heads of government, namely Mr Obama,
Cameron and Hollande who have now decided after two years of civil war the west
has to finally intervene militarily due to the use of chemical weaponry. The
second being the sceptical and seemingly much more popular group of critics,
backed up by public opinion, who believe that any intervention in a conflict of
the severe complexity of that which has been raging in Syria is unwise,
potentially endless carrying the likelihood of any number of unforeseen
repercussions and coming with no guarantee that the situation left on the
ground, after western air forces have disappeared from the skies overhead, will
be any better than it was beforehand. Looking at the relevant media coverage it
is hard not to conclude that so far the anti-interventionists are winning the
argument and presenting a much more convincing case on the side of scepticism
and caution. Those in favour of military action seem to be putting across a
rather incoherent case centred on humanitarian concerns over the use of
chemical weapons against civilians yet apparently ignoring the Syrian
government’s far more extensive and utterly devastating use of conventional
weapons whose death toll makes the figures of the latest chemical attack pale
into insignificance. The apparent message being, kill as many as you want but please
use AKs instead of gas in order to cut out the hassle.
Clearly it’s not hard to dismiss
such logic as simply absurd and its main support comes from graphic images of
chemical weapon produced carnage to tug selectively on our heart strings. But
does this mean that there is no sensible foreign policy objective that can be
feasibly pursued through military action against the Syrian government? This
certainly isn’t the case as long as broad based humanitarian concerns are
pushed aside as well as regime change and crucially British national self-interests
in upholding the non-proliferation treaty are placed at the centre of any
argument made in favour of military action. This is the case that should and
must be made in favour of intervention and it’s probably more importantly the
case that must be answered by those who disagree with western military
intervention. Needless to say the case to be made is not a perfect one as
choosing from any and all of the potential policy options regarding the Syrian
civil war strongly resembles an ugly baby competition of the highest calibre. Yet
it is important to bear in mind that all decision in the realm of foreign
policy come with risks as well as necessary pay offs, there is no such thing as
a safe bet.
As stated the premise of any
attack must be in service and reinforcement of the chemical and biological
non-proliferation treaty because any violation of the treaty by the Syrian
government that goes unpunished only increases the incentives for other potentially
unstable regimes in the region and around the world to acquire such weapons as
proven insurance policies against any possible uprising. Assad must not be
allowed to follow in the footsteps of Saddam by being able to use such weapons
as a devastating last resort to stay in power, however viewed through the
spectrum of British foreign policy, as coldly as it might sound, this is not in
primarily in order to prevent loss of life as noted earlier if this were so
then the prevention of the use and proliferation of conventional weaponry would
also have to be of equal or even greater priority. From a stand point of
self-interest the further proliferation of chemical weaponry as well as
biological and nuclear only increases future vulnerabilities of them falling
into the hands of terrorist groups or unstable state actors. Succinctly put
allowing such weapons to fall on Damascus with no repercussions only increases
the likelihood of them one day falling on London. Although much unfairly
shunned this is what Mr Blair means when he says the prospective consequences
of non-intervention are ‘unimaginably awful’.
Setting a strong president on
showing the willingness of America, Britain and their NATO allies to uphold the
non-proliferation treaty is made even more pressing by the previous statements
made by president Obama about the existence of ‘red lines’ which could not be crossed
without a military response. If the alleged chemical attack has happened then
those red lines have indeed been crossed. Make no mistake the credibility of
our resolve to meet our international responsibilities and to deliver on the
threats that underlie them is in the balance. To hesitate and to retreat to new
red lines, which would be as good as scrapping them altogether, is to give yet
another victory to those who wish to do away with international law in
everything but name, to do otherwise is to create a brave new reality in which
would be offenders know that there is more than a strong possibility that
repeating such crimes carry consequences. We do not need to be the world’s
policeman; however we do need to police our own interests which rely more than
ever on credibility of certain non-negotiable principles, one of which is the
use of chemical weapons. To strike Assad is also to send a direct message to
Tehran that, much like with Libya, the West is prepared to use military force
when it’s most basic of demands are not met. And perhaps more importantly it
would also show the Russians as well as the Chinese, to whom we are still their
militarily superiors, that even when they exercise their counter-influence, we
are prepared to defend our interests which as explained are bound up with our
commitments to non-proliferation, entering into their own strategic calculation
just how highly we prioritise these very basic requirements of nations.
The important accompanying point
to this central argument is emphasizing that there is no necessary link between
strikes to deter further chemical weapon usage and regime change. Notably, even
though it hasn’t entered into many of the recent discussions about the crisis,
we will not be the first outside power to conduct airstrikes into Syria with
these same motives, as it should not be forgotten that Israel has already
conducted several strikes so far, linked to fears of unconventional weaponry
falling into the hands of Hezbollah. Airstrikes need not alter the balance of
power in a war in which we have no clear ally or interest. All they need to do
is to send a staunch message of warning to the Assad regime that its chemical
weapons are out of reach and effectively useless unless it wishes to go the way
of Gaddafi by fruitlessly opposing western military might. To do this it is not
necessary to destroy all of Assad’s conventional military assets, only prove
that we could if we wanted to and with ease. The message that needs to be
conveyed to Russia and China is that we have no vital interest in regime
change, which in the post-Iraq world is a political and increasingly financial
impossibility anyhow. They can keep their ally intact for now as long as he
abandons chemical warfare and there is no immediate reason why this should not
be a palatable compromise.
Understandably there will still
be those who believe non-intervention and splendid isolationism is a better bet
than entering the unpredictable arena of armed conflict. However as already
requested it is against the real politic logic outlined above and not emotive
humanitarian knee jerk reactions or gloriously ignorant neo-conservative regime
change plans that arguments in favour of non-intervention should test
themselves. An answer is needed as to how non-proliferation can coexist with
inaction? If this can be done then fair enough, but until then is it too much
to ask for an end to the long line of smug commentators pretending to be radically
counter consensus making Cassandra moans which equate all western intervention
with the Iraq war? These Edmund Burke wannabes are as bad as the Noam
Chomskyites who unconditionally reject any suggestion that western military
force could ever be used in a productive fashion. To end by borrowing from Karl
Marx it is the constant insistence of man to interpret the present through his
experience of the past that clouds his judgement of reality, Syria is not Iraq
and neither need it be so. Until we can get this into our heads then the ghosts
of our past will continue to paralyse us upon every decision we make instead of
informing or educating our judgement.
No comments:
Post a Comment