Round The World

New Delhi, 10 September 2013

Military Action In Syria?

ASIAN POWERS MUST STEP IN

By Prof. Arvind Kumar

(Dept. of Geopolitics & Intl Relations, Manipal University)

The United States it seems has already been edging towards the probable military strike in Syria in the name of humanitarian intervention. However, it would require conducting a comprehensive assessment on the probable benefits and risks from such intervention. The rationale and reason given by the US to the rest of the world is being debated among the members of the strategic and academic community. There are conflicting perspectives to the ongoing debates.

The US has been mobilizing international public opinion in its favour by highlighting that the Assad regime in Syria has used chemical weapons. Such allegation has been denied by President Bashar al-Assad. Whether such chemical weapon use was done by the State or the non-State actor remains ambiguous. There seems to be no concrete evidence to prove that the Syrian government was involved in such use of chemical weapons resulting into a number of casualties.

The debate on the use of Sarin nerve gas by Syria and the probable use of military action by the US and its allies has gained momentum. The ongoing conflict in Syria especially in the past two years has been a bi-product of Arab Spring in particular and inherent domestic dissatisfaction from the dictatorship. It has taken a different angle for the simple reason that a number of overt and covert support both from various nation States and non-State actor for their own geopolitical interests started becoming manifest. The Assad regime certainly hasn’t been able to manage the emerging contradictions.

The pertinent question is whether the US’ military action is the answer to the emerging imbroglio. The world seems to be completely divided despite US’ hectic diplomatic maneuvering. The European Union, United Kingdom and France have decided to favour the US’ decision, whereas, Russia, Iran and China have strongly opposed and conveyed their dissatisfaction. While Russia and China have categorically signaled their intent and fundamental goals during the recently concluded G-20 summit, Iran has been doing so to the rest of the world viz its intent to support Syria. India has made it clear that military action will not be the answer to the ongoing crisis.

If it is really a matter of human rights and collective security then one should be rational and realistic as military action will certainly violate these.  The fear that the radicalists in Syria will take the lead and damage regional peace and stability if there is no US intervention needs to be analysed and assessed. Such fear not only seems to be highly magnified but the scenario building in particular helps the US in making a case for intervention. Undoubtedly, the US’ military action, so-called limited punitive strike to punish the Syrian government will have many negative consequences for peace and stability.

The continued supply of arms to the rebels by the US will ignite a regional conflagration. It will possibly result in many more deaths and hence, the US itself will become a part of human rights violation. It is, therefore, necessary for it to understand the larger predicament under which Syria has been undergoing and see that it does not override the legal and moral obligation to save lives by bringing this conflict to an end.

It is high time, the US should understand its limitations, realize that it is no more a pre-eminent power and has lost its glory of being hegemon in the international system. It does not remain the only country to think about humanitarian intervention. Unfortunately, the US so far hasn’t been able to learn lessons from its intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan and has had to pay a heavy price for it. Indeed, normalcy, peace and stability are yet to be realized.

The indiscriminate sectarian attacks in Iraq have become a common feature. The negative consequences of the US’ bonhomie with good Taliban will be realized in the foreseeable future. It is, still, not sure about what is so good about good Taliban. The US has to understand the larger ramifications for such changes in their strategic thinking. Both Iraq and Afghanistan will remain highly volatile and unstable.

Undoubtedly, Syria has also been emerging as a highly volatile and unstable region because of the ongoing civilian conflict. The international community in general and the US in particular need to bring it under normalcy not by military action but by a high level of diplomatic maneuvering.

President Assad should also explore ways and see how best it can gain confidence of the international community. The first and foremost task would be to restore normalcy and keep its chemical weapons under control. These should not fall into the wrong hands. The very fact that the weapons have been used shows the great irresponsible behaviour of the State system.

Notably, Syria is not a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). It has linked it with Israel’s signature of the NPT. As a first step towards building confidence with the rest of the world, it should sign the CWC immediately. Such action will change the course of the debate and the willingness shown by Syria should then be able to garner confidence and mobilise international public opinion in its favour. In this context, it shall also allow the full and total accounting of its stockpiles of chemical weapons.

Syria has already been confronting with a number of issues in the region. Domestically, it is completely a raged nation and very consistently moving towards a highly unstable society. The question to ponder would be whether Assad would be able to make compromises in the current context. The threat perception of Syria is very complex because of its geographical location and unfriendly neighbourhood. Its connections with Hezbollah have also been a bi-product of a highly volatile region.

Currently, President Obama and Members of Congress are debating whether the US military should become involved in a civil war in Syria. It is no secret that Obama will have a difficult time with the Congress in getting its approval. The bicameral legislature is deeply divided. The American House of Representatives is largely under the Republicans control and public opinion in the country is against military action. The US itself has a number of domestic issues to resolve and the larger view is that it is high time it concentrates on these rather than on international issues.

However, the ongoing Syrian conflict affects the international community in general and the US in particular. The rise of sectarianism in Syria poses a danger to the West Asian region and international peace and stability as well. The tensions have increased in the region, which might raise the specter of a broader conflict.

The major Asian powers, Russia, China and India collectively can play a very decisive and dominant role and assume the responsibilities of leading world affairs. India, in particular, can initiate pro-active measures to object to the US’ military action in Syria and work closely with other major powers of Asia to bring Assad regime to an understanding of the emerging geopolitical situations. The role of Russia, however, will be central in making Syria commit that it will provide its stockpiles of chemical weapons under international control. Only such collective measures can avert the crisis in Syria. ---INFA     

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)