The Houla Massacre of a week ago in several small Muslim villages near the Syrian city of Homs underscores the tragic circumstances of civilian vulnerability to the brutal violence of a criminal government. Reliable reports confirm that most of the 108 civilians who died in Houla were executed at close range in cold blood, over 50 of whom were children under the age of 10. It is no wonder that the Houla Massacre is being called ‘a tipping point’ in the global response to this latest horrifying outbreak of Syrian violence, a process that started over 15 months ago. The chilling nature of this vicious attack that refused to spare the most innocent among us, young children, does seem like a point of no return. What happened in Houla, although still contested as to details, seems established as mainly the work of the Shabiha, the notorious militia of thugs employed by Damascus to deal cruelly with opposition forces and their supposed supporters among the Syrian people. This massacre also represents a crude repudiation of UN diplomacy, especially the ceasefire 280 unarmed UN observers have been monitoring since it was put into effect on April 12th. In this regard the events in Houla reinforced the impression that the Assad regime was increasingly relying on tactics of depraved criminality and state terror to destroy the movement that has been mounted against it. Such defiance also created new pressure on the UN and the international community to do something more interventionary than bemoaning and censuring when confronted by such evil, or face being further discredited as inept and even irrelevant.
But is not the Syrian situation better treated as a ‘tragic predicament’ of contemporary world order rather than presented as a tipping point that might justify military intervention? The language of tipping point raises misleading hard power expectations that external coercive initiatives can redeem the situation? What kind of hitherto unimaginable action plan undertaken by the UN or NATO could hope to stop the violence at acceptable costs and thereby change the governing structure of Syria for the better? There has long existed an international consensus that the Syrian response to a popular uprising that started nonviolently more than a year ago should be vigorously opposed, but this awareness was coupled with a growing realization that there were no good options in the event, as has proved to be the case, that the Assad regime defies international censure and media exposure. Even those who supported the 6-Point Annan Plan in the UN acknowledged from its inception that it represented a desperate effort, which had almost no prospect of succeeding. Critics claimed that the Annan Plan was ‘accepted’ in bad faith by Assad to give Damascus breathing space while it went forward with its own plans to crush the opposition by all means at its disposal, and had no intention of reaching a political solution of the conflict. In truth, the opposition may also have been unwilling to live within the limits of the Annan approach as it meant giving up its primary goal of establishing a new governance structure for Syria.
There was a widely shared sentiment at the UN and in the world media that it was unacceptable to stand back and watch further crimes against humanity take place, inducing a mood that ‘something more must be done,’ but what? Remembering the awful failure of the world to look away while the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 or to remain passive in responding to the massacre at Srebrenica in 1995, there existed the feeling that the developments in Syria were heading toward a comparably unspeakable humanitarian catastrophe, already more than 10,000 Syrians had died, and it seems likely that worse may still occur if the Assad leadership is not removed.
Diplomacy had been arduously pursued since the outset of the turmoil in Syria: originally by Turkey, then the Arab League, and finally by Kofi Annan, the Joint Envoy of the UN Secretary General and the Arab League, each phase greeted by deceptive welcoming gestures in Damascus but clearly without any intention to abandon or even mitigate reliance on indiscriminate violence directed at the civilian population. The parties all along, including Bashar al-Assad sweet-talked international emissaries, announced their willingness to stop the killing and other abuses, and even accepted monitoring arrangements. On occasion after occasion before negotiators had even left this tormented country the two sides resumed their fierce combat as if nothing had happened to alter their behavior, and for this, the opposition led by the Syrian Free Army deserves a share of the blame. In effect, diplomacy has been given multiple chances, and continues to be put forward as the only way to make a difference in the conflict, and yet it clearly lacks the authority and capabilities to stop the bloodshed and suspend the political struggle for control of the Syrian state.
This frustration of diplomacy over many months naturally turns our attention to more coercive options. Russia has been blamed for preventing stronger action being endorsed by the UN Security Council, and is even being charged by the American Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, with pushing Syria into a prolonged civil war due its unwillingness to back stronger collective measures in the Security Council. Whether Russia will alter its stance in response to these latest developments remains uncertain, but there is a definite call for new initiatives within and outside the UN. There are intimations of the formation of a new ‘coalition of the willing’ prepared to engage in military intervention, and even NGOs are demanding a stronger stand. For instance, Amnesty International has issued an appeal to the Security Council to call upon the International Criminal Court to issue indictments against the Syrian leadership for their role in the commission of severe crimes against humanity, culminating in the Houla Massacre.
