Syria: That motion

So here we are - it's now tomorrow (30th August) and whilst some are celebrating Cameron's defeat in the House of Commons and others bemoaning the lack of influence that he has, elsewhere the people of Syria are dealing with another atrocity, this time involving incendiary devices.

And I'm confused because what we had before us was an opportunity to go round to the place where the naughty person lives and have a chat to his Dad - not go round and shoot the naughty person! I'm hearing how the result was a triumph for democracy and sound thinking and yet, looking at the motion I have printed below, I have to ask the question: WHAT?

Let us consider the motion step-by-step:

 That this House:

• Deplores the use of chemical weapons in Syria on 21 August 2013 by the Assad regime, which caused hundreds of deaths and thousands of injuries of Syrian civilians;

Can any sane or rational person disagree with this?

• Recalls the importance of upholding the worldwide prohibition on the use of chemical weapons under international law;

Or this?

• Agrees that a strong humanitarian response is required from the international community and that this may, if necessary, require military action that is legal, proportionate and focused on saving lives by preventing and deterring further use of Syria’s chemical weapons;

Everything that R2P,  the Geneva (and other) Conventions, Law of Armed Conflict and International law demand is enshrined in this clause - this is not Iraq, neither it is warmongering or misplaced!

• Notes the failure of the United Nations Security Council over the last two years to take united action in response to the Syrian crisis;

• Any they're telling the truth - the UNSC has been weak, toothless and because of that, complicit in the journey that has led us to chemical (and latterly, incendiary) attacks.

• Notes that the use of chemical weapons is a war crime under customary law and a crime against humanity, and that the principle of humanitarian intervention provides a sound legal basis for taking action;

• Too true - for whether they have signed up to agreements, conventions or anything else, what we have is indiscriminate use of WMDs against the nations own people and therefore they stand accused and open to the international communities response (diplomacy, sanctions, green lines and when all else has failed - military action too).

• Notes the wide international support for such a response, including the statement from the Arab League on 27 August which calls on the international community, represented in the United Nations Security Council, to “overcome internal disagreements and take action against those who committed this crime, for which the Syrian regime is responsible”;

And yet we can ignore this for our own comfort and peace of mind (we can sleep easy knowing we've ignored this call can we?).

• Believes, in spite of the difficulties at the United Nations, that a United Nations process must be followed as far as possible to ensure the maximum legitimacy for any such action;

Not a 'go it alone - gung ho motion this is it? This is something that seeks to set a tone that will be taken back and democratically within the UNSC setting be foundational.

• Therefore welcomes the work of the United Nations investigating team currently in Damascus, and, whilst noting that the team’s mandate is to confirm whether chemical weapons were used and not to apportion blame, agrees that the United Nations Secretary General should ensure a briefing to the United Nations Security Council immediately upon the completion of the team’s initial mission;

• Not a jerking knee in sight here (is there?) - get the investigations done and bring the facts to the table so that those who have done wrong may be dealt with within the fullest measure of the law. No reliance upon US intelligence but a call to have the fullest facts, rightly gained and delivered to those who need them most - the UNSC!

• Believes that the United Nations Security Council must have the opportunity immediately to consider that briefing and that every effort should be made to secure a Security Council Resolution backing military action before any such action is taken, and notes that before any direct British involvement in such action a further vote of the House of Commons will take place; and

• So even if the UNSC voted for something direct - there would be a return and another debate held in the Commons to respond to that - this is a fail safe rather than a call to irresponsible action - it is democracy and being part of a wider, democratic, body in all its fulness.

• Notes that this Resolution relates solely to efforts to alleviate humanitarian suffering by deterring use of chemical weapons and does not sanction any action in Syria with wider objectives.

No regime change, long-term occupation or prolonged engagement - this is about humanitarian response and the protection of those who have thus far been left unprotected by those who can go home to their beds and sleep safely in the knowledge they, and their children, will not be subject to chemical (or other) attack.

If you read this and agree that within the motion you find nothing that causes you concern - perhaps you should ask your MP why they did if the voted against it?

And then perhaps you should ask how the relatives and loved ones of these people feel (and how you'd be feeling if the roles were reversed)?

Responsibility to protect

I have to say that I am struggling on so many levels with the situation in Syria and on even more with those around me who are accusing our nation of 'war-mongering' and bemoaning the fact that we're merely 'looking for a fight' and here's why:

I can remember the travesty of international justice and the frustrations of UN Forces' commanders when they were rendered impotent in the humanitarian role of protecting civilians in Both Rwanda and Bosnia (take a look at 'Hotel Rwanda' and think back to the Balkan conflict to see what I mean).

I struggle to come to terms with a world where Saddam Hussein managed to deal so effectively with the Shia population that was the Marsh Arabs through draining of their homelands and the use of chemical weapons (and that means that 'yes' he did have weapons of mass destruction at some stage) against those of Kurdish descent (how many people even know of Halabja which remembers the twenty-fifth anniversary of it's bombing with chemical weapons this year?).

In Psalm 82 (v.3-4) we find this:

'Defend the weak and the fatherless; uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.
 Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.'

