The Cynics at the Gates

The world is more prepared to stop atrocities than ever before, but it is still unwilling -- or unable -- to actually bring those atrocities to an end.

BY JAMES TRAUB | FEBRUARY 3, 2012

Something big has happened in international diplomacy: The Arab League, a body which until just the other day defended the sovereignty of its members at all costs, is demanding that a skittish U.N. Security Council take forceful action to stop atrocities committed by Syria, one of its own members. The league's call last year for a no-fly zone to protect civilians in Libya felt like an aberration, because Muammar al-Qaddafi had placed himself so far beyond the pale among his own neighbors. But Syria is a pillar of the organization, as central as France is to the EU. And so the spectacle of an Arab country -- Morocco -- introducing an Arab resolution to the Security Council earlier this week demanding that Syrian president Bashar al-Assad leave office was astonishing.

Arab authorship radically changes the politics surrounding the question of international action. Think, by contrast, of Darfur, where the United States and several European allies on the Security Council pushed resolutions threatening sanctions against Sudan for its campaign of mass killing and expulsion. Arab leaders defended their brother in Khartoum, President Omar al-Bashir, while the African Union repelled outside interference with its calls for "African solutions to African problems." Much the same happened in the face of international outrage against the regimes in Zimbabwe and Myanmar. The perpetrator's neighbors thus twist legitimate calls for action into a campaign of Western neo-colonialism, and reduce the universal principles behind norms like "the responsibility to protect" into a hobby-horse of Western elites.

China took the lead defending Sudan in the Security Council starting in 2004. Whatever pressure China had to ensure from Western governments and public opinion, it suffered no consequences at all in Africa, the Middle East, or throughout the developing world. And for years, Bashir was thus able to virtually dictate the terms of the international effort to stop his own killing spree, with a toothless peacekeeping force fielded by an overwhelmed and under-financed African Union. "African solutions to African problems" not only emboldened China, it also undermined the already shaky alliance seeking to stop Bashir. Who wants to stand up for a Western solution to Africa's problems? And so the United States, Britain, and others often proved quite willing to dump the problem in Africa's lap.

By all rights we should be in that place again, but somehow we're not. Russia, which is performing the same services for Syria that China did for Sudan, is negotiating not only with the Western powers but with representatives of Morocco, Qatar, and the Arab League. Russia can not disguise its support for Syria as anti-neo-colonialism (even though it also has the support of India, long-time stalwart of the Non-Aligned Movement) The plain truth is that, just as China depended on Sudan as an oil supplier, Russia views Syria as a major client for its arms-export industry; and both China and Russia fear that any effort by the Security Council to stop atrocities could serve as a precedent for similar interventions in Chechnya, or Tibet. Moscow has hardly folded: by threatening a veto, it has already forced the resolution's backers to strip out any explicit reference to Assad's departure and has removed passages calling for an arms embargo and support for sanctions. But after blocking any Security Council action on Syria for months, Russia is now actively negotiating for language it can live with. Diplomats say that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov may reach an agreement when they meet in Munich on Saturday.

The resolution, whatever form it takes, puts the Arab League in the lead. A senior State Department official I spoke to pointed out that -- while in the case of Libya the Arab League had, in effect, authorized the West to act on its behalf -- in the case of Syria it has asked the council to endorse an Arab bid to resolve the problem. "That's important," he said, "and it's new." It may be possible to speak of an "Arab solution to an Arab problem" without a cynical smirk.

DON EMMERT/AFP/Getty Images

 

James Traub is a contributing writer for the New York Times Magazine and a fellow of the Center on International Cooperation. "Terms of Engagement," his column for ForeignPolicy, runs weekly.

DANIELSERWER

1:57 PM ET

February 3, 2012

The arc is bending

Military intervention is still not in the cards, but the current draft UN Security Resolution would open the door to transition: http://www.peacefare.net/?p=7191

Daniel Serwer
www.peacefare.net

 

GDE

6:14 PM ET

February 3, 2012

Imperial powers rarely stop atrocities

Places like Africa and the Middle East have good sense to be wary of intervention by nations with a history of empire. And with international corporate empires, this history is not just past history. It continues.

