[HINDU]
The West’s attempt to ride roughshod over the United Nations Security
Council with a hastily drafted proposal to authorise the use of force in
Syria sets the stage for its second military intervention in West Asia
and North Africa in as many years. The resolution, drafted by the United
Kingdom and backed by the United States and France, seeks two things
from the Council: one, a condemnation of President Bashar al-Assad for
using chemical weapons on his people and two, its blessings to deploy
“all necessary measures” to protect Syrians. If the first asks the U.N.
for a leap of faith on a premature claim, the second requires it to turn
a blind eye to history. While acknowledging there exists no “smoking
gun” to establish Mr. Assad’s culpability, the West has tried its best
to impede the working of the U.N.’s team in Syria investigating claims
if chemical weapons were used at all. The charade now unfolding before
the UNSC reflects the West’s desperation to have its way with a military
intervention that has few takers. If the Arab League, including key
members and U.S. allies like Egypt, has expressed its reluctance to
support the imminent assault, public opinion in the U.S., Britain and
France too is overwhelmingly opposed to a new war.
After the disastrous 2011 NATO bombing of Libya, which began with the
objective of protecting civilians but ended up being a full-blown attack
on the Muammar Qadhafi regime, the Security Council is rightly wary of
the Anglo-American plans for a “limited” intervention in Syria.
Expecting the world to believe a military attack will destroy Mr.
Assad’s chemical weapons arsenal without inflicting unacceptable
civilian casualties is silly. If anything, a targeted attack is not so
much a guarantee of minimal damage, but an attempt to fulfil President
Barack Obama’s vain promise to punish the Assad regime if it used
chemical weapons. After proffering sketchy evidence in support of this
grave allegation, the President is now being forced to walk his talk by
the liberal interventionists who populate his administration and by a
trigger-happy British Prime Minister. One senior U.S. official let slip
that the planned assault will be “just muscular enough not to get
mocked,” revealing how this issue is now entirely about American
“credibility,” as opposed to the humanitarian tragedy in Syria. The
Council’s likely rejection of the draft resolution will be portrayed as
Russian and Chinese intransigence. The fact remains, however, that
influential powers like India, Brazil and South Africa too are against
military intervention pending a complete investigation of WMD claims.
The West’s failure to act through the U.N. not only betrays the Syrian
people but also reflects its contempt for the international order.
