Juan Cole: The Dilemma over Syria (like the crushing of the Prague Spring in 1968
great power sphere of influence politics made it impossible to do anything practical about it).
http://www.juancole.com/2012/02/the-dilemma-over-syria.html
Syrias military continued its brutal assault on neighborhoods of Homs, a center of civil disobedience against the regime, on Thursday, killing over 100 persons, including children. This deployment of military force against civilians who were protesting is a war crime, and part of a pattern that by
now amounts to crimes against humanity. The first thing that comes to mind at these horrific images is that something should be done. But what?
Sen. John McCain has called for
arming the rebels ... I would argue an even stronger case against. Once you flood a country with small and medium arms, it destabilizes it for decades. If people dont think a flood of arms into the hands of Syrian fighters will spill over onto Turkey, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, and Israel/Palestine, they are just fooling themselves.
Ultimately, the problem of legitimate action here lies in the UN Security Council. ... As for legitimate use of force, I am against wars that do not stem from either self-defense or from a UN Security Council resolution. I wouldnt necessarily support any old war the UNSC authorized, but its authorization is a sine qua non.
The first thing the (European) diplomat underlined is that there is no United Nations Security Council authorization for the use of force, so no European country will use force. It was a refreshing reminder that in Europe the UN Charter and international law is still taken seriously. In the US, mention of international law is usually greeted with gales of derision.
I gradually realized that
if any semblance of the international rule of law were to be maintained, the international community could do nothing kinetic as long as Russia and China were running interference for the Baath regime in Syria. The logjam here is the Security Council, and its archaic veto privileges for the 5 permanent members, essentially the victors of WW II who still make policy for the whole world.
If you want practical action or even military intervention in Syria beyond financial and economic sanctions, there are only two ways to get it legitimately. That would be to find a way to pressure Russia and China to stop protecting Bashar al-Assad. The other possibility would be to find a way to abolish the one-country veto on the UNSC.]/i]
I remember my anger and despair, as a teenager, at the crushing of the Prague Spring by Soviet tanks in 1968. I feel the same way about Syria today. But in both cases, great power sphere of influence politics made it impossible to do anything practical about it. The hope lies only in the longer term. ... Syrian dissidents will just have to keep up a non-violent struggle for the truth that might go on for a while. If they can prevail non-violently, their revolution would immediately be more well-grounded and likely to succeed.