Siria: a maior tragedia humana desde a Segunda GM - book review

Parkinson on Chatty, 'Syria: The Making and Unmaking of a Refuge State' [review]

by H-Net Reviews

Dawn Chatty. Syria: The Making and Unmaking of a Refuge State. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. x + 289 pp. $27.95 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-19-087606-7.

Reviewed by Sarah Parkinson (Johns Hopkins University) Published on H-Diplo (January, 2019) Commissioned by Seth Offenbach (Bronx Community College, The City University of New York)

Printable Version: http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showpdf.php?id=53041

The Syrian emergency is now broadly known as the largest episode of forced migration since World War II. Over 5.5 million Syrian citizens are currently registered as refugees; more than 6.5 million are displaced within Syria.[1] The Syrian government’s ongoing efforts to alter property-rights laws and prevent returns may render many Syrians permanently displaced.[2] Sustainable return is still practically unattainable for even more, who fear violence and retribution.[3] Dawn Chatty’s new volume Syria: The Making and Unmaking of a Refuge State helpfully reestablishes Syria’s pre-2011 ethnic and religious diversity and locates Greater Syria as a nexus of historical forced migration, constructively resisting the post-hoc trend of essentializing the Syrian populace as either “Sunni” or “Shi’a.” In this way, Chatty’s Syria will serve as welcome supplementary reading for those trying to understand the current displacement crisis and its roots in the history of forced migration in the Levant, Anatolia, and the Caucasus.

Based on a set of thirty-one narratives drawn from Chatty’s prior oral history work and from ten additional interviews conducted in the post-2011 era, the work pulls from Chatty’s considerable oeuvre on the history of migration in the region, particularly her 2010 volume Displacement and Dispossession in the Modern Middle East. Following largely the same outlines as Displacement and Dispossession, Syria provides broad overviews of various forced migrations into Syria. Chatty begins with the Ottoman era and carries her analysis through to more recent urban encounters and, finally, to the contemporary Syrian refugee crisis. Separate chapters illuminate the experiences of Circassians and Chechnyans, Armenians, Kurds, Palestinians, and Iraqis who have all come to call Syria home.

The oral histories help to frame and ground Chatty’s narrative of each population, putting a human and multigenerational face on population-level trajectories. In approaching these communities, Chatty focuses on issues of mobility, identity, and belonging throughout the migrant experience. The chapter on the Damascene quarter of Sha’laan is noteworthy for how it grounds broad histories of forced migration in a tangible urban and social context; this is perhaps the book’s high point. Throughout the historical chapters, Chatty also contextualizes long-standing Russian interests in the Black Sea region and the Levant. This background will prove useful to those interested in the current conflict and Middle Eastern geopolitics in general.

Despite the book’s strong foundation in Ottoman history, Syria contains very limited material on the Syrian state itself during the supremely relevant Ba’athist era (the late 1940s onward). There is little information on the roots of the current conflict and, in particular, the ways that the Bashar al-Assad regime’s policies have both influenced and been influenced by migrant trajectories. Other than the sections on the revocation of Kurdish citizenship rights and the Qamishli riots, Chatty largely avoids overt discussion of politics; she addresses contemporary modes of belonging, integration, and liminality primarily through the chapter on Sha’laan. More thorough engagement with foundational scholarship, for example, via a dialogue with Anaheed al-Hardan’s Palestinians in Syria: Nakba Memories of Shattered Communities (2016), Bassam Haddad’s Business Networks in Syria: The Political Economy of Authoritarian Resilience (2012), and such classic writers as Hanna Batatu would have produced a richer analysis on this front.

Chatty also makes some unexplained decisions regarding the exclusion of various cases and historical moments. For example, she largely avoids the Syrian government’s long-term engagement with Palestinian resistance organizations (such as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command, Fatah al-Intifada, and Hamas) and only passingly mentions the Syrian regime’s multiple sieges of the Palestinian district of Yarmouk (which initially housed more than 110,000 people and has now been all but emptied following battles, shelling, near-starvation conditions, and resultant flight). Chatty says relatively little about the regime’s thirty-year occupation of Lebanon, the displacements it fueled, or its role in fostering Syrian labor migration.[4] Likewise, she briefly notes Syria’s repeated status as a haven for refugees from Lebanon in a personal vignette but does not address these important, episodic migration flows in a chapter of their own. On this note, Chatty’s accounts can feel somewhat selective; given her vast experience in the region, it also represents a regrettable set of missed opportunities.

