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

Post a Comment

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...
7 comments
Read more

Ethical considerations of a National DNA database.

Plans for a national DNA database   will be revealed by the Prime Minister this week. This is the same proposal the Tories and Liberal Democrats opposed when presented by the Blair government because they argued it posed  a threat to civil liberties. This time it is expected to offer an 'opt-out' clause for those who do not wish their data to be stored; exactly how this would operate isn't yet clear. But does it matter and does it really pose a threat to civil liberties? When it comes to biology and ethics we tend to have a distorted view of DNA and genetics. This is for two reasons. The first is that it is thought that our genome somehow represents the individual as a code that then gets translated. This is biologically speaking wrong. DNA is a template and part of the machinery for making proteins. It isn't a code in anything like the sense of being a 'blueprint' or 'book of life'.  Although these metaphors are used often they are just that, metapho...
2 comments
Read more

The unethical language of 'welfare dependency'

It is unethical to stigmatise people without foundation. Creating a stereotype, a generalised brand, in order to  demonize a group regardless of the individual and without regard for the potential harm it may do is unfair and prejudicial. It is one reason, and a major one, why racism is unethical; it fails to give a fair consideration of interest to a group of people simply because they are branded in this way. They are not worthy of equal consideration because they are different.  It seeks also to influence the attitudes of others to those stereotyped. If I said 'the Irish are lazy'; you would rightly respond that this is a ridiculous and unfounded stereotype. It brands all Irish on the basis of a prejudice. It is harmful certainly; but it is worse if I intend it to be harmful. If I intend to influence the attitude of others. And so it is with 'the unemployed'. All I need do is substitute 'work-shy' and use it in an injudicious way; to imply that it applies to...
2 comments
Read more