The situation in Syria daily
goes from bad to worse. It’s clear that
the position is a good deal more complicated than sometimes appears to be the
case, with an opposition which is far from being a single united or easily
categorised grouping. Nor are all of
those who are part of the opposition forces any more enlightened in their
approach to human rights and the lives of civilians than the supporters of the
existing regime.
Faced with such a
tragedy, I think that the UK
government has been absolutely right in offering and providing humanitarian aid
to those affected by the conflict.
Indeed I cannot think of any circumstances in which it would not be
right for a government to provide humanitarian aid to people who are suffering.
I’m a good deal
less certain about the other types of assistance which the UK and other
Western governments have been providing, such as intelligence information. It’s been rather euphemistically described as
‘non-lethal’ assistance.
It leaves me
feeling more than a little uneasy. There
is a serious danger that Western governments are effectively providing enough
aid and assistance to keep the conflict running, but not enough to give the
opposition a decisive advantage. The net
result could be an extension of the conflict and an increase in the numbers
suffering as a result. And it’s being
done in our name.
Posts
6 comments:
John, Maybe after all the 'not in our name' bravado and self-satisfied posturing of the last decade no UK or Western govt will bother helping another Arab democracy movement.
The Kurds wanted NATO and the UK to attack Saddam, though, the amazingly Welsh nationalists didn't.
The 'not in our name' brigade have effectively made Western intervention too much hassle for any Western govt.
So, tough luck Syrian democrats.
"Syrian democrats" is an interesting label to use. I don't doubt that some of those involved in the fighting are indeed democrats; but neither do I doubt that the outlook of others is no more democratic than that of those they seek to displace. It's far too sweeping to see this as simply a conflict between a 'dictator' on the one hand, and 'democrats' on the other.
It seems to me that many people are basically seeing this as a case of 'goodies' and 'baddies', and believe that Western Governments should always support the good guys. I have two problems with that approach.
The first is that who is or is not a good guy seems to depend more on what the economic interests of the West are than on any attempt to make an objective judgement. Far too often, the people whom the West has supported and propelled into power turn out to be bad guys.
And the second is that intervention by one or more governments without the sanction of the UN reinforces the basic message that might is right. For all its ineffectiveness and the frustrations that arise from that, the UN is the nearest thing we have to a way of deciding collectively when or when not to intervene militarily, and ignoring that merely adds to and perpetuates the weakness of the structures.
Be careful what you wish for!.............Peter Hitchens wrote a good piece in the Mail about Syria over a month ago. I normally find all too little to agree with from either PH or the organ; Far too Middle Class, Middle Aged and Middle England for me! In this case The Daily Mail shone some light on the issue that the BBC seems all too keen to avoid. It's never easy to defend Dictatorships or Dynastic Political Regimes (BBC Wales included!), but the sad fact is that they sometimes are all that keeps countries from civil war. This was true in Yugoslavia, Iraq, it appears Libya, and I fear Syria too. The opposition are in this case is not better, just different. I have sneaking feeling that giving the current regime more time might have been a better long term option,given its secular if partially partisan roots. We choose(well we have little choice!) to do so with China and the people are in general gettimg a better deal year on year, so an old fundamental view on life can somtime be the best if also frusutrating too.
It only took a day for Libya to unfortunately add some more weight to my point. Finally, that old view being "laissez faire" if it was not obvious!
"John, Maybe after all the 'not in our name' bravado and self-satisfied posturing of the last decade no UK or Western govt will bother helping another Arab democracy movement. "
They definitely won't help the movement in Bahrain. I can list for you where they will help and where they won't-
will help in- Syria, Iran, Lebanon (depending on who is in power and what Israel says), possibly Algeria, Sudan
won't help in- Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, any of the Arabian Gulf monarchies, Iraq, Morocco, Oman, Kuwait, Jordan, Palestine
Whether they help will be based on the West's interest or whether the West supports the local regime rather than being based on democracy. This is called imperialism.
"The Kurds wanted NATO and the UK to attack Saddam, though, the amazingly Welsh nationalists didn't."
Poor point to make. The Kurds are also currently fighting a guerrilla war against Turkey which is a Nato member who participated in that same war against Saddam. Remember the US blamed Saddam's gassing of the Kurds on Iran. They don't give a stuff about the Kurds beyond using them as a pawn in their regional battle with Iran.
"The 'not in our name' brigade have effectively made Western intervention too much hassle for any Western govt."
This is called democracy and public opinion. The same thing you appear to want for Syria.
"Anonymous said...
John, Maybe after all the 'not in our name' bravado and self-satisfied posturing of the last decade no UK or Western govt will bother helping another Arab democracy movement.
The Kurds wanted NATO and the UK to attack Saddam, though, the amazingly Welsh nationalists didn't.
The 'not in our name' brigade have effectively made Western intervention too much hassle for any Western govt.
So, tough luck Syrian democrats. "
There's a massive flaw here. Aren't you effectively saying we can't intervene to support "democrats"...because of our own democracy? If our public wouldn't support intervention, that's an argument against intervention. It's not an argument FOR intervention!
Justifying it to the public on legal grounds and planning grounds to your own electorate has to be a prerequisite for any intervention. This could still be achieved. There really wasn't much opposition to the Libya intervention. It had UN authorisation. At worst, people found it disasteful about how Gaddafi was killed but this is because we are human beings, not for political reasons. He's gone now and there weren't any serious protests.
A pro-intervention lobby would struggle to justify Syria in the same way. Foreign support for the rebels from the neighbouring countries is too blatant and obvious, and the regime simply hasn't crumbled fast enough, especially its military, unlike in Libya where they were obviously using mercenaries. A UN peacekeeping intervention to separate the two warring sides may well be justifiable at some point. But choosing one side to support in a civil war, with no UN mandate, makes no sense at all.
As a Welsh nationalist I didn't want Nato to attack Saddam despite the Kurds. I also would oppose an intervention against Israel despite the Palestinians.
Post a Comment