Last week, President Obama was in St. Petersburg, Russia, to attend the G-20 Summit. The ostensible reason was to talk global economics, but the real reason was to see if could bring the top world leaders to support his attempt to teach Syria a lesson. In spite of his warning to President Assad never to use any of Syria’s stockpile of chemical weapons, the US had evidence that Syria had used the deadly Sarin gas to murder 1,400 of its citizens. Assad had therefore crossed an imaginary ‘red line’ drawn by Obama earlier, in his fight against rebels. Obama is enraged and wants to punish Syria through a proportionate air strike to deter Assad from repeating such misadventure. The UN Security Council, which is the appropriate body to authorise such a strike, is acting ‘impotent’ as US knows that any such proposal would be vetoed by Russia and China who support Assad and who are permanent members of the Council.
Earlier in the US, after a special briefing to a select Senate panel, he had obtained a green light to ‘shock and awe’ President Assad. But this is to be voted on by the full Senate. The US House of Representatives is still debating the president’s proposal. Obama at least wants the support of the US legislature in his adventure. Meanwhile, the British parliament was moved by Prime Minister Cameron to join Obama in the attack on Syria. But the parliament members dissented. So the UK cannot help Obama. The matter is now being hotly debated in the French parliament, the remaining permanent member of the UN Security Council. The outcome is yet to be known. Be that as it may, President Obama seems to be in a serious bind. In spite of his isolation he needs to decide whether he will go ahead and bomb Syria. He needs to take face saving action.
But there are several good reasons why the US should not bomb Syria in retaliation for the chemical attack.
The cardinal principle in handling such sensitive matters is that it should not to do anything more harmful than what has been done by the opposite party, in this case Syria. This will only aggravate the situation. Any reaction has to be proportional and effective. Without the final report of the UN inspectors on the chemical attacks on hand and with two of the five UN Permanent Security Council members ready to cast veto on a US attack, it could indeed be foolhardy for the US to unilaterally move ahead on its bombing. Already, Russia has moved its warships to the eastern Mediterranean close to Syria to probably counter US belligerence. In such a combustible atmosphere it would not be wise for Obama to take any disproportionate measures against Syria now.
The US plan is to perhaps target Syrian chemical stockpiles. These are located within the vicinity of big cities like Damascus where civilian population reside. Any attempt to degrade Syria’s chemical arsenal could lead to greater loss of civilian lives and casualties. There is also the possibility of looting of chemical weapons by unauthorised people in the mayhem that may follow. If, however, the US targets Syrian infrastructure, then such attacks would degrade the ability of the Syrian rebels to counter attack Assad’s forces in the future. In any case, there is always the possibility that aerial bombing by the US will further inflame anti-US sentiments along Arab streets.
If the US goes ahead with its plan to attack Syria from the air without proper sanction of the United Nations, the world will only condemn the US for its intransigence and disregard for the United Nations. In a dinner at Saint Petersburg last week emotions flared up among the leaders. President Putin of Russia led the verbal attack on Obama and there was a chorus of supporting voices. Only Turkey, Britain, France and Canada sided with the US.
It is important to remember that Syria is not Iraq or Libya. Assad has powerful friends like Russia and China. Even Iran has close links with him. Any unilateral action by the US could trigger intransigent behaviour by these friends of Syria. Each or any one of them could start behaving unilaterally in the future.
One of the precedents that the US is wont to quote is the unilateral action it took against Serbia in Kosovo in 1999. At that time too, the UN Security Council did not endorse US unilateral action. However, the Independent International Commission on Kosovo had later given a verdict that the US action at that time was ‘illegal yet legitimate.’ It did get a clean chit for its action in Kosovo. Will there be any such verdict in favour of US forthcoming, for its action in Syria?
Although relations between US and Russia have not deteriorated to the level that they were at during the days of the Cold War, President Putin has made it abundantly clear that Russia is not likely to let any US action in Syria go unchallenged. Russia has vital interests in Syria. The port of Lattakia is host to Russian naval ships. Any unilateral action of the US will be resisted and tension between US and Russia is likely to be ratcheted up.
It is interesting to note that bombing of Syria is not the only option available to the US now. There are several others which need to be considered. The US could make a concerted effort to persuade Russia and other great powers to push all parties including Assad to immediately cease hostilities. It should at the same time ensure that the supply of arms and ammunition be stopped to all feuding parties in Syria. This should then be followed up by negotiations without pre-conditions. Another option available to the US is to consider arming the rebels who are moderate in their views about a post Assad regime. Instead of ‘shock and awe,’ the US might consider ‘arm and shame’ as eminent US columnist Thomas Friedman suggested recently.
At the moment, Obama finds himself in a corner. This is perhaps because he did not consider getting his concept of ‘crossing the red line’ duly endorsed by the major players in Syria. It was a typical Rambo style assertion. In the real world such things can often fall foul of rational behaviour. Obama needs to play his cards cleverly and prioritise his available options. Huffing and puffing now is only making him out of breath. It is endangering the fragile international order. A Syria without Assad is only becoming a receding target.
The writer is a former Ambassador and a commentator on current affairs.
E-mail: [email protected]
Source: The Daily Star
