Regrettable Inaction? Uniting For Peace?

While the situation on the ground in Syria is different in many respects, the lack of international action is all too familiar. The world has witnessed it in Rwanda, Cambodia, Bosnia--the list is rather long. Believe it or not, this inaction will have consequences for major powers on the world stage. I'm thinking specifically of the political aftermath of the genocide in Rwanda. Guilt-ridden and embarrassed, world powers fell easy prey to manipulation by the newly-established Rwandan government. It attempted to (and arguably, succeeded at) securing loans and political support, even while terrorizing not only its own citizens, but those of neighboring countries as well. The evidence of this is becoming increasingly clear, and while I won't go as far as to say that a reverse genocide occurred under current President Kagame, it is beyond question that he was behind much of the horrific violence that followed the genocide throughout the Great Lakes region. I am not, however, suggesting that this will be the case in Syria. At present, there is no basis for such speculation. I am only trying to convey the impact of inaction on future relations. Nevertheless, it is probable that the conflict in Syria will long out-last the Bashar presidency in that country. I say this for several reasons. For one, Bashar has civilian supporters, and not all of them are perpetrators of violence. These people have rights to security as well. Should the opposition succeed--and it is a committed and passionate group--it is unlikely that they will not face opposition of their own. This, in and of itself, is not a bad thing--indeed, democracy is defined by conflict--although theoretically acted out in a judicious and non-violent manner. Should the conflict following Bashar's fall (when/if it happens) remain violent, and should the subsequent government seek reprisal, as was undeniably the case in Rwanda, the international community will have a new crisis of conscience to face.

The fallout fallowing the Rwandan genocide was demonstrated the effects of inaction on state legitimacy. While it is too soon to tell how the crisis in Syria will end--and I do hope it is with the fall of Bashar, the possibility of reciprocated violence is real and the negligent international community may once again, find itself backed into a corner.

The question of what the international community should do remains, and I have no real proposition to offer. Albeit optimistic, the closest I can come is to recommend a Chapter VII international peacekeeping force. But even if deployed, the violence is such that even the mission of protecting civilians from violence perpetrated from either side--with no political ambitions at all--is unlikely hasten individual peacekeepers to engage. This is understandable. The weapons of the government far surpass any that a peacekeeping force would be permitted, and there is little such a force could do in the face of an air raid. Nevertheless, the international community is not without options. Regional organizations also have rights to intervention under the Chapter VIII of the UN Charter, though it seems unlikely that they will be taken to task to the same degree as inactive Western bloc, NATO. Indeed, though the League's stakes are (arguably) higher, motivating such risky action poses a difficult political question for its member countries. Similarly, unilateral action by any country is bound to attract criticism. Another proposition--one supported by the opposition--is the international community's arming of the rebel forces. The precautionary principle, however, would tend against such a move. A post-conflict society needs less, not more guns. If long-term stability is an objective, a free flow of arms into the volatile area will prove detrimental to it. Prior experience in the Middle East has demonstrated this time and time again.

It would seem that any solution would require, at least, some form of military intervention beyond a peacekeeping mission--even if its ambition is in line with those of peacekeeping (protection not combat). The Syrian military is simply too well armed to accomodate a lesser approach. But, the willful neglect of China and Russia to favor any form of action hinders this possibility.

Unless...

Although widely unknown, there is a mechanism--and there has been, since the Cold War--which permits some dancing around the Security Council/P5 issue. It's a concept known as "Uniting For Peace". It was designed precisely for this purpose. As described in a document (found here) in the UN Audiovisual library,

" The adoption of this resolution came as a response to the strategy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) to block any determination by the Security Council on measures to be taken in order to protect the Republic of Korea against the aggression launched against it by military forces from North Korea."

