The Syrian civil war is a particularly
horrendous one. It is comparable to the Rwandan civil war of
1990-1994 in which over 500,000 people were killed by the government
and another two million forced to flee the country. Both wars were
started by rogue governments who used propaganda to incite violence
against minority populations. There have been over 100,000 deaths in
the Syrian civil war, and perhaps a million refugees, who have fled
to Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan.
The war in Rwanda was called a
genocide. The war in Syria is now approaching the same level of
violence. The UN failed to stop the former. Right now, the UN is
standing by and watching the slaughter of Syrians by the thousands.
The civil war is between the Government
of Syria and its opposition, which calls itself the Free Syrian Army.
The primary supporters of Assad are the Allawites, a Shi'ite sect
that comprises only 10 percent of the population. Assad receives
weapons and money from Russia and Iran, whose rulers are also Shi'a,
and military assistance from Hezbollah. Hezbollah, founded by Iran,
are a state within a state in Lebanon, with perhaps 200,000
supporters and a battle-hardened militia.
The Free Syrian Army and its allies
forces are primarily Sunni. They receive weapons primarily from Saudi
Arabia and Qatar.
Syrian Government forces, supporters of
Bashar Al-Assad, have used all the weapons of a modern military state
in their campaign to remain in power. The US has condemned them for
their use of chemical weapons, including the nerve-gas rison, but
most of the deaths have been caused by conventional means, especially
artillery shells and cluster bombs. Government forces are targeting
civilians in hope of convincing them to stop sheltering the rebels.
The grotesque spectacle of a government
killing its own people to stay in power has aroused the anger of much
of the world. Russia and Iran are unmoved, however. The United
Nations is powerless to provide military aid because Russia holds a
permanent seat on the Security Council. At news that Assad may have
used sarin gas against his people, Vladimir Putin said it didn't make
any sense that Assad should use sarin against the rebels in a war
that he was winning. Therefore, Putin theorized, the attacks, though
real, were actually provocations intended to draw other nations into
the war on the side of the rebels.
Putin's logic is faulty. Chemical
weapons will not help Assad win the war, but that is not Assad's
problem. He must win the peace. Since Assad's power base is the
Allawite minority, just 10 percent of Syria's population, he needs to
find some way to exercise authority over the Syrians after the war is
over. Assad has chosen terror, as his father and Saddam Hussein did
before him. Saddam used chemical weapons successfully to win his war
with Iran and terrorize his own countrymen.
President Obama announced that the use
of chemical weapons is a red line that Assad must not be allowed to
cross with impunity. The US president says that chemical weapons pose
a threat to the entire world, and that other countries will use them
unless the US takes military action to “punish” Assad. Obama
cannot seriously believe that the US can make a surgical strike and
withdraw from the engagement. His military commanders must have told
him that would be impossible. Assad has been telling his countrymen
that Obama delayed his plans because he feared the reprisals that
Assad would make.
Obama asked friday, "What's
the purpose of the international system that we've built if a
prohibition on the use of chemical weapons that has been agreed to by
the governments of 98 percent of the world's people and approved
overwhelmingly by the Congress of the United States is not enforced?"
In this sentence, as in others, Obama has spoken not just for himself
and the American people, but for peace-loving people everywhere.
Obama never actually intended to do
anything without Congressional approval. Right on cue, over 100 house
members signed a letter to the president stating that engaging the
military without prior congressional authorization would violate the
separation of powers delineated in the Constitution. Twenty-one
Democrats joined Republicans in signing the letter. But Obama knew
that House Republicans would oppose any action he might take. Many of
them were waiting to see what would happen before making any
statement. By delaying any action, Obama forces his political
opponents to take a position on the record. He also emphasizes the
fact that they are all on vacation and unwilling to return, while he
is on the job in Washington.
Obama has given the English parliament
what it asked for when it defeated Prime Minister Cameron's motion to
support a strike against Syria. The English opposition insisted that
Cameron should wait for the UN inspectors to file their report on the
evidence of chemical weapons. Now they have their wish.
Finally, Obama has put pressure on the
United Nations. It is the UN that proposed and ratified the
international system that is supposed to safeguard human rights. But
the UN system for enforcing its treaties depends on unanimous consent
and is therefore seldom invoked. Outside observers have declared that
the US cannot interfere in the internal affairs of a sovereign state.
The UN has declared that chemical weapons must not be used in
warfare. Now would be a good time for the UN to prove that it, not
the US, enforces international law. Genocide, not just chemical
weapons use, is a crime against humanity.
No comments:
Post a Comment