How do you solve a problem like Syria?

Intervention remains a word that causes many diplomats to gasp. To what extent does intervention become an occupation and is there a point where intervention goes beyond a point of feasibility? Politicians have learnt to live with the consequences amidst the tides of history of whether to intervene within a country’s affairs. The demise of the Somali state was exacerbated by the White House’s decision to remove US troops after the failed ‘Black Hawk Down’ mission. The UN’s inertia in 1994 only led to greater intensity of killings in Rwanda. Yet, politicians know all too well of the risks that military action can ensue. The toxic-effect of the US-led invasion in Iraq in 2003 and the on-going stalemate in Afghanistan continue to poison the well of intention.

For over 18 months, the battle between the Assad regime and anti-government rebels has turned Syria into a warzone. Only recently Syria could be described as one of the most stable nations in the region, yet today it has the capacity to create an all out war in the Middle East. The reports of mass artillery bombardments in the cities of Homs and Aleppo, plus the massacres of women and children is creating a humanitarian disaster. With estimates of over 25,000 deaths, possibly more, is a foreign-led intervention an ideal proposition for the situation or is it bound to make the situation worse?

Fight to the end?

So far, the diplomatic efforts have produced little. Syria’s historically strongest ally, Russia, has continuously refused to back sanctions at the UN. A Libyan-style intervention or arming of opposition forces is deemed impossible. Yet what other solutions remain? The West’s idea that Russia could offer Assad and his inner circle political immunity in Moscow was voted down too. To what extent are we prepared to turn a blind eye to justice in the interest of peace and the deaths of fewer? Do we reach a threshold where justice becomes immaterial?

Syria has not signed the International Criminal Court’s treaty and therefore as things stand, Assad can face no international court. However; it is true of anti-government troops as well. They may say they are killing in the name of freedom, but no one can deny the massacres that have taken place on either side. The original protests that led to children having their fingernails removed have led to torture and summary executions. What they may perceive as ‘natural justice’ on the battlefield cannot be translated as humanly dignified. The country is systematically combusting, as are the rules that most humans would see as sacred.

From a diplomatic perspective, is it simple to purely blame Russia for blocking resolutions? Whilst no one can ignore the atrocities, who’s not to say that on previous occasions other countries, particularly in the West, have protected their own interests. There is a degree of old-school Cold War politics. One could argue why Sri Lanka or Israel haven’t had any of their politicians in the dock, these instances on paper show clear breaches of human rights or crimes against humanity, yet impunity remains the watch word. There are crimes and no one likes to see criminals to evade justice, but Syria and Assad wouldn’t be the first to escape the net.

This war, as things stand, has more to come, and who knows how long for. The fact Kofi Annan left his job as peace envoy shows how difficult it is to overcome. If Assad already knows what could wait, then who is not to say he will go out in glory as Gadaffi tried. Who’s not to say that a quarter of a million more people may die through chemical weapons? Then again, if he is brought to justice then how does one prove the atrocities? There are very few journalists and do they have any proof? Not all news coming out of the country can be verified.

Be sure, Assad is resolute but is weak. The question is what do you do about it?

Porridge

There was much focus on Government services over the past week and questions of how deep can budgets be cut before it affects the administering of a public service. Ideologically for Conservatives, locking up criminals is a staple of maintaining law and order on the streets and protecting ordinary citizens. Yet, The Times lead with the story that six prisons may need to be shut as the Department of Justice looks for budget reductions, something sure to unsettle most Tory voters. Also, an European ruling found that Britain was in breach of prisoners’ rights by not allowing them to vote in elections or referenda. The approach of how we deal with prisoners is bound to create discussion amongst politicians because it poses questions of finance, authority and the role of prison itself i.e. to punish or to rehabilitate. In America, there has been a growth recently in the use of ‘supermax’ prisons, intertwined with solitary confinement.

Both countries share the values of Common Law, yet our attitudes to law and order vary greatly; most notably through some States use of capital punishment. Yet, it is the use of measures like solitary confinement that show the gulfs in treatment. In practice it is remaining in one’s cell without interaction or stimulus, something outlawed in the American constitutuion. Studies show it can lead to mental illnesses and depression, yet the US State department deems this as a legitimate way of treating some felons; and many would agree. It appears hard to gauge how we could stand ‘shoulder-to-shoulder’ with America, when our attitudes to treating prisoners are entirely different. The British did not have the best record during ‘The Troubles’ in Northern Ireland, however it didn’t affect the civil liberties of ordinary citizens nor prisoners.

The recent Freedom of Information releases in Poland indeed indict American agents in torture and that members of the British Security Services were aware of these occurrences (this has been denied by the British Government, but many leading figures believe that agents were complicit.) You could argue that torture is effective if it leads to information and that moral legitimacy can be shifted in the interests of national security. It does however weaken the often ‘megaphone diplomacy’ of human rights and democracy to countries like China and Turkey, if we meddle in such acts ourselves. France and Britain both have colonial memories of how ‘justice’ can swathe opinion against the so called good: Algeria and Ireland.

Prison should be a tool to punish the criminals of society and deter others from entering the world of crime. Solitary confinement and torture should be left to the annals of Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, Mao’s China and Apartheid South Africa, ugly and shocking aspects of history. I am unsure of the importance of the European ruling and question whether it would really have an impact. It is a case of whether you believe prisoners should have a say on society or should be observers away from the polling booths. 85,000 and counting.