The US and Russia have today struck an agreement on the process for disarming Syria of its chemical weapons stockpile. There are three lessons to be learned from this crisis that reached a crescendo over the last month.
First, the threat of the use of force works. And when the threat to use force comes from the US, all countries know what that will be or could be like. US military firepower is unmatched, but America's ability to project that firepower cannot be underestimated either. Over the past decades the Syrians have owned dangerous chemical weapons without any accession to national responsibility for posessing them under international law. Until a few days ago, Syria was amongst only five countries that have neither signed nor ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention that prohibits the use, transport and production of chemical weapons. The criminal action of using these weapons against its own people presented a dangerous challenge to other countries who have taken a moral stand against chemical weapons. The US could have decided to ignore the murder of innocent civilians by its own government. It did not, because that was not the right thing to do. Instead, the US took a stand that the Syrian government must be punished for these actions, and if Syria does not take steps to remedy this crime against humanity, force will be used. Today, the process has started to finally disarm Syria of these weapons that should not be possessed by any.
Second, I also feel that the deal demonstrates that diplomacy can work with Russia when a military option is put on the table. As hostile as President Putin may be to US interests (think Edward Snowden or Georgia), he knows that when the US means business, it better be taken seriously. That realization makes the Russians more open to pursue diplomacy. Syria is a key ally for Russia, so disarming Syria is a net loss for the Russians. But the fact that Moscow has shown that it can come around to the diplomatic table only reinforces the notion that US military strength counts for something.
Finally, the threat of force by the US shows that the United Nations Security Council never was and never will be a constraint on US diplomacy and power politics. In fact, in this specific case of Syria, one could argue that with an obstinate veto from the Russians, perhaps the Security Council, with its obsolete structure and the predisposition of its permanent members' to protect national interests at the expense of international norms, is not necessarily the sole, legitimate organ it is meant to be on declaring war. This is clearly dangerous, since other States could use force without Council authorization too, but so far US military power is qualitatively different from what other countries possess.
First, the threat of the use of force works. And when the threat to use force comes from the US, all countries know what that will be or could be like. US military firepower is unmatched, but America's ability to project that firepower cannot be underestimated either. Over the past decades the Syrians have owned dangerous chemical weapons without any accession to national responsibility for posessing them under international law. Until a few days ago, Syria was amongst only five countries that have neither signed nor ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention that prohibits the use, transport and production of chemical weapons. The criminal action of using these weapons against its own people presented a dangerous challenge to other countries who have taken a moral stand against chemical weapons. The US could have decided to ignore the murder of innocent civilians by its own government. It did not, because that was not the right thing to do. Instead, the US took a stand that the Syrian government must be punished for these actions, and if Syria does not take steps to remedy this crime against humanity, force will be used. Today, the process has started to finally disarm Syria of these weapons that should not be possessed by any.
Second, I also feel that the deal demonstrates that diplomacy can work with Russia when a military option is put on the table. As hostile as President Putin may be to US interests (think Edward Snowden or Georgia), he knows that when the US means business, it better be taken seriously. That realization makes the Russians more open to pursue diplomacy. Syria is a key ally for Russia, so disarming Syria is a net loss for the Russians. But the fact that Moscow has shown that it can come around to the diplomatic table only reinforces the notion that US military strength counts for something.
Finally, the threat of force by the US shows that the United Nations Security Council never was and never will be a constraint on US diplomacy and power politics. In fact, in this specific case of Syria, one could argue that with an obstinate veto from the Russians, perhaps the Security Council, with its obsolete structure and the predisposition of its permanent members' to protect national interests at the expense of international norms, is not necessarily the sole, legitimate organ it is meant to be on declaring war. This is clearly dangerous, since other States could use force without Council authorization too, but so far US military power is qualitatively different from what other countries possess.
No comments:
Post a Comment