This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/24/options-syria

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Choosing between bad options in Syria becomes ever more complex Choosing between bad options in Syria becomes ever more complex
(25 days later)
One defining feature of western foreign policy over the past two-and-a-half decades is the question of when, in what circumstances, and in what way the international community should intervene to prevent large-scale human rights abuses. The doctrine of responsibility to protect – R2P – was inspired in large part by the bloodshed that followed the break-up of Yugoslavia when, as today, the world seemed unable to shape a coherent response.One defining feature of western foreign policy over the past two-and-a-half decades is the question of when, in what circumstances, and in what way the international community should intervene to prevent large-scale human rights abuses. The doctrine of responsibility to protect – R2P – was inspired in large part by the bloodshed that followed the break-up of Yugoslavia when, as today, the world seemed unable to shape a coherent response.
The promise that it once held, despite the criticism of some states that it threatened the principle of national sovereignty, has been badly eroded in the past 10 years. An illegal war in Iraq dressed up as a protective necessity has been followed by other interventions that have backfired, not least in Libya. In the process, different models of intervention have been destruction-tested. The large-scale and hugely costly US-led commitments to reconstruction and democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan have little to show for the effort except a continuing cycle of bloodshed and instability. Intervention-lite – in Libya again for instance – has left a country close to the brink of anarchy. And where the international community has forsworn any meaningful pressure – in Syria, and now in Egypt – events, at every juncture, have taken a turn for the worse.The promise that it once held, despite the criticism of some states that it threatened the principle of national sovereignty, has been badly eroded in the past 10 years. An illegal war in Iraq dressed up as a protective necessity has been followed by other interventions that have backfired, not least in Libya. In the process, different models of intervention have been destruction-tested. The large-scale and hugely costly US-led commitments to reconstruction and democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan have little to show for the effort except a continuing cycle of bloodshed and instability. Intervention-lite – in Libya again for instance – has left a country close to the brink of anarchy. And where the international community has forsworn any meaningful pressure – in Syria, and now in Egypt – events, at every juncture, have taken a turn for the worse.
If the issues involved have been complicated, it is because the US has, in recent years, relentlessly undermined any claim it might have had to moral leadership. Rendition, Guantánamo Bay and drone killings, which have all claimed too many civilian lives, have tarnished its reputation, not least in Asia and the Middle East. The UN Security Council, and in particular its five permanent members, is ever more at odds, with Moscow and Washington implacably opposed over Syria.If the issues involved have been complicated, it is because the US has, in recent years, relentlessly undermined any claim it might have had to moral leadership. Rendition, Guantánamo Bay and drone killings, which have all claimed too many civilian lives, have tarnished its reputation, not least in Asia and the Middle East. The UN Security Council, and in particular its five permanent members, is ever more at odds, with Moscow and Washington implacably opposed over Syria.
Today, the world appears to be at a crossroads. The stark and compelling evidence of large-scale atrocities, including the strongly suspected use of chemical weapons outside Damascus last week, killing perhaps hundreds of people, comes amid a growing perception that a weak and divided international community is powerless and unwilling to act on crimes against humanity. A sense of impunity feeds boldness and escalation. In Damascus, Cairo and elsewhere, actors today are making dangerous decisions based on the calculation that they will not be called to account.Today, the world appears to be at a crossroads. The stark and compelling evidence of large-scale atrocities, including the strongly suspected use of chemical weapons outside Damascus last week, killing perhaps hundreds of people, comes amid a growing perception that a weak and divided international community is powerless and unwilling to act on crimes against humanity. A sense of impunity feeds boldness and escalation. In Damascus, Cairo and elsewhere, actors today are making dangerous decisions based on the calculation that they will not be called to account.
In these circumstances, it is the easiest thing to say that, in the case of Syria in particular, there are only bad options. That may be true. But increasingly it may be that there is a worse option: doing nothing.In these circumstances, it is the easiest thing to say that, in the case of Syria in particular, there are only bad options. That may be true. But increasingly it may be that there is a worse option: doing nothing.
This paper has resisted the calls for military intervention in Syria. It remains the case that such intervention seems a deeply perilous route, with no guarantee of success and pregnant with the risk of triggering a wider regional war. But we do appear to be coming ever closer to a tipping point, with difficult judgments ahead. The recent statements from William Hague and President Obama have raised the temperature and increased the likelihood of some form of action or sanction if it is conclusively proved that the Syrian regime is authoring chemical attacks on its citizens. Hague is right to say that "a chemical attack ... is not something that a humane and civilised world can ignore".This paper has resisted the calls for military intervention in Syria. It remains the case that such intervention seems a deeply perilous route, with no guarantee of success and pregnant with the risk of triggering a wider regional war. But we do appear to be coming ever closer to a tipping point, with difficult judgments ahead. The recent statements from William Hague and President Obama have raised the temperature and increased the likelihood of some form of action or sanction if it is conclusively proved that the Syrian regime is authoring chemical attacks on its citizens. Hague is right to say that "a chemical attack ... is not something that a humane and civilised world can ignore".
Yet the case for military intervention has still to be made. Obama seems intent, rightly, on getting international agreement for an even more limited form of action – securing chemical weapons or neutralising missile sites. And, looking back at Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan, who can say with any certainty that the lives of Syrians would improve in the long term if such a course of action was taken?Yet the case for military intervention has still to be made. Obama seems intent, rightly, on getting international agreement for an even more limited form of action – securing chemical weapons or neutralising missile sites. And, looking back at Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan, who can say with any certainty that the lives of Syrians would improve in the long term if such a course of action was taken?
But as the situation deteriorates, there is a responsibility on all our parts to engage meaningfully with this debate and consider the choices we might face. If, after due consideration, the decision is made to leave well alone, we will at least be clearer as to why we have made that choice.But as the situation deteriorates, there is a responsibility on all our parts to engage meaningfully with this debate and consider the choices we might face. If, after due consideration, the decision is made to leave well alone, we will at least be clearer as to why we have made that choice.
Last week, the French foreign minister said that "force may be needed" in the event of a chemical attack. But what kind of force, and from where, and to achieve what? And what then? Does force come allied to political initiatives, or not? We need to address the detail, not unleash rhetoric.Last week, the French foreign minister said that "force may be needed" in the event of a chemical attack. But what kind of force, and from where, and to achieve what? And what then? Does force come allied to political initiatives, or not? We need to address the detail, not unleash rhetoric.
There are no easy answers here, but we need to ask the questions. And we should trouble ourselves to think through the possible outcomes for the people of Syria. Until the most recent statements from the US and the UK, it looked increasingly like we weren't bothered and didn't care.There are no easy answers here, but we need to ask the questions. And we should trouble ourselves to think through the possible outcomes for the people of Syria. Until the most recent statements from the US and the UK, it looked increasingly like we weren't bothered and didn't care.
We can avert our eyes when "suspected" chemical attacks take place. Can we still avert our eyes if they are proved to have taken place? The answer may still be yes, but let's explain to those caught in the Syrian nightmare why that is so.We can avert our eyes when "suspected" chemical attacks take place. Can we still avert our eyes if they are proved to have taken place? The answer may still be yes, but let's explain to those caught in the Syrian nightmare why that is so.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.