Military intervention has been strongly advocated for several months by some irresponsibly belligerent political figures in the United States, most notably by John McCain, the Republican Senator who lost the presidential election to Barack Obama back in 2008. So far there seems little appetite for such a major new military undertaking even at the Pentagon, and certainly not among the American public. Also Syria has no substantial coveted oil reserves that might have swung the balance of governmental opinion toward intervention during the debate on what to do about Qaddafi’s Libya.
The logistics and politics surrounding any proposed military intervention in Syria make it an unrealistic option. There is not the political will to mount the kind of major military operation on the ground that would have reasonable hopes of combining regime change with an enforced stability until normalcy could be established by a new national leadership. Unlike Libya, where NATO’s reliance on air power without ground troops was able to turn the tide decisively, if destructively, in favor of rebel forces, such a scenario is viewed as inapplicable to Syria where there continues to exist more public support for the regime and more substantial military and paramilitary resources at its disposal, especially if it continue to receive military assistance from Iran. All in all, the military option would likely make matters worse for the Syrian people, increasing the magnitude of internal violence without having the effect of bringing the conflict to an end, or producing better hopes for the future in a society as conflict and divided by enmities, bad memories, and fears as is the case of Syria.
A major reason why it is suspicious to be too interventionary, or for that matter dogmatically aloof, is the radical uncertainty surrounding the nature of the anti-Assad coalition of forces within Syria, and the motivations of their external backers. Such uncertainty is particularly prevalent among Syrian minorities that seem to fear the collapse of the present regime in Damascus more than these dislike some of its oppressive behavior. How to act in such circumstances of uncertainty should counsel humility, but rarely does as this sort of acknowledgement hampers the kind of mobilization of support needed for bold action. What is certain is the bloody nature of the conflict, the indiscriminate tactics relied upon, and the efforts to terrorize the civilian population. While it is correct at this point to hold the government in power responsible and accountable, both sides have acted ruthlessly and in a manner that casts a dark cloud over Syria’s future.
The dilemma exposes the weakness of empathetic geopolitics in a world that continues to be dominated by territorially supreme sovereign states with insecure and antagonistic minorities. In the Syrian situation, this tragic reality is revealed in all its horror, complexity, and contradictions. It is unacceptable to remain a passive spectator in a media wired world where events are reported visually almost as they are occurring, or immediately thereafter, and there is no way to avert the gaze of the outside world that is both compassionate and untrustworthy. It is morally unacceptable to stand by, watch, and do nothing. But the UN lacks the authority, capability, and legitimacy to impose the collective will of international society except in those rare instances when it is able to mobilize an effective geopolitical consensus as it did in Libya (but only by deceiving Russia and China as to the scope of the response contemplated by the authorization of force in March of 2011), but the outcome still being shrouded in uncertainty and controversy. For reasons explained above, plus the lingering resentment due to the Libyan deception on the part of Russia and China, there has not yet emerged a similar geopolitical consensus favoring military intervention in Syria, and none seems likely. Just as doing nothing is unacceptable, mounting a military intervention is unrealistic, and perhaps undesirable, and for now politically impossible.
What is left to fill the gap between the unacceptable and the unrealistic is diplomacy, which has proved to be futile up to this point, but hanging on to the slim possibility that it might yet somehow produce positive results, is the only conceivable way forward with respect to the Syrian situation. It is easy to deride Kofi Annan and the frustrations arising from the repeated failures of Damascus to comply with the agreed framework, but it remains impossible to find preferable alternatives. If diplomacy is finally admitted to be a dead-end, as seems almost certain, it raises serious questions as to whether in a globalizing world the absence of stronger global institutions of a democratic character is not a fatal flaw in the 21st century structure of world order. Moral awareness without the political capacity to act responsively points up a desperate need for global reform, but the grossly unequal distributions of power and wealth in the world make unfeasible such adjustments for the foreseeable future. And so the peoples of the world seem destined to go on living in this tragic space between the unacceptable and the impossible. It will take a true miracle to overcome this gap for the benefit of the Syrian people, and others.
With propaganda like this we are obviously sleepwalking into war. The reason is US/NATO believe they can invade Syria because of Russia and China showing their weakness on the invasion of Libya.
The downward spiral has now taken an inexorable course. Russia and China now see that they cannot allow Syria to fall and America is adamant that Syria must fall.
The die is cast with the US/NATO showing their hand withdrawing their ambassadors and baying for invasion in the wake of the awful crimes that are being committed against the people of Syria and their property and livlihood. There can be no backing down now on the China/Russia side and the Americans, like Hitler invading Poland to start the ball rolling, have clearly set their course. It is only a matter of time before the world is plunged into chaos once again. We are obviously entering a new phase in human history from which we may never recover
I have to admit the American had succeed in their operation in Syrian. They turned Syria into a Iraq without any(officially ) boots on the ground. But the Syrian conflict is more complicated than the Libyan conflicted. The only reason why the Assad regime it’s still in power is because Israel has decide so. when Israel has secured a puppet Syrian regime under her control we will see things speed up and a power change in Syria. Till then my people is suffering, god help the Syrian people.
