In 1999, NATO bombed Serbia to end state violence against its own civilians in Kosovo. That “first humanitarian war” was waged without a mandate from the United Nations Security Council but with what was deemed a moral mandate. There had been worldwide outrage at the genocidal policies of Slobodan Milosevic, and that sentiment formalized in General Assembly resolutions.
Syria is analogous to Kosovo with near-universal outrage, yet no Security Council permission to intervene. But there’s the General Assembly condemnation of the Bashar Assad regime, with dissenting votes coming only from Russia, China and some of the world’s most brutal regimes — Iran, Zimbabwe, North Korea and Cuba.
Post-Kosovo, the UN formulated the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect (R2P): A state could not invoke sovereignty to commit mass atrocities and ethnic cleansing — and if it did, the international community had a responsibility to intervene. There would be no repeat of Rwanda.
That was a Canadian idea, promoted by Lloyd Axworthy, foreign minister from 1996 to 2000. He was also the architect of the 1997 Ottawa treaty, an international accord to ban anti-personnel land mines.
Both those Canadian ideals are being violated in Syria. Yet the Stephen Harper government has remained mostly mute, laments Axworthy, president of the University of Winnipeg, whom I spoke to over the phone.
“This government is entitled to its foreign policy, but its silence on Syria is deafening.”
Syrian cities are being shelled and bombed. More than 8,000 people have been killed, so far. Thousands have been arrested and tortured. More than 30,000 Syrians have fled to neighbouring Turkey and Lebanon.
The Assad regime is laying land mines along its borders to prevent people from fleeing. (Syria is among the 37 nations that have not signed the anti-mines treaty, others being Russia and, ironically, the United States.)
U.S. Senator John McCain has already called for air strikes on Syria. But Barack Obama is reluctant, for domestic and geopolitical reasons.
Does Axworthy agree with McCain?
“Yes. There’s probably enough legitimacy from the General Assembly resolution to go ahead.”
But bombs need not start flying immediately. There’s work to do to move toward that goal. “There’s legitimacy to countries to start planning a forceful intervention.”
Another influential Canadian, Senator Hugh Segal, also endorses McCain’s proposal.
“Without a readiness to deploy air assets against Syrian government forces, the carnage will continue,” Segal told the Senate in Ottawa on March 6.
Canada did the right thing by joining NATO to save Libyans from Moammar Gadhafi. We should be doing the same in Syria, to avoid “a double standard,” Segal said. Lobby NATO to back an Arab League plan for an Arab-led stabilization force. And, “make independent plans to use air assets to contain and restrain the Syrian military.”
Worldwide, several such ideas are being explored and some are already being implemented:
• Gather evidence to indict Assad and his cronies for crimes against humanity before the International Criminal Court.
• Create “humanitarian corridors” and “no kill zones” at the Syrian border with Turkey and Jordan. McCain said: “These safe havens could serve as platforms for the delivery of humanitarian and military assistance, including weapons and ammunition, body armour and other personal protective equipment, tactical intelligence, secure communications equipment, food and water and medical supplies.”
• Infiltrate special forces into Syria from Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Britain, France and others. This may already be underway.
• Arm the opposition Free Syrian Army with small arms and anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons, as McCain suggests.
That’s a matter of fierce debate even among the beleaguered Syrians. It would militarize the non-violent resistance. It would increase the odds of civil war that would draw proxies from Iran and elsewhere. Yet, “on their own, the non-violent protesters do not stand a chance,” note a group of respected human rights advocates in a detailed paper in the latest Harvard International Law Journal.
R2P “is facing a severe test in Syria,” they write. While preparing for force “as a last resort,” they suggest “militant diplomacy.” Countries should “derecognize” the Assad regime and recognize the Syrian National Council, the leading anti-Assad group, handing over Syrian embassies to it.
Axworthy says that Canada, as the originator of R2P, should be mobilizing world opinion against the Assad regime and bringing pressure on China and, especially, Russia.
“As a first step, we should be having a serious parliamentary debate in Ottawa and evolving a Canadian proposal to take to the world.”
Original Article
Source: Star
Author: Haroon Siddiqui
No comments:
Post a Comment