A glaring inaccuracy in the book is worth noting, because it speaks to the book’s broader inattention to detail. Specifically, Chatty devotes several pages to incorrectly recounting an event that occurred at the Danish Research Institute in Damascus on March 17, 2011. Chatty recalls encountering a former student, Chesa Boudin, and quotes Chesa as informing her that “he was accompanying his mother [Professor Bernardine Dohrn] and Professor [Lisa] Wedeen on a speaking tour she was undertaking in Syria sponsored by the US State Department. And he went on to say that Lisa was speaking about civil disobedience” (p. 220). However, neither professor was on a speaking tour and neither was sponsored by the US Department of State (both are critical of the US government). Rather, the event involved a screening of the documentary film The Weather Underground (2002) where Wedeen briefly welcomed Dohrn. While Dohrn introduced the film and answered questions, there was no lecture or presentation on civil disobedience; Dohrn and Boudin were in Syria primarily as tourists.[5] Given the sensitivity of this matter, the deployment of these unverified details is questionable. These errors will hopefully be corrected in future editions.

Other small errors throughout compound concern. For example, Chatty misidentifies the date of the Yarmouk siege’s start as 2015 (p. 169); the first siege of Yarmouk ran 2013-14 following battles in 2012 that reduced its population to approximately eighteen thousand. There were further battles starting in 2015 that lasted into 2018.[6] Despite a smart discussion of the politics of forced migrant statistics, Chatty only intermittently sources her statistics and does not indicate, for example, whether she bases refugee numbers on the United Nations’ official tally of registered Syrian refugees or on larger estimates of total refugee population (studies have demonstrated that over 40 percent of refugees in Lebanon were not officially registered).[7] While the book’s histories of migration are important and useful to the non expert reader, one would be advised to consult complementary sources for more detailed material and recent Syrian history.

Notes

[1]. “Syria Emergency,” United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), https://www.unhcr.org/syria-emergency.html (accessed November 23, 2018).

[2]. Sara Kayyali, “Protecting Syrian Property Rights,” Human Rights Watch, October 19, 2018, https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/10/19/protecting-syrian-property-rights; and “Syria: Residents Blocked from Returning,” Human Rights Watch, October 16, 2018, https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/10/16/syria-residents-blocked-returning.

[3]. Jamey Keaten, “UN Official: Syria Has Withdrawn Controversial Property Law,” AP NEWS, October 18, 2018, https://apnews.com/9f7a29ef5e0c4f78b6d27310e607e0fb.

[4]. See John T. Chalcraft, The Invisible Cage: Syrian Migrant Workers in Lebanon (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2009).

[5]. Lisa Wedeen, correspondence with author, November 25, 2018.

[6]. “The Crisis in Yarmouk Camp,” United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), https://www.unrwa.org/crisis-in-yarmouk (accessed November 26, 2018); and Harriet Sherwood, “Queue for Food in Syria’s Yarmouk Camp Shows Desperation of Refugees” The Guardian, February 26, 2014, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/26/queue-food-syria-yarmouk-camp-desperation-re....

[7]. Caroline Abu Sa’Da and Micaela Serafini, “Humanitarian and Medical Challenges of Assisting New Refugees in Lebanon and Iraq,” Forced Migration Review44 (September 2013): 70–73, esp. 72; and Sarah E. Parkinson and Orkideh Behrouzan, “Negotiating Health and Life: Syrian Refugees and the Politics of Access in Lebanon,” Social Science & Medicine 146 (December 2015): 324–331, esp. 325.

Citation: Sarah Parkinson. Review of Chatty, Dawn, Syria: The Making and Unmaking of a Refuge State. H-Diplo, H-Net Reviews. January, 2019. URL:http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=53041

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

Independencia do Curdistao: saiba quem sao os curdos, o que pretendem, o que vai acontecer na regiao depois do plebiscito

Uma matéria quase completa sobre a questão curda.

What To Know About The Independence Referendum In Iraqi Kurdistan

National Public Radio,September 22, 2017 

 

Jane Arraf

A campaign poster next to a Kurdish flag in Irbil urges people to vote yes Monday on independence from Iraq.

