Syria
Paddy Ashdown - the former Lib Dem leader - made a compelling case in the Times the other day for some form of limited strike action against the murderous Assad regime in Syria - in preference to standing by and watching Russia and China using their power of veto to stymie any effective response via the United Nations.
Now while Paddy had plenty to say about the cynical role being played by Russia and China, the giant elephant in the room is the terrible failure of Arab and Muslim countries to step up to the plate - by brokering a new political settlement in the middle east which would allow Sunni and Shia Muslims to live in peace in a power sharing form of government that respected the rights of non-Muslim citizens as well.
But we are a long way from that at the moment because there are too many tribal and despotic states in that part of the world who would be threatened by a new political settlement - and even the most sophisticated cruise missiles are not going to solve that problem.
I'm not sure, by the way, that the use of poison gas should be the tipping point for the use of military intervention - despite the ghastly nature of such weapons - because Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds in northern Iraq and paid no price, at the time at least, while the best part of 1 million people were butchered in Rwanda some years ago and yet the international community failed to come to their aid.
The use of poison gas cannot go unpunished
By Paddy Ashdown
As a last resort, we must act unilaterally if the UN fails to uphold international law
Seventy-seven years ago the League of Nations, the UN’s predecessor, faced a crisis. Italy, flagrantly breaching international law, had invaded Abyssinia. The League failed to act because Germany and Japan effectively vetoed it. From that moment, the League ceased to exist as an effective institution and was put out of its misery in 1939. Prime Minister Baldwin told the Commons the League “failed ultimately because of the reluctance of . . . nations . . . to proceed to . . . military sanctions”.
What has happened in Damascus is a challenge to our humanity. It is also a challenge to our system of international law. If the international community will not now find the means to make it clear that we will not tolerate the use of weapons of mass destruction, like poison gas, for the mass murder of innocent citizens, then the fragile structures of international law that we have painfully erected these last 20 years will be undermined, and the threat of the future use of weapons of mass destruction will be widened.
So far, so easy to say. But what to do? The diplomatic things are easier — the military ones, as always, more difficult.
The first necessity is the truth. William Hague said last week that this was Assad’s work. No doubt he had solid reasons for that judgment. But that does not mean he was wise to voice it. Better to have followed President Obama and give time for the UN to give us the objective truth — or at least as much of it as possible — than state this as a Western leader’s opinion, however well founded.
The present task is to keep focused on a single, simple aim from which we should not be distracted — get those inspectors in. The Russians seem to want this, too. So here is a Syrian something we can work on in common for a change. We should concentrate on this alone and allow nothing to get in the way — and certainly not the current pointless public sabre-rattling. It’s good that Obama and Cameron have spoken. It’s good to prepare. But better to do it quietly than noisily. This is a time for quiet voices and big sticks, not the other way round.
But here’s the rub. The evidence of this crime is fragile and degrades fast. It may even be that the full truth is already beyond our reach. But that does not mean there is no truth to be extracted, even this late, from the aftermath of these horrors. We may have to be satisfied now with partial truths and uncertain judgments but the more truths we have, objectively gathered and impartially stated through the UN, the stronger the basis for further action. But what action? Politicians should not play armchair generals. Our job is to define what is needed, not decide the action.
Here what is needed is something proportionate, consistent with international law, closely defined and tightly targeted on the crime. So no to no-fly zones — even if they were militarily possible. And no to arming the rebels too — even if that was wise (which, by the way, neither is). It means something sharp, quick, specific and punishing. And preferably — strongly preferably — legitimised by a UN Security Council Resolution.
Here the West needs to understand the new limitations of its power. Some say this is getting to look like Bosnia after Srebrenica. Maybe in some ways it is — but in many more ways it isn’t. Syria is far, far more complex and with far greater geo-strategic consequences than Bosnia ever had.
But even if it was like Bosnia, we, the West, are not like we were then. Iraq, Afghanistan and the economic crisis have robbed us of the moral credibility we had then and the military capabilities we had then. A Bosnia and Kosovo style intervention, however much some may itch for one, is not just unwise — it is beyond our means. And, incidentally, beyond the tolerance of our voting publics, too.
So today, we need to do the best we can to build the best common ground we can, with both Russia and China as permanent members of the Security Council. That will not be comfortable, or pleasant. But things will be easier where we succeed in this and harder where we don’t.
But what if, even in the face of damning truth from the UN inspectors — or enough of it for a damning conclusion — Russia and China still continue to veto appropriate sanction against this terrible international crime? Then we are faced with two very unpalatable alternatives.
