Did President Obama ever draw a line in the sand saying that if the Syrian regime crosses the “red line” there will be serious consequences? His statements until recently have been ambiguous, at best.
The issue of chemical weapons and the Syrian regime was referred to on August 20, 2012, during a news conference at the White House. Obama said: “We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilised.”
The president, at that time, didn’t lay out the consequences of crossing the red line. He said: “That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.” Thanks to the media and the military establishment, soon this statement was reinterpreted as “drawing a red line.”
Evidently Obama was trying to put pressure on Bashar al-Assad, but Assad called Obama’s bluff. Whether Obama wanted or not, now he has owned the “red line” ultimatum.
President Obama has already made it clear that the US will strike. After the British Parliament’s decision not to be with the US, it is increasingly likely that the USA will engage in a unilateral action, primarily airstrikes, in Syria.
Obama has up to now been an ardent opponent of unilateral action. As a Senator and as a Presidential candidate he opposed such efforts. He expressed the opinion that unilateral action, particularly without a UN mandate, would constitute a violation of international law.
That’s what served as a guideline for US involvement in Libya in 2011. But it is clear that such support for action against Syria will not be forthcoming. The anti-intervention decision by the UK parliament, although not the final say of the British government because there will be another vote after UN observers return and submit their report, reveals the lack of appetite for another war in the Middle East.
There is palpable unease both at home and abroad about any military action. The long shadow of the Iraq War is omnipresent. Information leading to the Iraq war was manipulated. Is it happening again? – a question many are asking. Despite John Kerry’s assurances, many are yet to be convinced.
Obama’s decision to seek Congressional approval is being viewed both as a weakness and a strength. The Congress will not meet until September 9 and a decision might take a few more days. Perhaps this will provide some time to work out a plan.
Seeking a Congressional approval is not only meant to appease his critics, but also to have a broader authorisation, in case the conflict escalates to a different level. Whether Obama can build a coalition during the G20 Summit at St Petersburg is also something to be watched closely.
The legality of the “impending war” is being debated in the media and elsewhere. Those who would like to find a justification are referring to the Kosovo episode in 1999. British human rights lawyer and author Geoffrey Robertson (Crimes against Humanity – The Struggle for Global Justice) argues that: “There has never been any need for a security council resolution approving action to stop, punish or deter a crime against humanity.”
Others cite the Responsibility to Protect (R2P); according to this line of argument: “If the Syrian authorities have committed mass killings of its own population, they have committed crimes against humanity. In such situations, the obligation of states to take action is clear on the basis of the Responsibility to Protect, which has been approved by member states of the UN, without having firm legal provisions.”
The UN mission in Darfur is a case in point. But one is entitled to question whether the R2P document endorsed by all UN members in 2005 is intended for this kind of situation. Paul Heinbecker, who promoted the doctrine while he was Canada’s UN ambassador in the early 2000s, says a coalition acting on the basis of R2P could “at least put some minds at rest,” even without the UN Security Council’s unlikely approval. He feels that it will be an error if the US does not take time to form a coalition.
Furthermore, according to the UN doctrine, R2P should be acted upon only if the force used is proportionate to the threat and likely to succeed, and unlikely to cause more harm than good. One cannot guarantee these, particularly the latter, in the Syrian case, especially after two years of civil war. Had this argument been used at the beginning of the civil war, two years ago, there would have been more justification than now.
Other options are being deliberated by legal analysts, such as getting a resolution from the UN General Assembly. In the 1950s, it was done for the Korean War. Another option is to hold Syria responsible for violation of the 1925 Geneva Protocol banning the use of chemical weapons. But there is at least one instance where the world looked the other way, and the US might have knowingly aided the perpetrator.
Whether the legal issue is resolved or not resolved, the consequence of any US airstrike remains uncertain. According to press reports, US officials hope that any military assault on Syria will be “surgical” and “limited.” What will a limited airstrike achieve? No one, including the President, has yet described the goals of the mission.
If the objective is to send a message to Assad (as President Obama said “The Assad regime, which is involved in a civil war trying to protect itself, will have received a pretty strong signal”), what if Assad reads the message differently – “you attacked and I survived.” Will there be retaliation from the Assad regime? If so, will that outweigh the US military action? Will we see a war spiraling out of control with non-state actors becoming key players? How will Russia react to an attack on its ally?
In previous instances, for example Kosovo or Iraq, the Russian reaction was muted, but this is not a guarantee that it will be the same this time around. The leadership has changed and the US-Russia relationship has deteriorated.
Any military action is bound to have some humanitarian consequences. The country has been suffering for the past two years and almost 100,000 have already died. Adding more deaths to an ongoing war will not help anybody. Is there a difference between being killed in US air strikes or by the Assad regime? Will a foreign military action embolden Assad and weaken the resistance’s cause? Is there a risk that more people will die if foreign intervention is not carried out, or the reverse?
These questions need to be reflected on before any decision is made about military intervention. But, after all the belligerent rhetoric and posturing in recent days, can the US step back? The president said the military action is needed to stop the “escalating use of chemical weapons, or their proliferation to terrorist groups.” But it is not inaccurate to assume that it is designed to put Iran on notice, because of its alleged nuclear weapons programme.
The other side of the entire issue is the people inside Syria who are fighting for the past two years “to remove a dictatorial system of governance” and “a tyrant.” The world has stood by and done nothing other than supply arms to both sides. Should it continue to be passive after the heinous chemical attacks and deaths of hundreds of innocent children?
If a Syrian asks why the international community has failed them what answer does the world give? This is a no less serious question than asking who has made the US the global police. Both questions deserve to be answered.
