• Thursday, Sep 16, 2021
  • Last Update : 05:44 pm

Syria bleeds to death as the West stands by and watches

  • Published at 05:13 pm June 9th, 2013
Syria bleeds to death as the West stands by and watches

Sceptics about humanitarian intervention in Syria hit you with what they regard as a killer question: "Where do you stop?" If the "international community," such as it is, tries to halt the massacres in Syria, why doesn't it intervene in North Korea or Somalia? If the political partialities of your inquisitor lean to the pseudo-left, the "whataboutery" does not stop there. Guantanamo, drones, the West Bank, or whatever else is troubling them that day mean that nothing can be done for the Syrians until the lands of the West have been cleansed of their sins.

The only proper response to "where do you stop?" is "when do you start?" The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is meant to protect against "barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind." The conscience of mankind, however, has become remarkably forgiving of late.

What can outrage it? Not the 80,000 dead, according to the UN (a minimum of 94,000, says the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights). Not the 1.5m the war has driven into exile in poverty-stricken camps, where families sell their daughters to dirty old men to pay for food. Not the United Nations, which last week talked of soldiers forcing children to watch the torture and murder of their parents and concluded that, while all sides were guilty of war crimes, rebel actions did not "reach the intensity and scale" of the massacres committed by government forces.

Few qualms have afflicted the conscience of dictatorial regimes. Russia, Iran, Hezbollah, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have practised illiberal intervention. But as for the conscience of the West, when it considers Syria at all, it finds liberal intervention unconscionable - nearly everywhere, that is, except in British Foreign Secretary William Hague's Foreign Office. It is only from Hague's Foreign Office and the Quai d'Orsay that you find a glimmer of an understanding of the moral and diplomatic questions the Syrian catastrophe raises.

We should never forget that the Syrian revolution began with peaceful demonstrators asking for democracy and a decent life. It was closer to the velvet revolutions of eastern Europe than the civil war in Libya. Assad's forces responded by mowing down, raping and castrating the protesters. Syrian intellectuals warned me and many others that, if Nato did nothing, the war would spread to Iraq, Lebanon, Israel and maybe Jordan and southern Turkey, and they were right. Radical Islamists would fill the void, they continued, and again the only comfort they have today is that they were right about that too.

Hague is impressive because you do not need to tell him what he already knows. He accepts that the world failed Syria and gave Assad the time and space to brutalise the population. He at least is not surprised by reports of massacres. They are chronicles of deaths foretold.

Although you will never get British or French foreign ministers to say so in public, they also know that there has been a calamitous failure of American leadership. Russia, Iran and Assad have taken every opportunity available. The Nixonian Obama, as indifferent to abuses of human rights abroad as he is to abuses of civil liberties at home, has shrugged and looked the other way.

It is a sign of the parochial spirit of the age that the modest proposal by Britain and France to fill the vacuum by threatening to arm rebels has been greeted with fury on the right and left. I accept that it is hard after Iraq to talk of the national interest or of Nato or the EU's interest. But the facts of grand strategy have not changed. Even if you can suppress all humanitarian impulses, it is not in the West's interest to have an Assad regime more beholden to Iran than ever on the shores of the Mediterranean.

More to the point, without pressure, why would Assad come to the negotiating table and demand anything less than his opponents' abject surrender? Why would rebels come to hear the terms of their capitulation? The threat of arming of rebels who profess democratic principles would tell Assad that he could not carry on regardless.

The UK's Labour party, which is meant to represent the sensible wing of the British left, will not give Hague a fair hearing. During the Bosnian war, Douglas Hurd, the Conservative party foreign secretary in 1993, said he would not allow arms to reach Bosnian Muslims for fear of creating "a level killing field." Many on the liberal left condemned him. Hurd was ignoring the distinction between aggressor and victim, we said. He could not bring himself to say that the Serbs outgunned the Muslims and were taking full advantage of their superiority to ethnically cleanse the south-east Balkans.

Now the roles are reversed. A Conservative foreign secretary does not want to sit by as the bodies of the murdered pile up.

Meanwhile, another Douglas, Douglas Alexander this time, Labour's "progressive" foreign affairs spokesman, breezily maintains that there is no need to help rebels because Syria is already "awash" with weapons. He then contradicts himself by maintaining that if Britain and France were to arm rebels - why would they need to if Syria were already "awash" with weapons? - the rebels would not come to the negotiating table.

If David Cameron were saying he was going to send British troops into another war, I would have no argument with Alexander. But he is condemning any application of diplomatic pressure. Russia has used every gambit it can think of to delay peace talks. British diplomats have told the Russian foreign ministry it can hold talks in the Kremlin and call them the "Moscow talks" or the "Russian peace process" ... anything to get the process started. To no avail. Putin wants to give Assad as much time as possible. Nothing will change unless the terms of trade change first.

There is an alternative future. Faint though it may seem, there remains the possibility that the rebels will win without Western aid. If so, they will be more jihadist, sectarian, brutal and anti-Western when they take Damascus.

The words of my Syrian friends will then sound prophetic: "We will never forget how you forgot us."

This article was originally published in The Guardian and has been reprinted by special arrangement.  

Facebook 50
blogger sharing button blogger
buffer sharing button buffer
diaspora sharing button diaspora
digg sharing button digg
douban sharing button douban
email sharing button email
evernote sharing button evernote
flipboard sharing button flipboard
pocket sharing button getpocket
github sharing button github
gmail sharing button gmail
googlebookmarks sharing button googlebookmarks
hackernews sharing button hackernews
instapaper sharing button instapaper
line sharing button line
linkedin sharing button linkedin
livejournal sharing button livejournal
mailru sharing button mailru
medium sharing button medium
meneame sharing button meneame
messenger sharing button messenger
odnoklassniki sharing button odnoklassniki
pinterest sharing button pinterest
print sharing button print
qzone sharing button qzone
reddit sharing button reddit
refind sharing button refind
renren sharing button renren
skype sharing button skype
snapchat sharing button snapchat
surfingbird sharing button surfingbird
telegram sharing button telegram
tumblr sharing button tumblr
twitter sharing button twitter
vk sharing button vk
wechat sharing button wechat
weibo sharing button weibo
whatsapp sharing button whatsapp
wordpress sharing button wordpress
xing sharing button xing
yahoomail sharing button yahoomail