Syria: Dismantle the UN Security Council & Amnesty Report

I have been reflecting on Syria as a peacemaker.  I did not want to write anything until I felt moved to.  I have sent love to the people in my own way. 

Over the last few nights I have watched the footage of killings of innocent civilians.  On reflection my inner feeling was that the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, as championed by Gareth Evans, be implemented as a first response, my feeling was that intervention should have happened at the beginning of this conflict.  This doctrine is not enshrined in law thus reliant on leaders to decide to intervene or not.  This is where sovereignty and self interest blocks unified action.   My gut feeling is that we are witnessing the ineffectiveness of the United Nations as a unified conscience of humanity and to uphold its mandate of ensuring Peace and Security as follows:

The Charter charges the Security Council with “primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security”

My second feeling concerns the legitimacy of the Security Council.  In the case of Syria, one of the members of the Security Council, namely Russia, is sending arms into Syria to protect its self interest rather than acting as a member of a United Nations to ensure Peace and Security.  For information on the Russian arms trade click on ‘A Closer Look at Russian Arms Sales to Syria‘.  Reading this article reveals a mindset I have noticed when men are disconnected from their natural humanitarian instincts.  The mindset is one of following self interest, rules, policy and unquestioned authority rather than acting on what is intuitively right as a human being.  I’ve seen this again and again in many situations where human rights are not seen as legitimate or totally ignored in favour of self interest.  It is not only in the international arena, I’ve seen it in business.  It is a pattern of trained disassociation with feelings, I find it predominantly in male attitudes given the perceived weakness of feeling for people or empathy.  People disengage their humanity in favour of their role as they are taught this is professionalism and the national interests of a country (namely business) are more important.  That is how it is possible for people to perceive it as legitimate to sell arms to a brutal regime and not consider the ethical issues of the murders committed by those arms and how that action facilitates human rights abuses.  We see so many countries who are signatories to human rights conventions waive that when it suits their national interests in the name of trade.  It brings up for me the idea of decoupling human rights from trade as announced by Clinton many years ago.  I remember my instinct kick in as I knew it was not in any citizens interests. It legitimised decisions based on trade disregarding human rights.  An incredible signal to send to business or a signal sent by business as legitimised by governments.  I feel the brutality and greed in such thinking.  I use more emotive language consciously in my blog as I wish to highlight the feminine perspective that feels for truth and compassion for other humans over economic and political interests.  I see no more important priority than the true peace, security and happiness of civilians.

I was watching Australia’s ABC’s Lateline featuring an interview with Widney Brown from Amnesty International.  She was commenting on the Syrian situation and announcing the release of the Amnesty Report entitled ‘Deadly Reprisals Deliberate Killings and Other Abuses by Syria’s Armed Forces.’  She indicated that arms supplied to the Syrian regime are primarily flowing into Syria from Russia and Iran.  Russia is on the Security Council.  She indicated that the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, along with Germany export 74% of the world’s weapons.  Hence, the Security Council’s legitimacy as protector of global peace is hanging in the balance, she stated.  I would assert that legitimacy is not hanging in the balance it has tipped over clearly to the side that favours violence over peaceful resolution of conflict.  Moreover, this runs counter to the mandate of the UN and makes a fiction out of the Security Council.  That for me was a revelation and answered the question of why there was no international intervention.  It was also clear to me that the Security Council should definitely be dismantled given there is a conflict of interest with its own arms trades facilitating violent conflict.  The question is how could that happen?  It is clear the people’s of the world have no voice at the UN and its representation is for the few, not the many, yet the taxes of the many pay for the United Nations.  In a world dedicated to true peace and security there would be no Security Council, all nations would have votes based on population and it would be one vote one value, rather than disproportionate power given to a few wealthy nations seeking to retain influence and power.  This is not a global democracy or representation of the citizenry across the planet.  Given lay people are largely the victims of violent conflict (crime) they should have the right to vote in who they want to represent them on a democratic basis.

The situation in Syria is outrageous and as indicated by Amnesty, Syrian forces and militias are working together and they have a pattern of terrorising the population by circling villages on 3 sides, shelling then committing summary executions.  She indicated old men were being shot, one was in bed suffering a nervous breakdown, he was shot, then they burn the bodies.  This is definitely a Crime Against Humanity and the international action is absolutely inadequate and needs to be overhauled immediately.   Amnesty did not agree with armed intervention at this stage indicating they preferred alternative approaches such as actioning the International Criminal Court (ICC) citing the mention of the ICC in Libya had a psychological effect on influencing the leadership.   The second approach mentioned was financial sanctions. 

I am definitely against violence, however in this particular case I would support military intervention (as UN peacekeepers) to protect civilians as essential given unarmed innocent civilians are being murdered on mass.   This would have legitimacy in respect of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine and it would be encumbered upon the international community to act, and act quickly to save lives.  My previous blog was on Schindler the German who saved some Jews from the concentration camps.  He cried when he thought that he could have saved more.  He spent his money saving as many as possible and he saw the German military as murderers rather than men of honour.   In the Syrian peoples hour of need I see the same dedication required of all people to help them.  If Russia is blocking this then there has to be a way to veto Russia when it is clearly a Crime Against Humanity.  Any country aiding and abetting a war crime should be held accountable as a accomplice and appear before the International Criminal Court on charges.  That is what a civilian response would demand, rather than the sanitised rhetoric many of us hear as justifications for why action is not taking place.  Moreover, how many other countries engaged in the arms trade are also undermining Peace and Security.  As discussed before, the Security Council was mentioned by Amnesty. 

On a spiritual level the civilians must not retaliate against the Syrian regime as it will intensify reprisals.  What you resist persists and what you look at disappears.  The Syrian Government loses its power when there is no resistance, as the mirror is held up to them.  That doesn’t mean the civilians do not find ways to not cooperate with the regime.  Nonviolent passive resistance would be the approach on the ground, together with visualising peace and finding ways to protect each other.   Hatred attracts like energy and intensifies the negativity expanding the violence.  The pain and fear in the Government needs to feed off the people’s pain, so it is important the people do not give the Government a target.   Gandhi spoke of taking the pain of their anger but not backing down.  He talked about fighting but with soul force not with weapons.   He refused to hate the other but chose to focus on truth and love (nonviolence).  If people gain arms they will be murdered at higher rates.

The Amnesty Report entitled Deadly Reprisals says it all, the reprisals are for standing up against a totalitarian regime.  The regime is punishing the people for not obeying.  The notion of a right to freedom of speech, self determination, democracy are non issues for the Government of Syria, they only understand dictatorship and total control.  That is the degree of the delusion they are in.  When Governments experience total control they do not know how to handle dissent in any other way but violent repression.  They have no concept of the rights of the people as they view them as subservient to their interests.   In truth there is great fear of the people, hence the need for total control. It is interesting that Russia and Iran are in alliance, that suggests similar mind sets.

This is argument enough for an end to the murder of civilians by Governments and the responsibility to protect civilians by all the international community.

Here is the Amnesty Report ‘Deadly Reprisals Deliberate killings and other abuses by Syria’s armed forces.‘