and Yes to Practical Peace-Building Actions
With all three of our Congressional delegation saying they are “undecided” on authorization of military intervention in Syria, THIS IS THE WINDOW for us to act! All are hearing from constituents, and all need to hear from YOU!
The full Senate will vote this week; the House vote is not yet scheduled.
When you call, or when you talk to friends, here are the best resources I’ve seen about why we MUST say no to war with Syria and the practical peace-building actions we can take instead.
FCNL’s 5 Reasons to Oppose War with Syria (below is excerpted; click for full downloadable points)
1) The international community is united in condemning chemical weapons use in Syria.
U.S. strikes are already causing splits in this unity, just in the proposal stage!
2) The international community has effective political tools to address the use of chemical weapons.
The U.S. should convene a meeting of all 189 signatory countries to the Chemical Weapons Convention, and should act through the United Nations and the International Criminal Court.
3) No military solution exists to the crisis in Syria.
As the Obama administration and Pentagon officials have long pointed out, Syria’s bloody civil war can only be solved by political means, not by the application of military force. U.S. military action will kill more people–particularly civilians–and has a low probability of effectively deterring the future use of chemical weapons.
4) The U.S. needs to pursue a political solution that involves internal and external stakeholders—including the Arab League, Russia, and the Organization for Islamic Cooperation.
A settlement needs to be negotiated between all internal parties to the conflict and include consultation with the external backers that have fueled this conflict. The U.S. can help save Syrian lives by engaging with Assad’s allies —including Russia and Iran’s new President—who can potentially influence Assad’s actions.
5) A U.S. attack on Syria could start a region-wide war.
The Syrian regime could retaliate to a U.S. attack by launching attacks on Israel or U.S. military assets in the Middle East. This could lead the U.S. to escalate in response and commit itself to waging an open-ended, multi-billion dollar war. A U.S. attack would likely play into the hands of the Syrian regime and trigger an outpouring of nationalist support for Assad among Syrians who perceive the regime as their only protection from foreign military intervention. Strikes could also strengthen al Qaeda’s presence in the region by emboldening opposition groups such as Jabhat al-Nusra, which have avowed affiliations with al Qaeda.
What should we do instead?
Many of the legal and diplomatic processes that led to peace in other times of conflict haven’t even been tried yet in Syria.
Yes Magazine has identified Six Alternatives to Military Strikes that could hold wrongdoers to account, deter war crimes of all sorts, and build peace. Instead of launching an assault on Syria, the United States could lead a “coalition of the willing” in rebuilding the tattered foundation of international law. (Here I’m sharing excerpts; click for full content.)
The armed opposition in Syria includes many we don’t want to support—especially those associated with Al Qaeda and other extremist groups. And the United States, too, has things to answer for—among other things its faulty claims about weapons of mass destruction in the lead-up to war in Iraq, the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, and civilian casualties of U.S. drone attacks in countries including Pakistan and Yemen. So building a case for war based on U.S. heroics in support of valiant upstarts against an evil despot just doesn’t work.
Our real choice is this: contribute to lawless violence or turn to the rule of law and civility.
1. Bring those guilty of atrocities to justice.
With the backing of the U.N. Security Council, those responsible for the chemical weapons attacks and other war crimes should be brought to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for justice, whether they are part of the Syrian regime or members of opposition forces. “The use of chemical weapons by anyone is a war crime, and international law requires international enforcement,” policy analyst Phyllis Bennis wrote in an email. “No one country, not even the most powerful, has the right to act as unilateral cop.”
2. Call for a United Nations embargo on arms, military supplies, and logistical support for both Damascus and opposition forces.
Stopping the flow of weapons from around the world into Syria is another important step toward peace. But it will involve complex diplomacy that has not yet been attempted. As Bennis writes, “Russia must stop and must push Iran to stop arming and funding the Syrian regime.”
But Russia and Iran are not the only culprits. Bennis continues: “The U.S. must stop and must push Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Jordan and others to stop arming and funding the opposition, including the extremist elements.” … Washington could tell the Saudis and Qataris that we will cancel all existing weapons contracts with them if they don’t stop arming the opposition.
3. The U.N. Security Council should hold an international peace conference involving not only the Syrian government and opposition parties, but their backers from outside the country and those affected by the flow of refugees and arms, including non-state actors.
Negotiators should aim for an immediate ceasefire, for the access needed to get humanitarian aid where it’s needed, and for an end to the conflict. This is a tried-and-true solution that resolved the wars in Southeast Asia through the Paris Conference on Cambodia, and in the Balkans through the Dayton Peace Agreement.
4. Offer aid and support to the nonviolent movements within Syria, or, at least, don’t undermine them.
A resurgence in Syria’s broad-based nonviolent movement for change that started in March 2011 is still a source of hope, according to Stephen Zunes, chair of Middle Eastern studies at the University of San Francisco. … He goes on to explain that nonviolent movements have a much better chance of building an inclusive democratic government.
“Military intervention would demoralize and disempower those remaining in the nonviolent resistance who are daily risking their lives for their freedom,” Zunes says, “while encouraging armed elements who—with their vanguard mentality, martial values, and strict military hierarchy—are far less interested in freedom and justice.”
5. Provide the humanitarian aid desperately needed by the millions of displaced people.
Humanitarian organizations are currently able to provide services within Syria only with great difficulty; the United Nations Security Council should insist that Damascus allow them access.
And the international community, not just the countries housing the refugees, should cover the costs of caring for the displaced inside and outside the country. Yes, it’s expensive. But a military strike would cost much more, as would the long-term costs society would incur from neglecting traumatized refugees.
6. Force the hand of Russia and China in the Security Council.
Many people believe that Russia and China have vetoed efforts in the United Nations to condemn the Syrian regime or to impose sanctions on it. But all these governments have done, so far, is threaten to veto. Jannuzi says that the other 11 members of the Security Council should take the issue to a vote and force Russia and China to actually exercise their veto power.
“That would at least give the rest of the international community the opportunity to say ‘If that’s your position, then what are you for?'” Jannuzi says.
Why the rule of law?
By applying the rule of law through existing international institutions, we can work to isolate the wrongdoers on all sides of the conflict in Syria from their bases of support around the world. We can support those in Syria working for peaceful change and offer humanitarian assistance. And we will move beyond the limitations of responding to lawbreaking with violence.
There’s another benefit, too, of relying on the rule of law. Doing so would strengthen the institutions, like the United Nations and the International Criminal Court, designed to settle conflict without violence. That would mean we’d have more effective options available when future despots threaten to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity.
To follow this path with credibility, though, the United States must itself live within the rule of law. That means, at the very least, refraining from launching into a war that violates international law. Only when a country is attacked, or when it has the support of a Security Council resolution, is a military assault on another country permitted.
It might seem naÃ¯ve to press for peace in a world where there is so much violence. But the belief that a few bombing missions and a quick exit could make a positive difference is in fact the naÃ¯ve view. And Americans—traumatized, exhausted, and impoverished by war—have no stomach for the protracted military conflict with uncertain aims that is the more likely outcome.
International law—fairly applied, patiently negotiated, with tough sanctions, and help for refugees—is in fact the most practical way to peace and justice for the people of Syria and beyond.