Attacking Syria is about saving face, not saving lives
There is no such thing as a "surgical strike", and we must assume that civilians may be killed in any airstrikes.
Last Modified: 28 Aug 2013 15:00
Rachel Shabi
Rachel Shabi
It should be clear that these planned western alliance airstrikes aren't about Syrian lives - not the unimaginable death tolls in excess of 100,000, nor the agonising lines of refugees pouring into neighbouring countries.
If these heads of state cared about Bashar al-Assad butchering and dropping bombs on the Syrian people, they would have "done something" constructive much sooner - not, as the so-called liberals suggest, stormed in with counterproductive airstrikes. Rather, they would have exerted the necessary pressure on rebel allies and conducted the necessary diplomacy with Assad backers, to quickly get the regime and its opponents to a negotiating table. And it is not too late to do any of that now.
If these proposed strikes were about Syrian lives, and not a proxy war to destabilise the "Shia axis" of Iran, Syria and Hezbollah, the West wouldn't snub Assad's allies - Russia, China and Iran - by proposing to bypass the UN. Nor would it blatantly discredit the currently working weapons inspectors whom Russia used its pressure to persuade Assad to allow into Syria in the first place.
If the US were remotely serious about a morally correct international response to the alleged use of chemical weapons it would, as the former British government security advisor, Admiral Lord West, suggested on Wednesday, share any evidence it claims to possess with Russia and China. Antagonising Russia also makes it much harder to coordinate the humanitarian effort desperately needed not just in the refugee camps in neighbouring countries, but within Syria itself.
If the goal were to help the Syrian people, how could this diplomatically rude unilateralism count as a sensible move?
Most of all, it should be clear that the strikes are about saving face, not saving lives, because of the warnings of disastrous consequences. First, there is no such thing as a "surgical strike" - we must assume that civilians may be killed in any airstrikes against Syria. But more broadly, a military intervention will make the situation much worse because the terrible war within Syria is also a cynical, neo-Cold War. In this context, and given Assad's loyal allies, it is likely that a western military move will spark retaliation, not just against the Syrian population but across the region, too.
Yet because of the current, accelerated impetus to strike, there is little thought given to consequences, no planning for the day after - no political plan at all. And even as the region buckles under the strain of this brutal, spreading battle, crucial warnings are seemingly brushed aside in the overwhelming need to prove that the West is the good side.
Perhaps if we stopped believing that the Middle East needs the West's moral posturing, we might start to think differently about its role and responsibilities in that region. Leaders will always seek to justify military interventions using democratic values and lovely human rights slogans when it suits particular agendas of the time. But we don't have to lap it up so willingly - or give them a green light to go ahead.
アサドの市民虐殺が問題ならば、もっと早い段階で介入があって然るべきであったし、シリアの市民の命を大事に思い、道義的に正しくありたいというなら、国連の調査官の調査を尊重すべきだし、また、ロシアや中国にアサドがやったという証拠を見せて然るべきであろう、と。
空爆すれば市民が犠牲になるかもしれず、また、アサド派の復讐が国内のみならず、国際的に拡大するかもしれないにもかかわらず、軍事介入するというのは、人命救助のためではなく、自分たちの面子のためにやっているだけではないか、と。
西洋人は、自分たちに都合のいいときだけ、民主主義や人権などの言葉を使って軍事介入しているだけだ、と。
ーーー建前と本音というか、言っていることとやっていることの不一致というのは、国際政治でつねに注目しておくべきで、西洋人の発するかっこいい言葉に酔うーーーこれはこれで必要ーーーーのは若いときに卒業して、ある程度したら、彼らがどのようにそれらを使い分けるかの研究をはじめたほうがいいかもしれない。
国際社会で大人になるというのは、自分のやっていることはべつにして、建前を貫けるかどうか、また、アメリカメディアで働く日本人記者やコラムニストのように、米軍や強いものの罪に目を背けて、国際的強者を支持し続けられるかどうか、ーそこらへんが問題になってくるようである。
