Skip to main content

John Kerry should be careful how he uses history to justify a strike against Syria

We cannot solve the problems of today by belatedly acting on the problems of yesterday. Yet a key pillar of John Kerry's justification for a punitive strike against the Assad regime is that the world stood by in the past when other atrocities were committed in previous conflicts. 

"We need to hear an appropriate outcry as we think back on those moments of history when large numbers of people have been killed because the world was silent," he said today when meeting British foreign secretary William Hague. "The Holocaust, Rwanda, other moments, are lessons to all of us today."

I am afraid history is rarely a good argument for the USA, or for Britain and other former colonial powers. History reveals a very dirty business when it comes to support for nasty regimes. The USA at best looked the other way and at the worst supported the use of chemical weapons by Saddam Hussein in the war with Iran in the 1980s. I suppose this must have been one of the 'other moments' in history referred to by John Kerry.

Without further sanction by the UN security council a punitive strike would not be legal. Only a strike that could demonstratively protect civilians would be legal. As far as I understand it there is no legal sanction for punitive action. But I confess I am no expert in international law. What I can say, however, is that the ethics of punitive action is dubious.

John Kerry is right when he says that "the end of the conflict in Syria requires a political solution." It would be better if the Obama administration worked to that end. It is difficult to see how a punitive military strike against Assad facilitates a political solution. If it weakens the Assad regime, the opposition forces would be unlikely to want a negotiated settlement. No, it is a very contradictory position for the Obama administration to hold.

The USA has now given the Assad regime just one week to hand over all its chemical weapons. Why
just one week? It is an empty gesture as John Kerry himself says; Assad will not comply with such a demand.

Afterword

Russia today also called on Syria to put its arsenal of chemical weapons under international control for destruction. It is clear John Kerry's ultimatum was made with some degree of cynicism and the US administration has been caught on the hop by Russia's move. Nonetheless, should Syria comply with Russia's request then this clearly would be a way forward to avoid a military intervention.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha