If anything, the pursuit of regime change is hurting the international community's ability to end the crisis.
President Bashar al-Assad's government has used brute force to crush a genuine popular upheaval against his regime. The death toll is nearly 6,000. Human rights have been systematically violated. But the crucial question is how and what steps can international society lawfully take to bring an end to the crisis.
Libya is not a model for emulation but a warning to heed; more so, Iraq. Each was a split polity surviving on fragile unity. The Syrian regime, however unpopular, is supported by a significant section of people. Regime change through outside intervention wreaks havoc, violates the United Nations Charter, the rules of international law, and undermines the stability of the world order. These fundamentals must not be overlooked.
At the root of Russia and China's veto of the resolution on Syria in the Security Council on February 4, lies distrust, deep and justified. The world was taken for a ride twice by the Council's resolutions which did not authorise the use of force, but came in handy as fig leaves to cover the nudity of illegal recourse to war.
Obama's fatwa
Statements made in the Council as well as their texts establish that Resolution 1441 of November 8, 2002, did not authorise an attack on Iraq. Nor did Resolution 1973, adopted on March 17, 2011, authorise the use of force against Libya. However, on February 26, President Barack Obama delivered a fatwa on Col. Muammar Qadhafi: “He should go.” Now, on February 4, the very day the UNSC was to vote on the resolution on Syria, he peremptorily declared apropos President al-Assad: “He must step aside and allow a democratic transition to proceed immediately.” Few would believe Hillary Clinton when she said, on January 31, “there is no intention to seek any authority or to pursue any kind of military intervention”.
Suspicions of plans for regime change are justified. “Then you will start telling what King needs to resign and what Prime Minister needs to step down. This is not the business of the Security Council,” Russia's Ambassador to the U.N. Vitaly Churkin remarked on January 31.
Textually, the resolution is misleading. It “calls for an inclusive Syrian led political process” but adds it “fully supports in this regard the League of Arab States' 22 January 2012 decision to facilitate a Syrian-led political transition to a democratic, plural political system, … including through commencing a serious political dialogue between the Syrian government and the whole spectrum of the Syrian opposition under the League of Arab States' auspices, in accordance with the timetable set out by the League of Arab States; Encourages the League of Arab States to continue its efforts in cooperation with all Syrian stakeholders.”
As Neil Macfarquhar of The New York Times reported: “Three clauses that endorsed specific aspects of the Plan — including that Mr. Assad delegate his authority to his vice-president to speed a transition to democracy — were removed. But Arab and Western diplomats said the essential idea remained, even if it was not spelled out.”
‘Demands, does not recommend'
The Resolution, obviously adopted under Chapter VII, “demands,” does not “recommend.” It says: “Demands that the Syrian government, in accordance with the Plan of Action of the League of Arab States of 2 November 2011 and its decision of 22 January 2012, without delay.” Six steps are listed. Finally, the Council “Requests the Secretary General to report on the implementation of this resolution, in consultation with the League of Arab States, within 21 days after its adoption and to report every 30 days thereafter. Decides to review implementation of this resolution within 21 days and, in the event of non-compliance, to consider further measures.” Of what avail the disavowal “Nothing in this resolution authorizes measures under Article 42 of the Charter” when the threat is implicit in the text itself? The League's Plan which is endorsed provides for Mr. al-Assad to step down.
Bashar al-Assad is no pushover. Diplomacy should seek his consent to a plan which leaves him in office but ensures a democratic transition. The resolution is not an aid to diplomacy but an instrument of duress. The Arab League and its Western backers were impatient on regime change.
Regime change has furtively acquired certain respectability. Time there was when Gladstone told the House of Commons on April 2, 1880 that “the rights of a Power, the rights of a nation, ought not to be invaded because it happens to have the misfortune of a despotic government.”