Sound familiar? It should. We are facing a problem of the same order with respect to Syria as we have in numerous cases since the resolution's passage in 1950--even when 'armed' with this (largely unknown) legal mechanism specifically designed to circumvent it. Christian Tomuschat, Professor emeritus at Humbolt University, Berlin, explains:

"Resolution 377 A (V) has a potential that could subvert the well-equilibrated balance of power within the United Nations, a potential that is not disclosed in a recent description of the role and authority of the General Assembly (see resolution 60/286 of 8 September 2006, annex, para. 1). But it would actually be used against the Security Council only in case of general dissatisfaction with the policies of the permanent members. Notwithstanding their sheer numerical superiority, the many Members of the United Nations are much too weak to attempt to challenge the decisions made at the Security Council".

In this case, however, the international community is not split in its sense that the Assad regime must be stopped. Only two countries vetoed the resolution. Thus, in this case, the strength truly lies with the GA. Even with all of its economic strength, China cannot take on the world. Its economy, in fact, depends on it. So why are we so scared? A tool exists, a near consensus exists, it is will that is lacking, and the consequences will long be felt, once the dust has settled on Syria.

Qualifying, But Not Qualified

This day after Super-Tuesday, the internet and news sources are a-buzz with speculation as to who the next Republican candidate for president might be. These assessments often associate the amassing of delegate votes with qualification for the job in question. But aside from delegate votes, what else can we learn from the primary process? Well, for one, we can learn something about the voters themselves. We can also, without reference to public opinion, learn very practical things about the candidates--things that, surprisingly, scarcely enter the discourse. One of these things: actual fitness of the candidates for their positions. Are they organized? Are they responsible? Can they prioritize? Can they choose proper staff? With whom do they choose to surround themselves?

In the last 24 hours, some interesting facts have emerged. These observations primarily concern Rick Santorum. So far, we have learned--apart from his ludicrous right-wing situation on the political spectrum--is not organized, or responsible, cannot prioritize, or staff appropriately. And, in spite of these shortcomings, will not surround himself with people who can compensate for them. Evidence? His neglect even to get himself on several of the Ohio ballots. This, one would think, would be quite at the top of any candidate's to-do list. His failure to do so is disturbing enough, but far from the most disturbing.

What I find to be the most discomfiting thing about this, is his amazing success in the primaries. What are people looking for in a president? Certainly, an effective president would not be so neglectful of essential tasks. Yet this obvious shortcomings seemed to have little effect on people's decision to vote for him--even if it had a tremendous effect on who could vote for him: citizens in 18 delegates' worth of districts. What's more, it demonstrates his inability--or unwillingness--to learn from his mistakes. One would hope that after failing to get on the Virginia ballot, he would make a habit of double checking. Apparently not. Interesting. What does this say about the voters? They're more interested in who does the job than the success with which he might do it. How did contributors to his campaign--who may have lost their candidate on the basis of his own negligence--feel about it? Did they change their minds about his readiness? Again: apparently not. How Santorum conducted his campaign seems to have had little effect on how voters perceive his ability to do the job. That is disheartening to me, as a citizen.

His defenders might stipulate that, as president, he will have plenty of people at his command to look out for such things--such not-so-minute details of his tenure. But is the fact that his hand-picked campaign staff were so inept at their job that they forgot to get their candidate--someone whose job it is to secure votes on the ballot at all? Still other defenders might celebrate his ability to gain so many votes despite his ineligibility make it onto the ballot in numerous congressional districts (even, in fact, in the district in which he gave his "victory speech" last night). These are the people that Rick Santorum has decided are the best suited to serve him. If president, will he chose similarly ill-adept individuals to serve us? Apparently, a large part of the country believes this possibility to be irrelevant to his capacity to serve the country as president--commander in chief. I am not one of these people. And frankly, this leaves me quite distressed not only over the state of our potential leadership, but over the state of our citizenry--their common sense, their commitment to good government, their practicality in general.

The lessons drawn from this, I argue, show more about his voters than about him. They too, are irresponsible. And yet each one of them has an ability to influence the selection of one of the next candidates for president.