 

GRANT

12:23 AM ET

February 4, 2012

Yes, because the African

Yes, because the African states have proven themselves to be so capable of taking care of Africa. Why, just look at Rwand- I mean how about Zimbab- or what about Soma- hey, how's Congo doin- I'm sure they're taking care of matters in Ethiopia and Erit- yeah they don't have a good record do they.

On another note I never cease to be amazed by how imperialism is seen as a great sin and how it gets used against nations half a century later, but those former colonies using the same policies (and some far worse) barely warrants a paragraph in the New York Times. Maybe crimes against humanity only matter if you're white? Is there any other reason apartheid South Africa got international protests while no one cared about the Taureg?

 

GDE

4:53 PM ET

February 4, 2012

You miss the point

You are correct many African governments are screwed up. But, why do you think the Western imperial powers who were as bad or worse would do better? And, in many cases, the bad governments are heavily influenced by Western nations and corporations to be bad to their people, good to their own pockets and, even more so to their corporate patrons.

Good government takes generations to develop, in most cases. The idea that bad governments are likely to help the process is ridiculous.

Yes, in some cases, intervention of Western powers eventually led to good government. In most of these, the cost was extremely high: genocide of the local people.

The white v nonwhite issue has a lot more to do with who has the power than anything else. I don't recall reading much about how Imperial Japan, Communist China, or the Khmer Rouge were all that noble because they were not white.

 

GRANT

8:11 PM ET

February 4, 2012

My point was that, to date,

My point was that, to date, regional organizations have shown very limited capability and willingness to actually do anything. The African Union might have shown some promising signs but it was completely unable to figure out what its policy should be on Libya, it's efforts to do anything about fighting in central Africa and the Horn of Africa have been stumbling at best and the recent failure to elect a leader of the organization* suggest to me that it is not an organization capable of taking necessary action. My view is further increased by the refusal of ICC states in Africa to arrest Bashir and the line South Africa is taking, apparently automatically rejecting any suggestion of intervention**. These issues are not going to go away and if the A.U. isn't handling it then there are obvious alternatives.

* Even when there was only one candidate in the last round of voting.
** Such as Libya and Cote d'Ivoire. If it wants a seat on the Security Council it really isn't doing anything to make the U.S enthusiastic.

 

TIMING

6:37 PM ET

February 3, 2012

 

RANDY NICHOLSON

7:58 AM ET

February 4, 2012

Left To Their Own Devices

Both the Arab League and The African Union appear to have been founded as ad-hoc diplomatic organizations to represent the sovereignty of their member states. Now that this issue is of much less importance it is possible that these organizations need to change focus in order to survive. I could see the possibility the Arab League becoming a stronger regional force but the African Union would appear to have a ways to go. Both of these regions would be better served by stronger multi-lateral diplomatic organizations but the question for me is will Africa be able to rally? They have a lot of work ahead of them.

 

BEINGTHERE

9:44 AM ET

February 4, 2012

Let's just go nation-build ...

That's ALWAYS worked. And it gives contractors and the elected officials connected to them a boost. Certainly has made the U.S. look good in not one war but two.

 

FUNKEDUP143

2:21 PM ET

February 4, 2012

Whats the End Game?

Syria is just a pincer in the pre text to all out war against Iran. There is little doubt that Western intelligence agencies have been doing their level best to incite surrection whether we like Assad or not.

All the West need is a small opening and you have Iran next with a guaranteed WWIII on your hands.

The author is either blind or a warmonger in consort

If youre genuinely interested in ensuring peace get a UN peacekeeping force that doesnt include the West.

But like I said - keep beating the drums sunshine.

 

ZORRO

3:34 PM ET

February 5, 2012

Sovereignty

Is the US prepared to give up some sovereignty to the ICC, or at least prosecute its own war criminals? Not likely.
Until then I shall view all US complaints about Syria as straight propaganda.

 

MICHAELGERALDPDEALINO

11:35 PM ET

February 5, 2012

No surprise

Russia and China are more interested in their arms trades with Syria and other dictatorships than with human rights, freedom, and democracy. Besides, China is not a democracy itself. Russia, too, is a pseudo-democracy. They do not have the legitimacy to lead the world, nor take the stand for freedom and democracy.