Simon Jenkins: Syria: it takes more courage to say there is nothing outsiders can do

[flpoljunkie]

Syria: it takes more courage to say there is nothing outsiders can do
The human misery in Syria is agonising to watch. But intervention-lite is a bad idea for all but the politicians' egos

Simon Jenkins
The Guardian, Thursday 29 August 2013 18.42 EDT


'The use of chemical weapons is awful. But to treat their apparently random use to justify an attack on a foreign state is wilful.' Photograph: Flo Smith/NurPhoto/Corbis

The urge of much of Britain's political establishment to attack Syria is in retreat. The prime minister's eagerness to join an American bombing run on Damascus hit a humiliating reverse in the Commons on Thursday evening. The prime minister now appears to accept there will be no British intervention in Syria.

Prior to the vote, Downing Street had been swerving and skidding to avoid the Iraq trap. It wisely published the intelligence report indicating the Assad regime used chemical weapons in a raid on a Damascus suburb, possibly in random retaliation for an attempt on his life. Such weapons are illegal under international law. While it was wrong to rush to judgment with inquiries still in train, there is justice in a desire to enforce the law. But enforcement must be meticulous in its legality. Otherwise what is dispensed is anarchy, not law.

The government claimed it could attack Syria under the UN's "responsibility to protect" doctrine, where people in a foreign state are abused by their own government. We know from the Iraq invasion that British politicians are adept at finding lawyers to say what they want. But facts are facts. The UN's resolution 1674 on responsibility to protect plainly states that such action must be "through the security council in accordance with the charter". That process was absent.

The use of chemical weapons is awful. But to treat their apparently random use to justify an urgent, extra-legal attack on a foreign state is wilful. It had been precipitated by President Obama's unwise warning in the summer that such use would cross a "red line". This is odd from a leader whose own arsenal embraces phosphorous and depleted uranium shells and delayed-action cluster bombs, not to mention nuclear weapons. Why such dreadful weapons are not taboo, and chemical ones are, is a mystery.

Obama's intention is currently for a "limited, tailored … clear, decisive shot across the bows" of the Syrian government. The tactical basis for this is obscure. It can hardly claim to deter a chemical attack, since the red line speech tried and failed in that respect. While Assad seems unlikely to repeat the outrage, the idea that he will roll over if bombed and stop killing his people is naive. As for "degrading" his arsenals, if this releases chemical clouds how stupid is that?

more...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/29/syria-more-courage-to-say-nothing-can-do

[Little Star]

1. "intervention-lite"! k&r

[loveandlight]

2. really good article, thanks

Lots of useful information about other times we've tried to intervene where we don't belong and all the bad that comes from it. Thanks.