Balint Szlanko/AP 

 

Iraqi Kurdish leaders plan to hold a controversial independence referendum on Monday. Kurds are expected to overwhelmingly vote in favor of separating from Iraq. The United States and other allies have warned them not to go ahead.
Here's what to know:
Who and where are the Kurds?
An estimated 30 million Kurds live in territory overlapping northern Iraq, Turkey, Iran and Syria. They are the fourth-biggest ethnic group in the region after Arabs, Persians and Turks.
About 6 million Kurds — almost 20 percent of the the Iraqi population — live in the Kurdistan region of Iraq, as well as in Baghdad and a swath of territory claimed by both the Kurds and the Iraqi government.

Rogesh Adnan Yasin, a Syrian Kurd, holds a Kurdish flag and her 2-year-old niece at a pro-referendum rally in Irbil, Iraq. Yasin believes that if Iraqi Kurds achieve independence, her Kurdish region of Syria will be next.

Jane Arraf/NPR

Kurds generally speak different dialects of the Kurdish language — although in Turkey, it was once considered a crime to speak Kurdish.
Have the Kurds ever had their own country?
When the Ottoman Empire was dissolved after World War I, Kurds demanded their own state, but hundreds of thousands were expelled from their traditional areas and dispersed to other parts of Turkey instead.
After World War II, the Soviet Union backed a Kurdish self-governing state in what is now Iran. That state, the Republic of Mahabad, lasted less than a year.
The most autonomy Kurds have had since then is in Iraq. In the three northern Kurdish provinces, Kurds control the land borders with neighboring countries, elect their own parliament, maintain their own security forces (known as the peshmerga) and draft their own laws.
What was the U.S. role in helping to create modern Iraqi Kurdistan?
After Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, the U.S. formed a coalition to drive him out in 1991. The Kurds (and Iraqi Shiites in the south) rose up against him.

The Iraqi army attacked the north, and more than 1 million Kurds fled their homes and tried to escape over the mountains in winter. Thousands died.
That year, the U.N. Security Council approved a U.S.-led no-fly zone preventing Iraqi planes from flying over the north and south of Iraq. In 1992, Iraqi Kurds established their own regional government.
The decade that followed was a tough time. The Iraqi government punished the Kurds with trade sanctions, and the Kurdish region was included in an international trade embargo against Iraq.
After 2003, when Saddam was toppled, Kurds started rebuilding and foreign investment poured in.
Why do Iraqis Kurds insist on independence?
Most Kurds say they will never feel safe as part of Iraq.
From 1986 to 1988, Iraqi forces destroyed thousands of Kurdish villages in a campaign by Saddam's Arab Socialist Baath party to "Arabize" northern Iraq. At a conservative estimate, more than 100,000 Kurds were killed. Chemical gas attacks in the town of Halabja in 1988 killed thousands of women and children.

"You will lose nothing if you vote yes, but if vote no, you will lose something," says Saad Abdul Razak at his shop in Irbil's historic market.

Jane Arraf/NPR

Saddam is long gone — he was convicted of war crimes and executed in 2006. But many Kurds believe they will always face threats from an Iraqi Arab government.
They also blame Iraqi Arabs for the rise of ISIS, which has massacred members of the ancient Yazidi minority. The Kurds consider Yazidis to be Kurds.
An estimated 2,000 Iraqi Kurdish peshmerga forces were killed fighting ISIS.
The Kurds also want to control their own economy. When ISIS attacked three years ago, Iraqi forces refused to fight. Kurdish fighters moved in to push ISIS back and took control of some of the biggest northern oil fields, as well as the disputed city of Kirkuk.
The Kurdish government accuses Baghdad of reneging on an agreement to give it a share of oil revenues. Baghdad says the Kurdistan region is illegally exporting oil. That has led to an economic crisis in the Kurdish region.
Which countries are supporting the Kurdish independence referendum?
Israel is the only country that has come out in favor of it. Israel has long-standing security and business ties to the Kurdistan region and would love to have a non-Arab ally in the Middle East.
In a more lukewarm endorsement, France — after initial opposition — recently said it wouldn't oppose the vote taking place.
But the United States and some of Iraq's neighbors oppose the referendum. Iran and Turkey have warned the Kurds not to go ahead with the vote. The U.S. wants to avoid the prospect of another conflict between Baghdad and the Kurdish government while they are still fighting ISIS. After 2003, Kurdish leaders agreed to an Iraqi constitution that calls for negotiations over disputed areas, so holding the referendum in Kirkuk and other cities now is seen as provocative.

