Coming from India and being born
in the 80’s generation, I take freedom, liberty and democracy for granted. I
often forget that I stand on the shoulders of giants for whom sacrifice was a
way of life and ‘Swaraj’, a birth right they fought courageously until death
for. Not until you read about Syria’s
accounts in the daily newspapers, you realize the worth of your own freedom in
a democratic nation like India.
Hearing gory narratives of Syrian
people, for the lack of a better word, being butchered by state’s army for the
last three months is chilling to the core. The Syrian inhabitants have been
growing in conviction that state cannot impose itself against the popular
will. But, the outside world to its
shame has not shown such resolve. Dr. Martin Luther King famously remarked,
“The silence of a few good men is more dangerous than the brutality of bad
men”. It then raises the question of why
the status quo prevails.
Division has taken over
international cooperation at a time it was needed the most. As the crisis
deepens, those urging armed force are invoking both the tragedy of inaction in
Rwanda and Bosnia in the early 1990’s, and the last year’s decisive
international intervention which led to triumph in Libya as cases to make their
point.
A vote on February 4th,
in the UN security council, condemning Syria’s president, Bashar Assad, and
calling him on to cede powers to his deputy, was defeated however thanks to
vetoes from Russia and China. For Mr. Assad, this was his license to kill many
more innocent civilian opponents. But many would argue if the international
community needs to infringe on nation’s sovereignty? If yes, what are the
criteria for such an intervention?
Under the responsibility to
protect (R2P) principles that the UN General Assembly unanimously endorsed in
2005, coercive military action to stop atrocities should be contemplated only
when peaceful means – from diplomatic persuasion to sanctions and threats of
criminal prosecution fail to deliver. Clearly, by any metric of judgment, the
situation in Syria has reached that threshold.
With 9000 people already killed over the last 3 months and still rising,
type and scale of harm to civilians prima
facie calls for use of minimal military force in short duration, high
intensity and right scale.
However, it is easier said than
done. One of the constraints of doing so is estimating the balance of
consequences of international intervention: will military intervention do more
harm than good? Will it scale the nascent civil war into a full-blown one?
Sectarian differences in Syria are sharp and this seems to be the reason for
lack of confidence of international community in the democratic and
human-rights credentials of the opposition.
And, with the Arab league divided over the issue, any Western military
imposition can prove to be inflammatory in the wider Islamic world.
The people of Syria clearly
deserve better. Despite the UNSC belated endorsement of UN Special Envoy Kofi
Annan’s peacemaking mission in Syria recently, there is skepticism about Bashar
al-Assad’s cooperation. With all military options proving to be infeasible at
this point of time, the UN is relying on Mr. Kofi Annan’s diplomatic skills to
deliver a deal with the Syrian government. As an eternal optimist, I am holding
on to my last straw of hope. As the quotable line goes, “I like the night.
Without the dark, we’d never see the stars”. I pray for a day in Syria when the
smoke screen clears in the dark, and children can see the stars and wake up to
a new sunrise. Let’s all hope for Syria’s tryst with destiny because that is
what most of the international community seems to be holding on to right now.
No comments:
Post a Comment