I get the impression that Israel has outlived its usefulness and will now be abandoned by the US.
I hope the Americans won’t make the same mistake they made in Vietnam where they came up against Russia and China before. But you never know!
“I get the impression that Israel has outlived its usefulness and will now be abandoned by the US.”
If only it were so!
“The Houla Massacre of a week ago in several small Muslim villages near the Syrian city of Homs underscores the tragic circumstances of civilian vulnerability to the brutal violence of a criminal government.”
As time is a scarce commodity, it is always good that you can decide from the very first lines of an “article” if you want to use yours by reading the rest or save it for a better use.
I used mine for this comment, rather than reading what, already in the third line, seemed to amount to a pile of crap.
I am sorry that the distinguished humanitarian, Richard Falk, got it all wrong this time. He has been such a force for good regarding the Palestinian Tragedy. But, he has mistakenly sided with the MSM who are now fully owned by the Zionist War Machine, and only act as a mouthpiece for that entity. The Houla massacre is another false-flag attack, to draw the American Military into the war. The Syrian Free Army, trained and supported by western (Israeli/US/NATO) forces includes many mercinaries and are responsible for the attrocities, in this case against Assad loyalists, not as Falk has put it, ‘opposition forces and their supposed supporters among the Syrian people’…but alas, in a war zone, information is a valuable commodity and goes to the highest bidder. Whoever pays the most, gets the story. So maybe we will never know the real victims or the real perpetrators. But in the end, it makes little difference. The tipping point has been hit, and the sh_t is hitting the fan.
{I am sorry that the distinguished humanitarian, Richard Falk, got it all wrong this time. He has been such a force for good regarding the Palestinian Tragedy.}
Thank you for pointing out this issue. I have warned people at this site that RICHIARD FALK CANNOT BE TRUSTED. He is a member of the Council on foreign relations where tries to present himself as ‘progressive’ to FOOL THE PUBLIC to help US policy in the region.
Richard Falk, is using Chathem house report on Iranian election ‘fraud’, to spread the lie that Ahmadinejad was not the winner WHICH IS A LIE.
Ahmadinejad won by 2 to 1 margin with NO DOUBT.
The Chathem house is think tank of MI6 like NED.
In addition, Richard falk with Payam Akhavan, a NED(CIA) and “rights and democracy”, NED version in Canada, are going to appear in an ‘international’ tribunal to convict Iran, a victim of zionism and imperialism, on baseless charge of ‘crimes against humanity’ which fits USA, Israel, France, Britain and Canada the best.
Payam Akhavan is the empire’s lawyer who spreat ‘genocide in Darfur’ HOAX to destabilize Sudan for partition. Payam Akhavan like Richard Falk holds Assad responsible for Huola terror attack which is very simialr to 9/11 and everyone knows by now who was behind it. He gives NO EVIDENCE AGAINST ASSAD. As you said, Assad has been set up, for regime change with the help of liars who present themselves as ‘progressives’ to fool the public. Payam Akhavan also spread the lias about Iranian election.
As you said, Huola massacre is a false flag, like 9/11 to impliment the bloody US foreign policy agenda in the region.
We tell them all that we are not going to be fooled by you.
I have in the past personally notified Professor Falk, whom I have a great amount of admiration and respect for, that the claim that the Ahmadinejad stole the election is a claim for which there is no evidence, and sent him two papers that examine those claims in detail and systematically debunk them. I have not since seen him repeat the claim of a stolen election, and it would grieve me to see him still doing so. Are you referring to recent work of his? If not, I am relieved. If so, would you please share it?
The Chatham House report was indeed a fraud. I wrote about it here:
http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2009/08/05/chatham-house-report-evidence-of-fraud-high-voter-turnout/
Dear Jeremy:
Thank you very much for your attention.
Mr. Falk has repeatedly told the reader that election was fraud and the regime is brutal. Last time I read it at your site where you had to open a parenthesis and reminded him that this is not true. Since, I have not seen any article on Iran written by him at this site.
Frankly, I don’t follow Mr. Falk anymore since I became familiar with his position on Iran who sides with the propagandists.
On the other hand, Mr Falk praises Erdogan and the Turkish leadership knowing that Turkey under Erdogan has THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF JOURNALISTS IN PRISON IN THE WORLD. China and Iran with less than half of what Turkey hold, have been targeted as brutal.
