Alice in Wonderland (or Syria)

Henry Srebrnik, [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian

So, the West is going to bomb the facilities that contain Syria’s poison gas, but very carefully avoid “regime change.” Think of how absurd this is: it’s as if the Allies in World War II only bombed the Nazi death camps but left Hitler in power.

Actually, in World War II it was precisely the opposite – they only fought the German military while leaving the gas chambers intact.

Obviously, the United States and its allies could overthrow Bashar al-Assad’s regime in a matter of weeks, if not days, and stop him from continuing to massacre his own people. So I guess they think it’ s fine to kill unarmed civilians, as long as it’s done by bullets, bombs and shrapnel, not gas. At least 100,000 have already died, and some two million have fled the country, languishing in refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and other countries.

It is very well to hope that the United Nations Security Council would approve a mission against Syria. Under the UN Charter, the use of force is permitted only when authorized by the Security Council, or for self-defence.

But the Great Powers must be unanimous for such an action to proceed, as they all have vetoes. And we know that Russia and China will block such action.

Some officials at the United Nations and other experts say the use of force against Syria, absent a Security Council resolution, would be illegal. Since we know Russia will veto any such resolution, it would mean, then, that Obama's so-called “red line,”  promising that the U.S. would punish Syria for using chemical weapons, is worthless.

And that would also be the case with the “red line” warning Iran not to develop nuclear weapons -- since Russia would use its veto in that case too. So, really, American guarantees in this instance would also be meaningless.

Before the drafting of the UN Charter, and various other international conventions and treaties, state sovereignty was deemed to be absolute. The lessons of World War II put an end to that. But if a country on the Security Council can prevent outside intervention into a civil war such as is taking place in Syria, aren’t back to square one?

Not necessarily, because there is a precedent: The U.S. and its allies ignored the Security Council when they attacked Serbia in 1999. Russia then, too, opposed any moves against its ally Serbia. Concerns over ethnic cleansing and mass murder in Kosovo trumped the worries about UN approval.

There was a lot of fanfare and self-congratulation by countries such as Canada when the UN in 2005 adopted the “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) initiative. This doctrine adds humanitarian intervention as a category of lawful war. It is not, however, in the UN Charter, and it lacks the force of international law.

Several countries have argued that R2P should not allow the international community to intervene militarily, because to do so is an infringement upon sovereignty. Others argue that this is a necessary facet of R2P, and is justified as a last resort to stop mass atrocities.

Isn’t it truly immoral to quibble over such matters as thousands die every day?