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/29/australia-syria-intervention
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Version 0 | Version 1 |
---|---|
Syria crisis: should Australia follow Obama's lead? | Syria crisis: should Australia follow Obama's lead? |
(about 4 hours later) | |
As far as politics goes, it’s a no-brainer for the Australian government to support Obama’s campaign for an intervention in Syria. But that doesn’t make it right. | As far as politics goes, it’s a no-brainer for the Australian government to support Obama’s campaign for an intervention in Syria. But that doesn’t make it right. |
It is a truism of politics that dealing with an international crisis boosts support for political leaders. For Kevin Rudd, this is the perfect opportunity to look prime ministerial before the election. It’s a chance to rise above petty everyday politics, and make the opposition seem unauthoritative. This is, of course, a deeply political move, but one which has worked in the past – many agree that George W Bush may have not been reelected if it wasn't for 9/11. | |
Although a despot allegedly using chemical weapons against his own people on the other side of the world won’t have the same effect on voters, Labor will be hoping that continuous media coverage in the final days of the election will convince the public that Rudd, with all his foreign policy experience, is a firmer choice for prime minister than the more domestic Tony Abbott. They’ll no doubt be wishing that some of the Obama magic dust will rub off on Rudd, too. | |
Australians tend to look favourably on humanitarian intervention. A Lowy Poll found that 82% of Australians were in favour of intervening to stop a government attacking its own citizens in Libya in 2011. Rudd has so far likened Syria to the 1994 genocide in Rwanda and 1995 massacre in Srebrenica, arguing that history would judge the international community poorly if it "turned a blind eye" to mass killings in Syria. Support for military interventions also cut across partisan lines. Coalition voters were just as likely as Labor to support attacking Libya. The prime minister’s rhetoric in recent days has been speaking to both constituencies. | |
And while Rudd has been talking up the moral imperative to act, foreign minister Bob Carr has been reassuring constituents concerned about becoming embroiled in another Middle East war. Yesterday he emphasised that the situation was being approached responsibly, stating that he wanted “to praise the Obama Administration for being careful about its response. I think that gives the world some assurance that when the response comes it will have been thought through." | And while Rudd has been talking up the moral imperative to act, foreign minister Bob Carr has been reassuring constituents concerned about becoming embroiled in another Middle East war. Yesterday he emphasised that the situation was being approached responsibly, stating that he wanted “to praise the Obama Administration for being careful about its response. I think that gives the world some assurance that when the response comes it will have been thought through." |
As it stands, for the government to support Obama is basically a risk-free policy. As Carr confirmed yesterday, there will be no Australian troops involved in an attack on Syria. Australia will be spending neither blood nor treasure in pursuit of retaliation against a bloodthirsty regime, but will instead be lending moral support from the sidelines. | As it stands, for the government to support Obama is basically a risk-free policy. As Carr confirmed yesterday, there will be no Australian troops involved in an attack on Syria. Australia will be spending neither blood nor treasure in pursuit of retaliation against a bloodthirsty regime, but will instead be lending moral support from the sidelines. |
If it goes badly, it will be Obama’s fault – but if it goes well, it will be claimed as a moral victory for the west. Based on politics alone, it’s a position that’s low on risk and high on potential benefits for the government. But that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. | If it goes badly, it will be Obama’s fault – but if it goes well, it will be claimed as a moral victory for the west. Based on politics alone, it’s a position that’s low on risk and high on potential benefits for the government. But that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. |
Firstly, what is being planned is not actually a humanitarian intervention. Although Rudd has compared Syria to Rwanda and Srebrenica, the current plan for limited punitive strikes against the Assad regime actually belies the lessons supposedly learned in these two atrocities. Secretary of state John Kerry has been careful to frame any intervention as solely a deterrent to any further use of chemical weapons, rather than as an effort to protect the people of Syria from all forms of mass murder. | Firstly, what is being planned is not actually a humanitarian intervention. Although Rudd has compared Syria to Rwanda and Srebrenica, the current plan for limited punitive strikes against the Assad regime actually belies the lessons supposedly learned in these two atrocities. Secretary of state John Kerry has been careful to frame any intervention as solely a deterrent to any further use of chemical weapons, rather than as an effort to protect the people of Syria from all forms of mass murder. |
More than 10 times as many people have already been killed in Syria as died at Srebrenica. If we were going in to prevent mass murder of the type seen during the early 1990s, any action would be more extensive than what is already on the table. Moreover, if we wanted to protect the people of Syria with missiles and planes, the west probably should have intervened two years ago. | More than 10 times as many people have already been killed in Syria as died at Srebrenica. If we were going in to prevent mass murder of the type seen during the early 1990s, any action would be more extensive than what is already on the table. Moreover, if we wanted to protect the people of Syria with missiles and planes, the west probably should have intervened two years ago. |
A limited, deterrent attack may stop Assad from using chemical weapons, but it probably won’t do anything about the broader pattern of atrocities being committed by the regime. Unless the US is intending to expand its mission once it’s already involved, this won’t be a humanitarian intervention. | A limited, deterrent attack may stop Assad from using chemical weapons, but it probably won’t do anything about the broader pattern of atrocities being committed by the regime. Unless the US is intending to expand its mission once it’s already involved, this won’t be a humanitarian intervention. |
The main argument against intervention in Syria to date has been that there is no way of being sure that it would actually improve the situation. There are any number of things that could go wrong, and the US is by now well versed in the danger of picking sides in wars in the Middle East. There are legitimate suspicions about many of the rebels. Assad’s use of chemical weapons in recent days has not changed this fact. | |
It would also be illegal to attack Syria without the backing of the UN Security Council. In spite of Australia assuming the presidency of the world’s premier security forum next week, the intransigence of both China and Russia mean that it is highly unlikely that authorisation will be forthcoming. Australia could, however, play a role in reaching a compromise among the big players in the unlikely event these countries were open to negotiation. | It would also be illegal to attack Syria without the backing of the UN Security Council. In spite of Australia assuming the presidency of the world’s premier security forum next week, the intransigence of both China and Russia mean that it is highly unlikely that authorisation will be forthcoming. Australia could, however, play a role in reaching a compromise among the big players in the unlikely event these countries were open to negotiation. |
Some have mentioned the intervention in Kosovo as a precedent, considered by many to have been "illegal, but legitimate". This, however, risks further irritating an already cantankerous Russia, and possibly worsening relationships between the west and the Arab states. It also won’t stop the citizens of many countries across the world seeing this as yet another example of US meddling in the Middle East. | Some have mentioned the intervention in Kosovo as a precedent, considered by many to have been "illegal, but legitimate". This, however, risks further irritating an already cantankerous Russia, and possibly worsening relationships between the west and the Arab states. It also won’t stop the citizens of many countries across the world seeing this as yet another example of US meddling in the Middle East. |
Despite the moralising rhetoric coming from Rudd and his counterparts in the northern hemisphere, the fact still remains that nobody really knows whether intervening in Syria will actually help the Syrian people – and that surely should be the main driver of any potential action. While it may be politically easy for our leaders to support the call for an intervention, action for action’s sake will not help anyone. | Despite the moralising rhetoric coming from Rudd and his counterparts in the northern hemisphere, the fact still remains that nobody really knows whether intervening in Syria will actually help the Syrian people – and that surely should be the main driver of any potential action. While it may be politically easy for our leaders to support the call for an intervention, action for action’s sake will not help anyone. |