Ambassador’s Notebook: Responding to the Syrian Crisis: Are There Shades of International Legitimacy?30/08/201323:30
Some western states have said that they have conclusive information and evidence that the Syrian authorities were responsible for the alleged chemical attack in Ghouta. We can see that preparations are being made for the military option, including the massive build-up of armaments in the region. It is difficult to understand these states’ true motives. After disastrous interventions in Iraq (without UN Security Council consent) and then in Libya (where the UN Security Council mandate was abused) where they effectively failed to facilitate stability and interreligious and interethnic peace, they now seem to be repeating the same scenario.
No reliable and persuasive evidence has been produced to confirm that chemical weapons were used, let alone who did it. Nor are there clear legal grounds for military action.
So far, the alleged use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) looks more like an act of provocation – with those responsible seeking to turn it into a casus belli without presenting any proof to the public. Besides, the opposition’s version of events in Ghouta raises a lot of questions. One has to ask: cui bono? We see no rationale in government forces using chemical weapons just at the very moment when the UN fact-finding mission arrived in Syria.
At the same time, it is clear that those involved in the incident wanted to sabotage the Geneva peace talks. One cannot but recall that the government declared its readiness to negotiate some time ago, while the opposition, notably, hasn’t followed suit. Today, some external players cannot help being seen as deliberately undermining the very prospect of a peaceful political process.
We hope that common sense will prevail sooner rather than later. Russia is determined to continue efforts aimed at bringing the conflicting parties to the negotiating table.
The latest vote in the British Parliament on Syria provides convincing proof that the international community is tired of “constructive ambiguities” and ambivalence in matters of law and order in world politics. It is also too serious a matter to outsource it to groups of countries or coalitions of the willing. Acting outside international law at one’s own risk and expense is pretty costly. Moreover, instead of helping solve problems, it aggravates the situation, and turns out to be counterproductive and self-defeating. It also looms large in domestic affairs as the weapons of mass distraction topic at the time of the war in Iraq.
Like national law and order, it is something concrete, not a collection of abstract ideas or good intentions (of the kind that pave the road to Hell). It is also about due process and establishing facts first, and that means gathering evidence and reporting it to the UN Security Council for consideration and decision-making. Political expediency has no place in this process underpinning the international legitimacy of any action. Whether it sounds like too little or quite a lot – this is a minimum requirement for keeping the world an orderly place.
And this is precisely what Russia demands of her Western partners as regards the presumed use of chemical weapons in Syria. We are not asking for any more, but we’ll settle for nothing less than that. Unfortunately, some drew the wrong conclusions from the end of the Cold War, which allegedly lowered the threshold for the use of force. It is high time that those people stop deluding themselves. War is a serious business, and it has to be treated as such.
Add to blog
You may place this material on your blog by copying the link.
- email@example.comThe honesty of a superpower.22:34, 02/09/2013I wonder whether a County like the United States which is used to claim falsehood about its reason to wage war to other Countries, it is also used to base the whole foreign policy on the lie.
Ten years ago I believed the America Administration over its claim about Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and later I found out that was a dreadful lie.
Since then I have learned day by day that champion of democracy deals with lies to carry out its national interest but what it is extremely sad is that this powerful nation cannot help telling lies again in order to justify to people now its reason to wage war to Syria.
If that is the one and only world superpower and the guardian of the democracy as well, if that is the one and only way White House is able to deal with this Syrian issue, and if that is the honesty of the most powerful leadership of the planet, then permit me to say I am really afraid, hugely afraid, for our future.
Franco Minetto - Italy
Weekly column by Konstantin von Eggert
So read some signs held up a few hundred demonstrators in front of the recently rebuilt Palace of the Grand Dukes in Vilnius braving the snow in a last-ditch effort to persuade Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych to agree to an association agreement with the EU.
Bi-weekly column by Fyodor Lukyanov
Bi-weekly column by Simon Saradzhyan
Bi-weekly column by Simon Saradzhyan
Weekly Column by Daniel Kalder
There’s a lot of talk in this world. Indeed, thanks to the technological gizmos on which we now spend so much of our time, we are surrounded by talk. The jibber jabber is constant, whether we get it directly from the mouths of the people around us, or from radio, TV, or the Internet, or our “mobile devices.”