The Syrian government describes the rebel groups fighting aginst the Bashar Al-Assad regime as terrorists. The White House prefers to see the efforts of these groups as a fight for democracy. As in many such cases, the reality is complicated, no matter how much the White House tries to couch its interference in Syria in a make-believe language of moral clarity. The question of the legality of US interference in Syria in the form of aiding rebel groups becomes significant in the light of past history and because of the possibility of similar situations arising in other parts of the world. The historical precedents do not provide clear guidance in this matter. While the International Court of Justice ruled aspects of US involvement in the funding of Contra groups in Nicaragua to be illegal, instances like Afghanistan and external support for groups in Cold War conflicts in some other countries have not been subjected to any kind of consistent international judicial review. Funding of insurgent groups by individual countries and the bypassing of UN mechanisms while doing so are vestiges of the power structures of the past centuries and the Cold War. The extent to which these power structures will be dismantled in the coming years will determine how strongly UN mechanisms will be able to react to instances like these and how well the aggressive ( often over-aggressive ) actions of powerful nation states in such cases can be curbed.
Mr. Lakhdar Brahimi's diplomatic efforts have yielded limited results as both sides seem intent on escalating the conflict to the fullest extent possible. The incongruity of UN peace efforts proceeding in parallel with possibly illegal interference directed against the Syrian government by a major world power and a UN Security Council member just goes to show how complex the issue is. While the White House funds only non-Al-Qaeda groups opposed to Bashar Al-Assad, it may well be contributing to creating a situation where Al-Qaeda may control some regions or where Al-Qaeda may increase its influence in Syria. What kind of political equations will emerge out of these conflicts ? Will they lead to stable governments and the cessation of conflicts ? UN-led dialog, rather than US-funded insurgency, most probably stands a better chance of leading to stable political solutions, an end to recurring violence and justice for all groups involved.
by C. Jayant Praharaj ( send comments to [email protected] )
Mr. Lakhdar Brahimi's diplomatic efforts have yielded limited results as both sides seem intent on escalating the conflict to the fullest extent possible. The incongruity of UN peace efforts proceeding in parallel with possibly illegal interference directed against the Syrian government by a major world power and a UN Security Council member just goes to show how complex the issue is. While the White House funds only non-Al-Qaeda groups opposed to Bashar Al-Assad, it may well be contributing to creating a situation where Al-Qaeda may control some regions or where Al-Qaeda may increase its influence in Syria. What kind of political equations will emerge out of these conflicts ? Will they lead to stable governments and the cessation of conflicts ? UN-led dialog, rather than US-funded insurgency, most probably stands a better chance of leading to stable political solutions, an end to recurring violence and justice for all groups involved.
by C. Jayant Praharaj ( send comments to [email protected] )