Furthermore, Turkey has convicted many people charged with terrorism because Turkey is an ally of the US on ‘war on terror’HOAX, and currently hold 1/3 of all convicted people IN THE WORLD.
Yet, Mr. Falk and US government want us to believe Turkey with no political and economic pressure from US government /Israel and the West is ‘democratic’ and a ‘model’, and Iran with unmatched political pressures, economic sanctions, assassinations, virus attack, economic strangulation, terror attack by US terrorist pawns including PEJAk, MEK, Jondulla and others for the past 33 years, and velvet revolution, green, funded by NED and phony “human rights’ organizations, is a brutal regime where must be changed.
This is the position of US government as well as the member of ‘council on foreign relations’ Mr. Falk.
Turkey is a Trojan horse of the imperialism in the region and full partner in massacring people in Libya and Syria to bring down the government after government labeling them ‘dictator’ and ‘brutal’.
which is US/Israel positionThe result of this policy has taken millions of lives for the benefit of a few truly ‘dictators’.
Lately, Mr. Falk has taken extra measures helping US gov and Payam Akhavan a Bahia activists and Professor of law at Mcgill university, and an enemy of Iran to convict Iranian government with baseless charge of “crime against humanity”. Payam Akhavan is in the service of the US empire and an NED, Freedom House soldier who was a board member of Canadian “rights and democracy’ twin sister of NED. Payam Akhavan like Mr. Falk are embedded in their government who have committed MANY war crimis against humanity and both support Israel where Mr. Akhavan HAS NO WORD AGAINST THEIR CRIMES.
http://www.irantribunal.com/Eng/Committee.html
Mr. Payam Akhavan has received more than a million dollar from the state department to establish ‘Document Center” in Iran to
http://2001-2009.state.gov/g/drl/rls/50318.htm
collect “documents’ against Iran with the help of another NED associate, the “Boroumand Foundation” runs by Ladan and Laleh Boroumand who are Kurds.
Now, Mr. Falk is in close cooperation with NED funded organization against Iran.
Mr. Akhavan is well situated around the table with the ruling elite serving empire’s needs who should be convicted under ‘crimes against humanity’ to be sent to ICC for regime change.
Payam Akhavan a Canadian Citizen who migrated to Canada at the age of 8 or 9 has no quarrel with his country’s war crime activities in many countries around the world including Afghanistan, no quarrel with crimes committed against humanity by US, Israel, Britain, Turkey, France, and Saudi Arabia but he dares to go after empire’s victims, like Sudan, Yugoslavia, Iran.
Payman Akhavan lied when he told the public there was ‘genocide in Darfur’.
Professor Mahmud Mamdani using US state department data showed that this charge was HOAX. Mr. Akavan close to ‘save Darfur’ position which is Israel front, insist on sending Al Bashir’s case to ICC, another tool of the west against weaker states to pressure Al Bashir to partition Sudan, where they did.
http://www.david-kilgour.com/2007/Aug_23_2007_04.htm
Payam Akavan has repeated Iranian election was ‘fraud’ which is a HOAX, believes that Huola massacre was carried out by the Syrian government, like Mr. Falk.
Now, Mr. Falk is aligned with the tribunal committee to convict Iran to put pressure on the government for regime change. Majority of these ‘lawyers’ are in the service of the empire.
In addition, Mr. Eric David, one of the ‘lawyer’ in this tribunal, in a public statement wrote that Mujahedin,MED, the terrorist organization where Israeli lobby and its associates, the neocons, CANNOT BE VIEWED AS A TERRORIST organization but he dares to go after Iran to convict Iran on a baseless charge, ‘crimes against humanity’ which clearly shows what is the MISSION OF THIS TRIBUNAL where Richard Falk is associated closely with.
It is a shame.
http://ncr-iran.org/en/images/stories/moghav/lo-ericdavid.pdf
Mr. Hamond, thank you for Chathem House article.
Keep the good work.
{Mr. Falk are embedded in their government who have committed MANY war crimis against humanity and both support Israel where Mr. Akhavan HAS NO WORD AGAINST THEIR CRIMES.}
I meant, Akhavan and Falk have close relations with their governments, US and Canada where these two countries support the apartheid of Israel, NOT Mr. Falk.
Payam Akhavan, however, has close cooperation with the neocons pro Israel including Jose Maria Azna, Fouad Ajami, Irwin Culter, Boroumand, Alan Dershowitz, and many more.
http://irwincotler.liberal.ca/files/2010/05/2010_11_17_-_Petition_Endorsers.pdf