What we have before us is something that today we call the 'Responsibility to Protect' (R2P) and it is something that supports the intent of the passage above and, existing closely in tune with the heartbeat of God, resonates with all descent people (theist and non-theist).

It is not rabble-rousing, nor jingoistic or vote-catching. What it brings into focus is three elements that need to be considered and these are presented to us in the images of those dead or dying we see broadcast onto our television screens from Syria.

There are three considerations:

It is the duty of each and every state to protect their people from genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity; and the duty of the international community to assist in the prevention of these acts.


Where evidence exists that such atrocities are occurring because the state is unable, or unwilling, to act to stop them then once all peaceful means have been exhausted other, more militarily robust means, are all that remain.

In a nutshell, this is the bottom line:

If a nation cannot, or will not, protect it's own people then the international community must act to ensure that this protection is afforded and when all else fails it is acceptable for them to do so by use of military force.

This is the situation before us with regard to Syria and should the UN Security Council decide that this is the place that has been reached by the current crisis (and it is a crisis) then there are many steps before we find ourselves with a 'boots on the ground' scenario, but this is the ultimate destination should more peaceful ways fail.

It would help the situation greatly to have the Russians become a little more obviously engaged in what is right rather than the protection of their ally (and sales market) in defending Syria. The steps open would be trade embargos (which would hit Russia), sanctions (such as those which have stopped North Korea getting ski lifts - now that's a thought to savour isn't it?) and other restrictions and political strategies.

It's not a swift route, and it never should be, because military action is a last resort rather than a kneejerk (after all whilst politicians start wars it's the armed forces who stop them and pay dearly for treaties written in their blood).

So we need to stop responding with our own kneejerk responses and stop the 'warmongering' cries - because R2P is a balanced, measured and slow process which has nothing to do with regime changes (a mistake that we saw perhaps with Iraq) or dogma, doctrine or national interest (and I mean other nations, not the nation where the problems are occurring). What R2P demands is a strong constitution and a desire to make real the words, 'NEVER AGAIN' true for every nation across the globe - for genocide and the use of weapons of mass destruction must be opposed globally, always and everywhere without let, hindrance, bias or favour.

So tomorrow when the British government discuss the option regarding Syria, use your heads and think; your knees and pray and remember that those who would have peace must train armies and be willing to use them - as the last resort.

Sadly civil wars see ruling powers act against civilian populations using the might of the government machinery (and military might) and the danger is that in supporting the citizens we might just be supporting the self-same terrorists who will turn on us later (remember Russian and Mujahedin and who armed them only to have the same arms turned on our troops by the same people now?).

We need to read, test the news reports and understand the situations and, when what we see on our televisions occurs, act in a right and proper way as nations and as the members of those nations who are part of the international community.

Pray for peace -work for peace- be ready to engage the wicked if (or perhaps when) this is seen to have failed.

Simples or what?

Pax

Israel - stepping back a little

I've already had a couple of mails telling me that Israel was 'merely defending itself from foreign invaders when it shot those people' and therefore, under international law acted lawfully.

Let's look at some of the ways that others dealt with protesters coming together to remember the 'nakba', the 'catastrophe ' that for them saw Israel established with a homeland and others (them) made homeless.

In Cairo the security forces fired warning shots and used tear gas to disperse protestors outside the Israeli embassy.

The Lebanese authorities fired in the air as they sought to disperse the protesters.

The Jordanian police used tear gas to disperse protesters gathering near the Israeli border.

Israel started with tear gas and rubber bullets but, characteristically, allowed itself to be baited and led down its usual excessive path. It was obvious that some of the crowd were being stirred up and the key to the managing the situation is proportionality and containment. The problem comes in that those who seek to arouse and enflame the passions of the protesters find that they no longer need to do so once the first dead person is carried away.

Those who protested might not have carried firearms, but sticks and stones can indeed break bones, and whilst some are claiming that those who died were innocent and unarmed, there is plenty of guilt to go around. Both sides have transgressed and both are guilty, but sadly some are made more guilty than others because of the wounded and the number of dead protesters.

What is assured is that Israel's General Mordecai sees the situation correctly when he says that, "We are seeing here an Iranian provocation, on both the Syrian and the Lebanese frontiers, to try to exploit the Nakba day commemorations,". The problem is that if you knows that you are being provoked, the best response is not to give those provoking the ammunition they seek to escalate the situation. In the current situation, Israel has failed to do that and given the sea change in Egypt's attitudes to israel, the unsettled state of affairs in so many nation, the call of a senior Hamas leader for Islam to rally and unite against the usurper and aggressor, Israel, this could prove very costly on both world and Middle East stages.

The finger pointing will doubtless continue. Israel will continue to claim it used sensitive, minimal force and Hamas and pro-Palestinians will claim the people were unarmed and merely protesting. Neither are telling the truth. Neither have any integrity. One side has the dead to make them look, once again, excessive and wrong - which, as I read and watch, they are!

Pax

ps. No SC, I'm not pro-Palestinian, or anti-Israel, I'm for justice, mercy, humility, balance and a peaceful response and solution.