The law was laid down by the International Court of Justice on April 9, 1949, in the Corfu Channel case: “The Court can only regard the alleged right of intervention as the manifestation of a policy of force, such as has, in the past, given rise to most serious abuses and such as cannot, whatever the present defects of international organization, find a place in international law. … from the nature of things it would be reserved for the most powerful States; …” These words are more relevant now than they were in 1949. This was reaffirmed in the Nicaragua case in 1986. The Court rejected intervention at a “request for assistance made by an opposition group in another state.”
The collapse of the USSR in 1991 opened new vistas of the play of power. In 1986, a British Foreign Office Policy Paper noted that “the overwhelming majority of contemporary legal opinion comes down against the existence of a right of humanitarian intervention”. In 1992, the Foreign Office held: “international law develops to meet new situations; we believe that international intervention without the invitation of the country concerned can be justified in cases of extreme humanitarian need.”
In this clime came R2P. In an inspired moment in 2000, the Canadian movement picked on the egregious Gareth Evans of Australia, with Mohamed Sahuom of Algeria, doubtless both of undying reason, to co-chair an independent International Commission on Intervention and State sovereignty. They coined the phrase “responsibility to protect”.
The doctrine was not accepted by the U.N. General Assembly on September 14, 2009, after a long debate. On September 24, 1999, Foreign Ministers of the Group of 77 “rejected the so-called right of humanitarian intervention, which has no basis in the UN Charter or international law”. This represents the opinion of 132 states; 33 Asian, 51 African, 22 Latin American, and 13 Arab states.
Crisis of legitimacy
Such an intervention inevitably entails regime change. One suspects that change is the main objective; human rights violations are a pretext for it. Witness the deafening silence on outrages by the favourites. Beneath the crisis in the U.N. system lies a deeper crisis of the legitimacy of an order which is devoid of an international consensus. That can be restored only by a wide consensus. We face a genuine humanitarian problem. Remember Biafra, Cambodia, Rwanda and Darfur.
Russia's Foreign Minister said on February 4 that the resolution on Syria was not “hopeless” and that “we support the call of the Syrian people for change.” There was ample room for compromise. There is still time for that — a U.N. Mission comprising members of high credentials can go to Syria to bring about a settlement which leaves Mr. al-Assad in office but ensures democratic transition.
India's Permanent Representative to the U.N., Hardip Singh Puri, said “the main role of the international community, including this Council, is to facilitate engagement of the Syrian government with all sections of Syrian society.” Nominating its adversary, the Arab League, to accomplish tasks set by the Resolution is no way to secure that “engagement.”
Keywords: Syria unrest, Bashar Assad regime, UN sanctions
I agree. Western powers are hypocritical. They want Basahar Assad
to go for their own reasons - for his support for anti Israel
forces, maybe. But they shed crocodile tears for his opponents, and
want to take the opportunity of the violence repugnant to all to
remove Assad by intervention. Something similar they have already
done shamelessly in Libya and think they can do again in Syria. This said, there is no doubt too that Syrians should resolve their differences without violence, and democracy would be better than dictatorship. Assad should understand that in the long term force cannot solve the problems he is facing. However it is difficult to force him to understand that force wont work.
Noorani has explained the official view of India, China and Russia but failed to express sympathy to more than 5000 innocent people murdered. What will be the scenario if the Prime Minister of India kill the same number of civilians to hold on power? The UN constitution allows interference in the internal affairs of any country if there is gross human right violations, atrocities and crimes against humanity. Killing more than 5000 people just to hang on to power by any dictator in any country is not tolerable by people of the country, any country or UN. Russia has strong military connection with Bashir al-Assad with a Russian naval base in the Mediterranean coast of Syria; China has the history of supporting all dictators because China itself is a communist dictatorship. Why Indian democratic government always supports dictators? It is deplorable that Noorani shows the sign of cross in the checkeboard at the top of his write-up. Are you implying Christians verses Moslems in Syria?
