One
of the results of the cynical manipulation of truth and fact by successive
governments is that it becomes harder to trust anything they say
subsequently. So, whilst I’m inclined to
believe that the deaths and injuries caused by chemical weapons in Syria last
week were the result of the intentional use of those weapons by the Syrian
government forces, I don’t feel able to rule out entirely the possibility that
the Russians and Syrians might be telling the truth when they say that it was
actually the result of an attack on a weapons store. Perhaps those governments supporting the US
missile strikes in response have more substantive evidence than they’ve
released to date; perhaps not. But two
aspects of the response leave me with an uneasy feeling, even accepting that
events were as they have been presented.
The
first is whether the response was the right one. I understand the frustration of external
parties who see chemical weapons being used in direct breach of international
treaties and agreements and want to stop it happening again. But taking unilateral military action against
another country is also contrary to international law. And it can’t turn the clock back; it can’t
change what happened. The justification
for it can only be based on an assumption that it will in some way prevent a
repetition; otherwise it’s doing ‘something’ because that is all that can be
done. Will it deter Assad? I don’t know – and neither does anyone
else. What we do now know is that it
ramps up the possibility of direct military confrontation between the two most
heavily-armed states in the world; and that’s never a particularly brilliant
idea.
The
second response is to question the underlying moralising of those
involved. Which is the more important
fact in Syria today – that adults and children alike are being maimed and
killed on a daily basis, or that some of them are being killed by a
particularly nasty form of weaponry? The
response to the use of chemical weapons seems to be suggesting that the latter
is the more important; or to put it another way, the method used to kill and
injure is more important than the fact of the killing and injuring. What is the message delivered to Assad by the
missile strike – that he can carry on bombing and shooting but must not use
chemicals? That may not be the intention
of the message, but it looks like the probable effect.
I
don’t have a simple and ready answer to the conflict in Syria; but then that
hardly makes me unique. I’m certain,
though, that there will eventually have to be a negotiated peace; there
invariably is. All those involved know
that as well, but they’re carrying on with the killing in order to try and put
themselves in the best position before they start talking seriously. The question our government should be asking
is not “what does Trump want us to say?”
but “does adding to the killing and
destruction help move us towards peace?”
Mere frustration at not being able to do anything else isn’t enough to
justify adding to the destruction. And it
will never be enough.
Posts
1 comment:
John - You have an almost unerring ability to sum up what I am thinking but no one else is saying. The only thing I would add is to question why the Assad regime would suddenly choose to use chemical weapons in this apparently random way? They had nothing to gain from doing so?
Post a Comment