Kurds wave Israeli flags at a Kurdish independence rally. Israel is the only country in the region to support the referendum.

Jane Arraf/NPR

Iraq's neighbors are worried that a Kurdish state would encourage their own Kurdish populations to try to break away.
The Iranian, Turkish and Iraqi foreign ministers announced Friday they would take coordinated measures against the Kurds — likely economic sanctions — if they go through with the vote.
Why is the referendum controversial within the Kurdistan region?
The vote is being driven by regional President Massoud Barzani, whose Kurdistan Democratic Party controls the Kurdish regional government. Barzani is 71, and many believe he wants the referendum to be part of his legacy.
But there are deep divisions among Kurdish political parties.
Although Barzani still holds the position and power of president, his term actually ended two years ago. Until last week, Parliament hadn't met for two years after the Parliament speaker, who is from an opposition party, was blocked from entering.
Some Kurds believe that their political leaders should be working on strengthening democracy and rescuing the economy instead of holding a referendum. There is also discontent about corruption among Kurdistan's political dynasties while people like teachers and the peshmerga go without salaries because of the economic crisis.
Is there a chance that voters won't support independence?
No. There is a "No for Now" campaign that argues this isn't the right time — but even Kurds who are on the fence are overwhelmingly expected to vote yes.
So what does holding the referendum actually mean in the end?
It's a signal and a statement of intent that Kurdish leaders plan to pursue independence. But there's no timeline, and the vote doesn't trigger any moves to independence. It's likely though to trigger retaliation from Iraq's neighbors and allies. The Kurds supporting this, though, believe it's worth it.

Armas quimicas: ditador da Siria continua matando seu povo - The Economist

Syria’s latest atrocityBashar al-Assad kills at least 72 with chemical weapons

A dictator defies the world

Middle East and Africa

Apr 5th 2017| Beirut

ON APRIL 4th a chemical attack struck the town of Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib, a province in northern Syria currently controlled by an alliance of rebel groups, including a powerful faction linked to al-Qaeda. At least 72 people, including 20 children, died, according to doctors and a Syrian monitoring group. The World Health Organisation said victims appeared to display symptoms that tally with the use of a deadly nerve agent such as sarin (as opposed to, say, a less powerful one such as chlorine).
One young boy was filmed slowly suffocating on the ground, his chest heaving and his mouth opening and closing like a fish out of water. Photographs show dead children lined up in rows on the floor or piled in heaps in the back of a vehicle, their clothes ripped from them by rescuers who used hoses to try to wash the chemicals from their bodies. Other images show victims foaming from their mouths or writhing on the ground as they struggle for air. Hours after the attack began, witnesses say regime warplanes circled back over the area and dropped bombs on a clinic treating survivors.

Latest updates

• The EU27 and the Brexit negotiations

  GRAPHIC DETAIL29 MINUTES AGO

• So close yet so far, Gonzaga shows it’s time for a realignment

  GAME THEORY2 HOURS AGO

• Bashar al-Assad kills at least 72 with chemical weapons

  MIDDLE EAST AND AFRICA2 HOURS AGO

• Looking good can be extremely bad for the planet

  BUSINESS AND FINANCE2 HOURS AGO

• Obituary: David Rockefeller died on March 20th

  OBITUARIES2 HOURS AGO

• Roger Federer has turned his weakest shot into a weapon

  GAME THEORY2 HOURS AGO

See all updates

After six years of war, international reaction to the attack followed a predictable pattern. The Syrian government swiftly denied dropping chemical weapons. Russia, its ally, said a Syrian air strike had hit a rebel held weapons stockpile, releasing deadly chemicals into the air. Leaders in the West condemned the regime, issuing hollow statements about the need for “accountability” while avoiding any suggestion of how that might be achieved.

