Hunger for War

It’s been a while since there was this much war, and more is in the air. The hunger for war seems insatiable. In Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Libya and in Mali, war rages on. Egypt teeters on the brink of civil war. In Bahrain, Saudi warriors have achieved an artificial peace. Sheltered do-gooders in the British, French and American state departments want to end the Syrian civil war with a war of intervention. And Germany? The crowned winner of patient, violence-eschewing, 20th century diplomacy is dancing around the subject. Chancellor Merkel explained, “At this time we have no evidence for the claim that the Assad regime is innocent.” A burden-of-proof reversal as Germany’s contribution to peace? The country without a foreign policy says it won’t stand in the way. Whose way?

To be sure, revolting crimes have been committed in Syria: mass murder with chemical weapons whose ban Syria never signed. But who is the criminal? Politicians in Washington, London and Paris claimed to know the results that U.N. criminal investigators would find before they could even begin. But where is the proof that President Assad is the executioner? We are strongly reminded of October, 2001: Experts advised Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld not to attempt nation-building in Iraq, but simply to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Regime change was the goal. So it happened. The outcome is still obvious today. Murder by the dictator’s hand is solved through daily murder on the streets of Baghdad. Between 2003 and 2011, 128,000 civilians died in the unrest caused by the war. As of 2011, the U.N. reported at least 17,000 deaths in Afghanistan, not including the pointless sacrifice of soldiers.

And Libya in 2011? England and France, with the help of the U.S. and NATO, transformed the U.N.-sanctioned intervention for the protection of Libyan civilians into an operation to overthrow Gadhafi. Those who had originally supported the resolution — the Arab League, Brazil, South Africa and India — felt betrayed, as did the vetoing powers Russia and China. Can anyone be surprised? Not really. States, as much as people, hate to have the wool pulled over their eyes. Those who try it must live with the consequences. This is Barack Obama’s problem now. With his phrase “red line,” he walked quite unnecessarily into the trap. And with the even less sensible refusal of a meeting with the Russian president, he has only made the trap more secure. Is there any way out?

Of course, there are ways to avoid war. No war starts itself. Obama knows he has no right to intervene militarily. Syria has neither attacked the U.S. or any of its allies, nor has Damascus asked for help, nor is there a mandate for intervention from the U.N. Security Council, the only one with the right to decide. The often ignorantly quoted “Responsibility to Protect,” which was happily agreed upon by 150 states in 2005, requires all interventions be backed by a U.N. mandate. There are no shortcuts and no autonomous decisions. Anyone who ignores this is tired of peace and unfit for politics. The way of diplomacy is still open; this is why we have diplomacy. Ronald Reagan was not afraid to suggest total nuclear disarmament to Gorbachev in Reykjavik in 1986. Is it not then possible for Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, to discuss with Putin some ways out of danger? At the awards ceremony in Oslo in 2009, Obama said, “No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.” Syria is the newest test case. Anyone seeking only punishment for Assad will reap civil war at best and perhaps a wildfire in the Near East to boot.

It is high time to recognize that it is first and foremost the duty of indigenous powers to enact political changes peacefully, with the goal of creating equitable participation in the political process and in the economic development of their country. Where the cohesion of self-responsibility for peace and justice is not accepted, help from outside will not do any long-term good.

This is the charge: words, not war. The U.N. Secretary General needs to commit to this. Dag Hammarskjöld would have long been in Damascus already. As a statesman without an office, Willy Brandt did not spare himself the effort of a trip to Baghdad in 1991. Ban Ki-Moon, however, satisfies himself with trite name-calling from a safe distance. The growing scent of war has to provoke the interventionists to deal with the complex issues of peace, instead of simply allowing free rein to the weapons, which can accomplish nothing but death and destruction.