‘RED LINE’ POLICY

Following Russia’s proposal on Syria aimed at monitoring and destroying Bashar al-Assad’s stockpile of chemical weapons, President Obama suspended a congressional vote to authorise the use of force against the Syrian regime.

But that proposal looks overly optimistic and unrealistic. Not only do the U.S. and Russia disagree over enforcement mechanisms if the Syrian regime fails to comply – the United States and her allies want a resolution provisioning the use of force in the event of non-compliance, the Russians do not – but the operational and technical challenges associated with destroying these weapons in a risky and volatile conflict zone should not be interpreted as something that will happen with unqualified ease.

Western military intervention has not, therefore, been averted and still remains a probable scenario. That has to remain an option that can still make an important contribution to the Syrian conflict, as well as beyond it.

Those desperate despots and tyrants around the world must be sent a message, namely that the use of chemical weapons will not be tolerated or permitted. Where this horrific form of weaponry is used the international community must insist it has the right to act. America’s ‘red line’ policy is once again being called into question.

Critics point out it is the numbers killed, rather than the means through which they are killed, that should constitute the ‘red line’ for the international community and those who are in support of humanitarian intervention. That, however, misses the logic, purpose and the devastating impact of chemical weapons use.

Recently on this site an article was posted concerning how history is littered with examples of chemical weapons being used during warfare (see article). Chemical weapon attacks in modern times can be traced to World War I. More recently they were used in 1988 in the Iraqi Kurdistan town of Halabja. These lethal and macabre attacks not only kill quickly and with an immediate impact on the local population, but they also inflict terror and have long-term consequences. They have the capacity to dramatically reduce enemy morale and fix a permanent physical and psychological scar on the local population. Chemical weapons inflict long-term injuries to its victims and can affect future generations in the form of birth defects and other disabilities. In Halabja, Hussein’s forces killed at least 5,000 men, women and children almost instantly. Thousands more continue to suffer today.

Chemical weapon attacks are not simply about destruction but about inflicting long-term, immeasurable and sustained pain and horror on a population. By their very nature, the use’ of chemical weapons are indiscriminate with their targets and their reach goes beyond the boundaries of the battlefield.

On the battlefield, they have the capacity to alter the balance of a conflict and offer a strategic advantage, especially in localised conflicts. Whilst it is certainly questionable that the limited use of chemical weapons will change the direction of the conflict, there effectiveness in urbanised and local areas should not be underestimated. Syria is engaged in a localised conflict where battles are taking place between disparate rebel forces and regime loyalists in an array of towns and cities.

Yet, if chemical weapons were used in a more consistent and sustained fashion and throughout the towns and cities embroiled in the conflict, then the entire balance of power could be altered to favour the regime.

Hesitation over military action is also based on the premise that the West would be supporting and fighting alongside radical al-Qaeda factions that dominate and comprise the Syrian opposition. That, though, misses two important aspects: firstly, that it would be against Western interests to have a rebel victory at a point when the West has very limited influence on the ground and, secondly, victory would put these radically inspired al-Qaeda elements in a position where they would come to dominate the Syrian state. That would be catastrophic for regional and global security and for the interests of both the West and the broader international community.

It has been made clear by President Obama (along with a British declaration) that any military strikes will not be aimed at removing the Assad regime (which otherwise would amount to ‘regime change’) or afford the rebels any meaningful victory. Instead, they say, strikes would be ‘punitive’ in their nature, giving in-effect Assad a bloody nose. Hence, Western action that aims to deter further chemical weapons use would not be instigated to bolster or afford rebel forces any meaningful victory.

The use of punitive and symbolic military strikes does not have to mean that diplomatic efforts should be put aside. The form of military intervention proposed by the US/UK, despite both powers having temporarily drawn back, can realistically be combined with diplomacy. The U.S. and Britain have repeatedly stated that the only outcome to this conflict can and must be a negotiated political settlement.

Military strikes, it is argued, will induce Assad into negotiating. But this has to be coupled with an effort to force rebel forces to also sit down at the negotiating table. That seems unlikely to happen at this stage, given that Assad has immense regional support as well as important proxy support from Russia. Rebel forces themselves are divided on the issue and do not operate under one unified banner.

But military strikes will show a willingness by the West to act that goes beyond the current conflict in Syria. The West is not currently in a position to topple Assad through extensive use of its military capacity (such as deploying ground troops), but it can and should still send a message to the Assad regime that it will act in the face of chemical weapons usage. That message would also resonate to other existing and future despots of the world.