Very balanced article. Most posters here should ask themselves if they
would change their stance if we were talking about India and Kashmir
here.
For people who say that only Syrian people should decide:What happens when the people of the country cant make the regime change? Have the people not protested the regime and ended being shot dead many times? This fact has even been accepted by the Russian president(Dmitry Medvedev) himself. Now what else are we expecting the Syrian people to do? If some one does not intervene, we are basically saying that its not our problem, its their fate and there is no point of saying that we are human. I am Indian was brought up in Africa and witnessed lots of government controlled atrocities of which the people could not and did not bother protesting fearing a backslash. In these kind of situations their only hope is when external agencies help them.
The 10,000lb gorilla in the room is the sectarian divide in the conflict.The Sunni Arab League vs the non-Sunni Bashar Assad.This aspect is completely ignored and the Arab Spring is dragged in by the ear to justify a regime change in Damascus in the name of freedom,democracy,and human rights ! In the process countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar are projected as champions of human liberty !In her eloquence at the UNSC vote the U.S Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was consequently least embarrssed in supporting the Arab League Plan in these bizarre circumstances.
regime change backed by "an eye for the eye" principle,seems to be backfiring.The author is correct in proposing negotiation before committing mistakes like "oh we did not think they are civilians" "from that height we did not differentiate children".And the world is witnessing negotiations of advocates of regime change and Taliban.God knows the intentions of these "regime changers".Alas!we have seen lots of puppet shows.
Mike Goldthorpe: I agree with you that if neighbour beats wife, one should call police..but if you have two neighbours doing same, report both..if you report one who is not good to you, but dont report another who is good to you, you are hypocrite and that is exactly what US and Israel are..what US and UK are doing in Syria and Bahrain are contradictory..They are selling arms to Bahrain govt to crush the movement because US has their bases thr and Syria who is supporting Palestine and Lebanon over atrocities of Israel and US, they are infusing tensions to create civil war just to see regime change so that they have someone in place who agrees at US policy to kill Muslims in palestine and keep quiet.
US and Isreal both nuclear powers attack people and kill at their will to further selfish capitalistic motives are OK to have Nuclear bombs but Iran who signed Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty cannot think of enriching Uranium for power purposes. Hypocrite country and Hypocrite supporters
Terrible article. Regime change is not a bad thing with brutal dictators.
With the change of guard at The Hindu, many of us readers hoped that the culture of single dimensional world view that is steeped in anti-west sentiments would be done with. Alas, it continues. In the case of this article, I wonder if the writer would have the same views if his own government used its vast array of military assets to kill and utterly destroy any opinions and movement against it. As an evolved and evovling species, one of our primary characteristics that separates us from other species is our ability to distinguish right from wrong. Clearly, it is there for all to see the gross wrongs by the Syrian government!! If not anything else, history has taught us anything, it is that as a global society, it is important for us to intervene when a helpless party is physically, militarily or mentally abused by a more powerful one. Whether it is a woman being attacked on the streets, a child being abused or a citizenry that is being militarily destroyed.
Using brute force to crush and kill opposition is horrific. Before even
thinking over how to deal with such situation, this cruelty needs to be
stopped. It is like your house is on fire, and you are thinking over
what would be the best possible way to put out the fire!!
Mr Twombly, dissenters in Bahrain, Yemen, "Saudi Arabia" and other
adjuncts of the West are jailed, systematically tortured, raped
and murdered just for seeking their human rights. The insecurity
in Syria is due to the subversive activities undertaken by the
West and its allies for its own nefarious reasons. Instead of
enhancing a secular state, turmoil has been encouraged to enable
another Libya scenario. Could this be your reason for the abusive
criticism.
Mr Noorani needs to be applauded for his sane assessment and
reasoning.
It is highly surprising to see the west always wanting to see the
regime change whenever there is any popular protests against the
regimes.Even in democratic countries there will be uprisings which doesn't mean the only solution is outside intervention.
