Syria and the next one

Editorial

Last week, U.S. President Barack Obama backtracked somewhat on his assertion that chemical weapons use by the Syrian regime would be a “red line.” He didn’t deny that the use of such inhumane weapons would cross a red line, but he made the case that it was a red line determined objectively, essentially, by the world, rather than by him.

The rhetorical wiggle was part of a larger routine of political manoeuvring around Syria that has put Obama in a difficult position, partly of his own making. A year ago, while thousands were dying in the Syrian conflict, the president – joined by the rest of the world – stood by. However, he warned, if the regime of Bashar al-Assad were to employ chemical weapons in the conflict, that would represent an act of inhumanity that would – presumably, finally – cause other countries to intervene.

Intervention in a foreign conflict, of course, is a highly charged topic in the United States. A dozen years ago, a similar debate took place about intervention in Iraq, based on reports of weapons of mass destruction that proved to be false, if not fabricated. What was presumed to be a quick in-and-out military action dragged on for more than a decade, with hardly a satisfying result. The impacts on American politics, but especially on hundreds of thousands of American soldiers and their families (to say nothing of Iraqi victims of violence) have made American military intervention overseas a hugely contentious matter. As it should be. Such actions should never be taken in haste.

At press time, some hope was offered by the possibility of action via the United Nations to secure and destroy the Syrian government’s supply of internationally banned weaponry. This would allow the United States to avoid a military intervention, at least for the time being.

The UN, however, controlled as it is by a majority of autocratic and despotic regimes, is often ineffective in cases of international emergency and, in Syria’s case, it has been a bulwark preventing unified global action against Assad. While it is comforting to think that there finally will be positive action from the international community on Syria, an unsettling situation seems to have developed, portending a dangerous new reality.

If the UN proposal fails, it will once again fall to the United States to lead a “coalition of the willing” who would make the international case against the use of the most cruel weapons imaginable. The Americans’ staunchest ally in the last go-round, the United Kingdom, backed out when its House of Commons rejected involvement. Then, just when Syria was bracing for American missiles, Obama announced that he would put the matter before the American Congress before taking any action.

Given the individual, social, political and economic devastation wrought by involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, the American public is, according to polls, opposed to intervention in Syria. This is fully understandable. Observers on the left and right have pointed – as has become a default position in almost any issue of foreign affairs these days – to other global flashpoints, asking: “Why would we intervene here, when egregious affronts to human dignity are happening in myriad other locations as well?”

Why, indeed, should the burden fall to American military families to protect Syrian civilians? In the absence of moral action from the UN, however, the United States has become a humanitarian task force of last resort. But the American people may have had enough, and rightly so.

The implications are numerous and worrying, most immediately (after Syria) relating to the Iranian nuclear threat. The American president’s apparent dithering over action against the Syrian regime has raised questions about his reliability should Iranian nuclear ambitions reach their most terrifying potential. If action in Syria were to drag out, or prove ineffective, or both, would American attitudes become even more isolationist? It is hard to see an alternative outcome.

A dozen years ago, on Sept. 11, 2001, the Western world began a new era in international relations. Leaders at the time argued that the ensuing wars were intended to confront the enemy “there” before the conflict came “here.” After more than a decade of conflict, Americans are increasingly reluctant to grant their leaders authority to intervene. But if the international body intended to ensure stability and peace instead undermines those values, and if the superpower that has filled the void when the UN has failed to act positively is driven by the legitimate reservations of its citizens to resist foreign involvements, who, then, will act?

Syria is eclipsing all other foreign issues this week. But it is, despite the terrors and enormous bloodshed there, sadly one in a long line of crises that will not abate. If America tires of its assumed role as the world guardian against terror regimes, and the UN is beholden to those regimes, what will become of the civilians in Syria, and the Syria after this one?

^TOP