Loading ...
Maksoud: 'Diplomatic Vitality' Needed to Bring Peace to Syria
It is now a proven fact that chemical weapons were used in Syria. As a result, nearly 1,450 people died, one-third of them children. The Obama administration asserts that the Bashar al-Assad regime is the culprit, which undertook these clear violations of international humanitarian law and the treaty that bans the chemical weapons use. It will be far more legitimate if a military strike will take place as a resolution under Chapter 7 of the UN Security Council. The reason that the United States is reluctant to undertake such an initiative is because it anticipates a Russian veto.
Seeking authorization from US Congress appears to be difficult in view of the reluctance at this time of a significant number of members of the House of Representatives to endorse authorization. Public opinion in many parts of the United States in turn is overwhelmingly lobbying their representatives in Congress not to endorse any such military act.
While a significant — perhaps a majority of US citizens — want to prioritize their immediate economic, financial, social and medical needs as well as support educational institutions, there is a chance, however, that the intensive campaign that the White House is undertaking to persuade Congress and influence the public opinion to support an immediate strike, might endorse the president’s decision but not until a majority is reached. Before making a judgment, Americans are waiting for the president’s speech on Tuesday, Sept. 10.
In the meantime, according to The New York Times in its Sunday issue [Sept. 8], the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) plans to “blanket Capitol Hill with 250 advocates, having already contacted dozens of lawmakers, to urge them to support a strike.”
Is that what it takes to persuade a reluctant Congress?!
Many in the Arab world — even some who are against the Assad regime, especially among the Syrian opposition — are in a state of quandary because in the final analysis an Arab’s gut feeling is that whatever their attitude toward the Syrian regime, they cannot approve an outside attack on an Arab country unless the international community has authorized it.
What will lead to a more comfortable conclusion is that at this moment UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and Special Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi would intensify their efforts for a speedy resumption of the Geneva II conference, persuade both Russia and the United States to prioritize an instant cease-fire enforcement — if necessary — by UN troops and seek an agreement from all parties in Syria to a transitional government, which has unfortunately eluded the international community for more than two and a half years.
Is this feasible? I think the international community is exhausted by the sight of more than 125,000 civilians killed and more than 3 to 4 million refugees in Jordan and Lebanon, and the displaced within their own country. There must be a residual diplomatic vitality, for which it is time to bring peace that up until now has eluded us.
This has led Ban Ki-moon and his top mediator Brahimi to sharply but indirectly criticize a potential US military strike against Syria, saying, “Any additional use of force could exacerbate the country’s civil war while violating international law.” Ban Ki-moon added at a gathering hosted by British Prime Minister David Cameron in Saint Petersburg on Sept. 6, “I must warn that ill-considered military action could cause serious and tragic consequences with an internal increased threat of further sectarian violence.”
It is hoped that the UN position at this highest level constitutes a consequential appeal to render international law binding legally and morally as envisioned by the Charter of the United Nations.
All I can say is let’s hope that a space is given to make the United Nations become what it was envisioned to be for the sake of peace in Syria and for regional and world peace.
Clovis Maksoud
Al-Monitor Lebanon Pulse