We can either acquiesce and so set the precedent that, even in the face of the most egregious breach, probably since the UN was founded, of that part of international law which protects the rights of citizens, no action will be taken if a great power wishes it so. In that case the UN and all it stands for will be hugely diminished as an effective organisation for the future. Or we can take unilateral action ourselves. In which case the UN will be damaged, too. Tough choice.
My instinct? I would hate it, but on balance I judge the second to be preferable to the first. Action taken with the aim of underpinning international law, even if it in the end doesn’t, is better, it seems to me, than no action with the certain consequence of undermining it. Look at what followed Abyssinia in 1936.
Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon is a former leader of the Liberal Democrats and was UN High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2002-06
As a last resort, we must act unilaterally if the UN fails to uphold international law
Seventy-seven years ago the League of Nations, the UN’s predecessor, faced a crisis. Italy, flagrantly breaching international law, had invaded Abyssinia. The League failed to act because Germany and Japan effectively vetoed it. From that moment, the League ceased to exist as an effective institution and was put out of its misery in 1939. Prime Minister Baldwin told the Commons the League “failed ultimately because of the reluctance of . . . nations . . . to proceed to . . . military sanctions”.
What has happened in Damascus is a challenge to our humanity. It is also a challenge to our system of international law. If the international community will not now find the means to make it clear that we will not tolerate the use of weapons of mass destruction, like poison gas, for the mass murder of innocent citizens, then the fragile structures of international law that we have painfully erected these last 20 years will be undermined, and the threat of the future use of weapons of mass destruction will be widened.
So far, so easy to say. But what to do? The diplomatic things are easier — the military ones, as always, more difficult.
The first necessity is the truth. William Hague said last week that this was Assad’s work. No doubt he had solid reasons for that judgment. But that does not mean he was wise to voice it. Better to have followed President Obama and give time for the UN to give us the objective truth — or at least as much of it as possible — than state this as a Western leader’s opinion, however well founded.
The present task is to keep focused on a single, simple aim from which we should not be distracted — get those inspectors in. The Russians seem to want this, too. So here is a Syrian something we can work on in common for a change. We should concentrate on this alone and allow nothing to get in the way — and certainly not the current pointless public sabre-rattling. It’s good that Obama and Cameron have spoken. It’s good to prepare. But better to do it quietly than noisily. This is a time for quiet voices and big sticks, not the other way round.
But here’s the rub. The evidence of this crime is fragile and degrades fast. It may even be that the full truth is already beyond our reach. But that does not mean there is no truth to be extracted, even this late, from the aftermath of these horrors. We may have to be satisfied now with partial truths and uncertain judgments but the more truths we have, objectively gathered and impartially stated through the UN, the stronger the basis for further action. But what action? Politicians should not play armchair generals. Our job is to define what is needed, not decide the action.
Here what is needed is something proportionate, consistent with international law, closely defined and tightly targeted on the crime. So no to no-fly zones — even if they were militarily possible. And no to arming the rebels too — even if that was wise (which, by the way, neither is). It means something sharp, quick, specific and punishing. And preferably — strongly preferably — legitimised by a UN Security Council Resolution.
Here the West needs to understand the new limitations of its power. Some say this is getting to look like Bosnia after Srebrenica. Maybe in some ways it is — but in many more ways it isn’t. Syria is far, far more complex and with far greater geo-strategic consequences than Bosnia ever had.
But even if it was like Bosnia, we, the West, are not like we were then. Iraq, Afghanistan and the economic crisis have robbed us of the moral credibility we had then and the military capabilities we had then. A Bosnia and Kosovo style intervention, however much some may itch for one, is not just unwise — it is beyond our means. And, incidentally, beyond the tolerance of our voting publics, too.
So today, we need to do the best we can to build the best common ground we can, with both Russia and China as permanent members of the Security Council. That will not be comfortable, or pleasant. But things will be easier where we succeed in this and harder where we don’t.
But what if, even in the face of damning truth from the UN inspectors — or enough of it for a damning conclusion — Russia and China still continue to veto appropriate sanction against this terrible international crime? Then we are faced with two very unpalatable alternatives.
We can either acquiesce and so set the precedent that, even in the face of the most egregious breach, probably since the UN was founded, of that part of international law which protects the rights of citizens, no action will be taken if a great power wishes it so. In that case the UN and all it stands for will be hugely diminished as an effective organisation for the future. Or we can take unilateral action ourselves. In which case the UN will be damaged, too. Tough choice.
My instinct? I would hate it, but on balance I judge the second to be preferable to the first. Action taken with the aim of underpinning international law, even if it in the end doesn’t, is better, it seems to me, than no action with the certain consequence of undermining it. Look at what followed Abyssinia in 1936.
Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon is a former leader of the Liberal Democrats and was UN High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2002-06