If problem is there in any sovereign country,international
communities should mediate to help solve problems but the west is
trying to fish in the troubled waters.What great changes they have
done in Libya,Afghanistan and Iraq?It is time the international
community should act in a very responsible way to mitigate the
problem.
It is quite interesting to see the Syria where there are huge
supporters of the Assad on one side and opposition which confined
to some specific locations on the other.It is wise to have dialogue
with the opposition and find proper solution to the problem.And
most importantly the solution should arise from inside.
I agree with author to the extent that external forces (read armed forces) should not be used to resolve Syrian crisis. But at the same time, immediate action should be taken to prevent human loss & suffering. Also we must keep in mind that Libya action has created some feelings in the mind of people that if they keep on revolting then some foreign powers will come to there rescue & help in regime change. That way they keep on revolting without looking at any other peaceful option of democratic transition.
A. G Noorani's article is a good review of the position under International Law and the UN Charter. However, the situation in Syria is far more complicated - the dictatorial and brutal nature of the regime, the sectarian issues which have been till now glossed over or suppressed, the geo-political issues etc - and need to be addressed. Unfortunately, time is short and the world cannot debate all the issues as lives are being lost by the day. Bashar Al Assad is among the last of the dynastic dictators who has to realise that control of his people by systematic oppression cannot continue. If he and his regime do accede control to others, the sectarian and fundamentalist forces which may get unleashed will make Syria a cross between Libya and Iraq. Iran and Saudi Arabia may enter the fray through their proxies as will "The West". I am confused as to what course of action is best and that I suspect is the case with most world leaders as well. There is no right solution!
India's decision to pander to the Western mindset is most disturbing. We MUST NOT squander the principles of the NAM. Your Western commentators are typically presumptuous or naive about their own government's motives for intervention. What's worse, they pretend to hold a moral superiority with their preposterous analogies. We heard similar arguments in favour of the invasion of Iraq. Please spare us that drivel.
R2P was accepted by the UNGA, sitting at the heads of state level, in the 2005 World Summit.
Middle East is the cash cow of the so called developed nations. Ever since the regime change of the 1953 Iranian Government that nationalised oil industry which was owned by British Petroleum, the west has been pursuing a policy of supporting autocratic feudal regimes which abuses religion to perpetuate the subjugation of the masses. The trillions of petro dollars siphoned off as personal assets of the ruling classes and through arms sales are effectively become western capital. They successfully removed Dr. Najibullah (Afghanistan), Saddam Husain (Iraq), Gadafi (Libya) and now targeting Dr Assad who is the only regime left that could have claimed a degree of secular charater.
India’s stand in these matters has moved away from the universally respected principled policies pursued in the 50’s and 60’s to a rather subservient passive alliance with the west. No one knows what India’s critique on these matters is. It is disappointing to note that India has not once forcefully put forward a view to support dialogue between the opposing factions. People who refuse to take part in dialogue do not deserve any support. The UN should have the power to demand such a dialogue under its auspices. If such a dialogue failed, the reasons for failure should be made open to the world. Going to war means people killing each other which is putting simply, barbaric. What the so called civilised West is doing is to conflagrate any underlying ethnic or religious divide and use the conflict to side with one faction and use unbridled military might to tilt the ensuing conflict in favour of it’ vassals. Look at Libya, which had a very good welfare system and a degree of order under a dictator who was not a religious fanatic. When NATO started bombing campaign in support of the rebels, Gaddafi offered to remain a titular head while a national election was held under international supervision to elect a democratic government. The offer was summarily dismissed. Now the country has no effective government, but ruled by armed gangs each one trying to out- bid the other in barbaric methods of torture. The countries that bombed and killed tens of thousands of people and destroyed billions of assets couldn’t care less and moved away to new pastures such as Syria. Is there any more evidence what these countries’ real intentions are? One can only wish if India could point out the real reasons for the veto used by Russia and China and ask for a dialogue between the Syrian government and the opposition. It is strange that USA and UK found it very appropriate to allow Saudi Arabian troops to brutally suppress the rebellion in Bahrain and insist on dialogue. Was it because Bahrain is a strategic ally of UK and USA?
