Peacemaker vs meddler in Syria

Any conscientious person should rightly feel indignant at the atrocities committed by the warring factions against Syrian civilians, the alleged use of chemical weapons on Aug 21 that killed several hundreds in particular.

But would a “humanitarian” bombing of Syria, as hastily proposed by President Barack Obama, be an appropriate response? As of now, no-one is absolutely certain the sarin gas attack had been ordered by Bashar Al-Assad except for those who are demanding their pound of flesh.

Why would the Syrian president have been so stupid to orchestrate an outrageous act when he was already winning the civil war, thereby crossing the red line as staked out by the White House last year?

It is worth reminding here that, without condoning gross violations of human rights on the part of the Assad regime, the so-called rebels that the emerging ‘Coalition of the Willing’ supports too have been wantonly killing civilians in an attempt to escalate the conflict. Ironically, the minority groups, especially the Christians, are increasingly targetted as they are perceived to be staunch supporters of the current government.

John Kerry, the US Secretary of State, has made it clear his goal is to help the Syrian opposition which is “getting stronger by the day”. What he has not revealed is the fact that US allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been actively helping the Syrian insurgents - including certain extremist groups - with funds and logistics.

The Free Syrian Army, despite being wary of the ‘Islamist’ agenda of some such as al-Nusra Front which is practically an offshoot of al-Qaeda, is compelled to tolerate the latter’s presence because of its fighting prowess.

Of course, both Washington and London are not helped by the invasion of Iraq 10 years ago on the pretext of 'weapons of mass destruction', which turned out to be the Weapon of Mass Deception engineered by George W Bush and Tony Blair. The catastrophic aftermath - with more than 100,000 civilian deaths , millions displaced and the country mired in incessant sectarian violence - continues to haunt the Americans and the British.

Thanks also to Blair that the word ‘dossier’ has since assumed a gravely negative connotation. It is hence no surprise that, when the French released their own ‘dossier’ on Syria’s chemical weapons earlier this week, it failed to create the intended impact as the general public remains largely sceptical. After all, the international media had worked diligently in druming up the case for war on Iraq and lost their credibility thereafter.

The New York Times , for one, accurately attributes the Americans’ resistance to another military involvement to the ‘botched intelligence’ prior to the Iraq War, which still casts a long shadow on Obama’s plans.

Lest we forget, the New York Times had enthusiastically argued for the invasion of Iraq, only to be forced to apologise to its readers a year later, after more light was shed on all the dodgy information provided by the Bush administration.

And one must not forget Saddam ( left ) remained a darling of the White House for several more years even after he had gassed Iranians and Kurds to death in the late 1980s, and the weapons that he used were supplied by none other than Washington.

Obama’s World War II moment?

Now, the ‘international media’ want us to believe Obama’s WWII moment has arrived while David Cameron has all the makings of another Winston Churchill? We might well naively have if not for the fact that Bush and Blair had lied through their teeth to wreak havoc in Iraq.

So, does it mean that the world should just stand idly by as more civilians lose their lives uncessarily in Syria? Certainly not.

If the world’s purpose of intervention in Syria is to secure peace, measures must be taken with a view to reducing conflict between both sides, not to aggravate a situation that is already horrible enough. As Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya - to name only the few examples in this century - have taught us, military involvement always brings with it unintended consequences.

Threats of retaliation, counter-attacks, insurgency, coups and sectarian violence almost always become the norm and, being an ethnically and religiously diverse country, Syria has all the potential of turning into another Iraq. No easy military solutions can be achieved given all the complexities. Rather, an attack led by the US may very well end up killing the very people that Obama and Kerry pledge to save.

And this leaves us with political alternatives, ie. Bringing the two sides to a negotiating table with Russia's and, if necessary, Iran's participation. The United Nations must convene a session to pass a resolution on immediate ceasefires so that peace talks can begin.

Alternatively, the criminality of the Assad ( right ) regime can be dealt with at the UN, while the International Criminal Court may issue an arrest warrant on the Syrian president for a trial even in absentia as was the case with Omar al-Bashir of Sudan. This would no doubt indicate global isolation of Assad, but with clear moral authority.

As the prospect of political Islam at home becomes more real, Malaysians are now more concerned about what is going on in the Middle East. That is a good thing. Still, it is too easy for some Malaysians to look to the US for moral leadership because they themselves have not suffered the plight of military intervention.

If our ultimate goal is to protect the vulnerable and find a lasting solution, it is best to avoid military options but work arduously for a political settlement. Unless, of course, our role is not that of a peacemaker but a meddler with an ulterior motive, which Washington has proven to be time and again.

---

JOSH HONG studied politics at London Metropolitan University and the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. A keen watcher of domestic and international politics, he longs for a day when Malaysians will learn and master the art of self-mockery, and enjoy life to the full in spite of politicians.