Ambassador Jaime S.
Bautista, Doctor of Laws, and
Secretary General of
the Philippine Ambassadors Foundation
Any Foreign
Intervention in Syria’s Civil War Must Accord with International Law
The question of whether to support the United States’ threat
to launch a limited military strike against Syria dominated the recent meeting
of the Group of Twenty at St. Petersburg.
This raises vital issues, such as whether the United States can ignore
the UN Security Council and take this course of action without violating the
United Nations Charter, what would be the effect if the United States fails to
obtain the approval of the UN Security Council because of the use of the veto
power, and what changes in the balance of power have taken place to affect
decisions taken by the UN Security Council.
Under international law, the use of force is allowed only in
case of self-defense or when the United Nations Security Council has approved the
use of force under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. As the United States is not under attack by
Syria and cannot claim self-defense, the United States is required to obtain
the approval of the UN Security Council before it may launch a military strike
against Syria.
The doctrine of Responsibility
to Protect also provides for collective action by the international
community through the UN Security Council and in accordance with the UN Charter,
if military intervention is required to protect a population from genocide, war
crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity,
The United States has sought to obtain the high moral
ground by arguing that it has evidence Syria has used chemical weapons against
its own people and that this should not be allowed to go unpunished because it
would be a signal that other rogue states could do the same with impunity. The United States argues that the issue
cannot be brought before the UN Security Council because Russia (and China)
will use the veto. If so, this would
show that it is timely to amend the UN Charter and abolish the veto power. President Putin pointed out that it was upon
the insistence of the United States that the veto power was given to the five
Permanent Members.
The NATO bombing campaign in the conflict regarding Kosovo
was made without the sanction of the UN Security Council but the United Kingdom
justified it on the basis of humanitarian necessity.
UN Secretary General Ban Kim-moon, however, has pleaded that
the United States must wait for the report of the UN Chemical Inspection Team
before acting on its threat and that any decision to attack should be taken
within the framework of the UN Charter, as a matter of principle.
The G 20 failed to reach agreement on whether to support the
United States on military action against Syria, with Russia standing firm on
its opposition. The media reports are
that the United States received support for a military strike in Syria without
UN Security Council approval from only four countries: France, Canada, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. France, however, stated that this action must
await the UN chemical report. Earlier,
the United Kingdom Parliament opposed military action.
The refusal of the British Parliament to support military
action against Syria is a severe blow to the prestige of the United States and
British governments. This confirms that
they suffer from a credibility problem, arising from the time it was confirmed
that Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction. As in the present case, the UN Secretary
General had pleaded that the UN inspection team be given time to complete its
work in searching for Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. The United Security Council voted against the
draft Resolution to grant authority for military action against Saddam Hussein
but the United States with its Coalition of the Willing proceeded to invade
Iraq on a controversial interpretation of a previous UN Resolution.
The world has changed since the NATO bombing campaign in
Yugoslavia. This took place at a time
when the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics had disappeared, leaving the USA
as the sole superpower. Since then, the
United States has become a weakened power, due partly to the cost of the Iraq
war. While the United States will remain
unchallenged for quite some time in terms of military power, China has risen as
the second economic power in the world, surpassing Japan. India and Russia have also emerged as
stronger economies. India is ranked as
the world’s third leading economy in terms of GDP PPP (purchasing power parity)
and Russia, which has profited from its wealth of oil and gas, as the sixth. Economic power translates into political power.
The G 20 has replaced the Group of 7/Group of 8 as the
main economic Council of the world’s wealthiest countries. This was announced at the G20’s Pittsburg
Summit in 2009. The BRICS are all
members of the G 20 and are now challenging the West’s stranglehold over the
International Monetary Fund and will put up a development bank to rival the
IMF. China plans the Yuan to be used as
an alternative currency to the dollar.
Nevertheless, though the BRICS are beginning to flex their economic
muscle, they still lag far behind the developed economies in terms of per
capita income. They also depend on
investments from the United States and other Western countries to finance their
economies for faster economic growth. Nevertheless, the United States no longer has
the economic power it wielded in the 20th century.
Russia has been unwilling to support any Resolution granting
authority for military action, arguing that Russia went along with the UNSC
Resolution for a no-fly zone in Libya to protect the civilian population but
this was used to take sides and effect a regime change. The US explanation that regime change is not
one of the objectives of the limited military action does not appear to
convince.
None of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South
Africa) at the G 20 Meeting supported military action in Syria. President Putin quoted remarks of South
African President Jacob Zuma to explain the sentiment opposing military action
without UN approval: “Small countries in
today’s world in general are feeling increasingly vulnerable and
unprotected. There is the impression
that any superpower at any moment at its discretion may use force.”
The opposition to military action includes the Vatican State. Pope Francis has urged the abandonment of
this “futile pursuit” of a military solution, with the Vatican laying out the
case for a negotiated settlement that guarantees the rights to all Syrians,
including minority Christians. The
Vatican has lamented that one-sided interests had prevailed in Syria,
preventing a diplomatic end to the conflict and allowing the continued
“senseless massacre” of innocents, according to a report of the Christian
Science Monitor.
The Christian Science Monitor had reported that Arab
Christians have come out strongly against US military action in Syria. Ignatius Joseph III Younan, Patriarch of
Antioch for the Syrian Catholic Church, issued a statement at a conference of
more than 50 Christian regional leaders sponsored by Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad in
Jordan: “We stress that we reject foreign intervention in Syria.” The Arab Christians fear that an attack would
create a backlash against their communities, pointing to the devastation of
Iraq’s Christian community following the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. Pope Anba Tawadros II, the head of the Coptic
Church in Egypt with a congregation of 9 million, likewise issued a statement
that “We don’t accept any foreign
intervention to protect minorities… It is basically a pretext to advance their
countries’ interests in the Middle East.”
The Pope’s call and the plight of the Christian minorities
in Syria and other parts of the Middle East will find empathy in the
Philippines, if we recall that the NATO bombing of Libya resulted in a high
number of collateral damage, which included the death of Filipino nurses. Our conscience calls for measures to stop the
bloodshed and ease the suffering of the Syrian people. Filipinos also cannot ignore that we have a
big Filipino diaspora in the Middle East.
Their safety and interests are foremost in our minds. We are also aware
that an unstable Middle East increases the price of oil, which increases the
cost of living.
The Philippines as an ally of the United States is sensitive
to the views of the United States. At
the same time, our foreign policy should be guided by the rule of law. Like many other countries, we rely on the
rule of law to protect our security and territorial integrity.
A military strike against Syria must pass through the UN
Security Council. Certainly, no nation
should use force unilaterally and assume that it is morally superior to other
nations. Neither can it be assumed that
any member of the UN Security Council can defy the collective conscience of the
Council and world opinion if there is overwhelming evidence. The UN Charter was agreed upon by the Great
Powers and accepted by the world community.
All countries must respect the UN Charter based on the principle of Pacta Sunt Servanda. This is the fundamental
basis of international law.
No comments:
Post a Comment