Why only middle east countries need western intervention for sake of human rights and not the poor african countries.what they did when there was Darfur? what they are doing to save nigerian ,somalian and other many african countries.I wanna say dont make too many Iraqs and afganistans for sake of human rights and in the end you are talking to Taliban and abandoned Iraq where civil war is making the country worse than it was under saddam hussen'regime.
Very True.
The western outrage was only a facade. The real intention was regime
change. If the west is so interested in protecting the people against
state atrocities (and human rights violations), it should start with
Bahrain, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia. They are hounding Syria only because
it is close to Iran, and is in the "rival camp" of Russia.
There was plenty of room for a compromising document which would have
normalized the situation in Syria and not been vetoed. Western
intransigence is as much to blame.
Noornai is on the spot on this. Of Ashok, I would like to ask - If at some stage in future, Western powers introduced a Security Council resolution, accusing the Indian government of killing its own people (in Kashmir), how would you react?
The UN Charter's explicit commitment to member-states' territorial integrity and sovereignty are not 'pious' terms. They are fundamental to international relations. Worth reading a book by my good friend and colleague Humphrey Hawksley - DEMOCRACY KILLS. I have started thinking in terms of a UN restoratory (instead of peacekeeping) force to deal with such crises. NATO, a political bloc with plenty of devastating military power, no heart and massive ambition will not cut the mustard in the Security Council after Libya.
Author, Breeding Ground: Afghanistan and the Origins of Islamist Terrorism,
Overcoming the Bush Legacy in Iraq and Afghanistan,
Dialectics of the Afghanistan Conflict
Sri Lanka's Foreign Policy Dilemmas
Syrian govt has used Military to deal with Civilian protests, not paying heed to the popular demand of its people. People are dying in large numbers. If it takes foreign military intervention to counter balance, then that's the way forward. India should feel proud of its clear cut stand it took in this issue unlike usually when it sits on the fence, voting for UN resolution to end genocide of innocent civilians is a quite appropriate move.
India should have abstained from voting in favour of the resolution.There is no need to support the west backed resolutions which is nothing but a cover for illegitimate military intervention in syria.Let the people of syria decide what is best for them.
Maybe there needs to be a concerted effort to ask for regime change in the following oligarchic-dictatortships masquerading as democracies: the United States of america, the united kingdom of great britain, Scotland, wales and north ireland, and the republic of france.
This article is in line with vested interests (as in all previous instances), whose bottom line always is to ensure that the current perpetrator of atrocities is protected and his interests well looked after (lest any perceived geo-political advantage is lost) , couched in all pious terms of diplomacy, non-intervention etc and casting devious motives for the opposing camp, while assuming a self righteous posture with one's own.
So, while politicians of other countries Jaw-Jaw in a safe environment, the residents of Syrai that fall foul of Assad's army endure War-War.
If your neighbour is killing his wife, would you not call the police? Or do you just sit there - it is nothing to do with you, after all and maybe tomorrow you can talk to your neighbour over a drink to commiserate over his wife's death.
You seem to find the idea of those who advocate "regime change" in Syria to be repugnant. What is truly repugnant is a regime that is systematically murdering its own people while individuals like you argue over semantics in the U.N. charter. Whether you realize it or not, by taking the position which you advocate you are culpable in the deaths of these thousands of innocent people by not rallying others to the side of truth about what is taking place in Syria today. It must be nice to sit in the safety of your peaceful democratic country and critisize other who are giving their lives so that they and their fellow Syrians might live in freedom. You should be ashamed, but from the tone of your writing I doubt that you have the capacity to feel shame, or for that matter to feel anything at all.
Please Email the Editor