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

The Arab League is not alone in its new spirit of activism: The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), played a leading role in the campaign to depose Laurent Gbagbo, the president of Cote D'Ivoire, after he provoked a civil war rather than accept the results of an election he had lost. The heavy lifting in that operation was done by the U.N. and France; but, as in Libya, the regional body provided indispensable legitimacy for the international community. Sovereignty has begun to lose its magic even among the de-colonized nations which most zealously guard the principle. But Arab leaders also live in a new world. The Arab street has turned sharply against Assad; and the era when Arab leaders could afford to ignore public opinion is over. In that regard, the new tone of the Arab League is one of the early benefits of the Arab Spring.

Russia may choose to compromise rather than put itself on the wrong side of history. That would be encouraging. But, of course, a win for international diplomacy means nothing if Assad continues to kill unarmed civilians, or if Syria spirals into a yet more monstrous civil war. The resolution's backers hope that once Assad's supporters in the military and the business community see that they don't have to decide, as Assad insists they do, between murderous violence and utter chaos, but can instead choose what the resolution calls "an inclusive Syrian-led political process" to replace him, they will abandon the dictator. That's a plausible hypothesis. But if Assad concludes that he still has Russia in his corner -- along with China, Iran, and Hezbollah -- he may well believe that he can tough it out. And if Russia continues to deliver weaponry, he may retain the means to do so.

What then? The answer, alas, is: nothing. There has been a great deal of debate over the question of military intervention in Syria. An English think tank focused on Syria has even produced an assessment, mostly positive, of the case for establishing a "safe haven," like Benghazi in Libya, where civilians would be protected from attack and the opposition could safely organize. But it's not going to happen. Several months ago, French foreign minister Alain Juppe mooted the idea of a "humanitarian corridor," in which foreign troops would provide protection for aid agencies giving humanitarian assistance to civilians in Syria. But the idea got no support, and has since been dropped. One Western diplomat said to me, "Any possibility of military action is completely discarded, and considered as impossible." Could that change? One Obama administration official suggested that if Syrian troops were stupid enough to chase rebel soldiers across the border into Turkey, the Turks could not only answer with force but invoke Article 5 of the NATO treaty requiring the organization to respond to an attack on a member. That is, he said, a very remote scenario. And even many NATO members would be reluctant to act without Security Council authorization, which Russia would never grant.

So the news is not all that good. The world is more prepared to act to stop atrocities than it was just a short while ago, but it is still unwilling, or perhaps unable, to actually bring those atrocities to an end. Russia and India are still prepared to make the grotesquely cynical argument that the events in Syria constitute a civil war between two sides equally at fault, rather than a murderous rampage which has, after long months, provoked some civilians to take up arms and some soldiers to defect. Advocates of forceful action still have more words than deeds at their disposal. Juppe admonished the Security Council earlier this week that its silence, in the face of Syria's "crimes against humanity," was "shameful." He repeated this word several times, lest anyone have failed to hear his outrage. But France has no Plan B to offer beyond what may turn out to be a fairly wan Security Council resolution. That does, actually, put one in mind of the debates over Darfur.

Sometimes it's hard to believe that the arc of history bends towards justice. The arc is almost imperceptible. But I still believe it's bending that way.

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.