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.