The probable passivity of the West ought not to come as much of a suprise. When the Syrian government gassed to death more than 1,400 of its own people on the outskirts of Damascus in August 2013 it seemed inevitable that America would respond by launching air strikes against the regime. One week after the attack—the deadliest use of chemical weapons since Saddam Hussein gassed Iraqi Kurds in 1988—John Kerry delivered one of his most bellicose speeches as secretary of state, arguing the case for American military action in Syria. “It matters if the world speaks out…and then nothing happens,” Mr Kerry said.
Yet nothing, at least militarily, is what happened. Instead, working with the Americans, the Russians brokered a deal that saw the Syrian regime supposedly dismantle its chemical weapons programme. The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) destroyed about 1,200 tonnes of Syria’s chemical stockpile. Barack Obama hailed the deal as a triumph for diplomacy over force.
Yet chemical attacks by regime forces continued, experts believe. Last year, American and European officials began to voice growing fears that Damascus might have held onto nerve agents and other lethal toxins, in defiance of the deal cooked up by Mr Obama and Vladimir Putin. “Syria has engaged in a calculated campaign of intransigence and obfuscation, of deception, and of defiance,” Kenneth Ward, America’s representative to the OPCW, said in July. “We…remain very concerned that [chemical warfare agents]…have been illicitly retained by Syria.”
All these fears now appear to have been borne out. As part of the deal in 2013 to end Syria’s chemical weapons programme, both America and Russia promised to punish the Syrian regime should it use chemical weapons again. Despite evidence of the regime’s repeated use of chlorine gas since then, neither side has honoured this promise. In February, Russia once again blocked efforts at the UN Security Council to sanction military and intelligence chiefs connected to the country’s chemical weapons programme. A similar fate doubtless awaits the latest attempt by Britain, France and America at the Security Council. Hours after the attack, the three countries demanded a resolution ordering the Syrian government to hand over all flight logs, flight plans and the names of air force commanders to international inspectors. Russia called the resolution “unacceptable”.
Barring a significant shift in American policy towards military action, the latest use of chemical weapons is unlikely to alter much the war’s trajectory. The rebels are increasingly weak. They lost their enclave in the city of Aleppo, the opposition’s last big urban stronghold, in December. Pockets of resistance remain around Damascus, north of Homs city, and along the southern border with Jordan; but these areas grow ever more isolated. In Idlib an alliance led by a group linked to al-Qaeda has gained strength, allowing America to argue that there are few appropriate rebel partners left to work with on the ground.
Indeed, now that Donald Trump is in charge, removing Bashar al-Assad from power is no longer a stated aim of American policy in Syria. In recent weeks, senior American officials have said for the first time in public that they are willing to live with Mr Assad as they concentrate on defeating Islamic State. Ironically, this approach is in fact more likely to fuel further extremism in Syria as jihadists seek to take advantage of the vacuum that America’s political disengagement now presents them with. It also means that, with Mr Assad at the reins, the Syrian regime will continue to drop gas on its own people. There is nothing to stop it.

Revue L'Histoire: la destruction de Palmyre par l'Etat Islamique - Maurice Sartre

Palmyre, la dernière visite

Daech à Palmyre fut un coup de tonnerre, les fanatiques du prétendu État islamique ayant traversé 250 km de désert sans subir la moindre frappe, ni du régime de Damas, ni de la coalition internationale. L'abandon du site par les troupes de Bachar el-Assad signifiait la destruction du site gréco-romain le plus emblématique de tout le Proche-Orient. Car l'obscurantisme des troupes s'accommode très bien d'une connaissance exacte, par leur état-major, de ce qui horrifie les Occidentaux et terrorise les populations : la destruction de Palmyre était inévitablement un objectif prioritaire.

Maurice Sartre est un des meilleurs spécialistes de la Syrie antique. Il livre sur le site de L'Histoire une visite guidée qui nous fait mesurer à quel point les disparitions du temple de Baalshamin, du sanctuaire de Bel et des tours funéraires sont des pertes archéologiques inestimables.

© photo : Maurice Sartre - droits réservés.

Questions/réponses sur Palmyre

A desintegracao da Siria - Paulo Sergio Pinheiro (FSP)

De fato, como a diplomacia brasileira vem dizendo desde o início, não existe solução militar ao problema da Síria, e que a solução teria de ser política, ou diplomática. O problema é que nenhum dos lados pretende sentar-se à mesa para debater politicamente, nem os próprios contendores pretendem, podem, ou querem realmente uma resposta e uma solução política. De diplomacia, então, nem falar. A única "solução" em vista, portanto, é o esgotamento dos dois lados numa insana guerra, que não se sabe se é civil, étnica, tribal, religiosa, partidária, ou qualquer outra coisa. O país está destruído e a população destroçada sobretudo em suas esperanças de ter uma vida normal.
E tudo começou porque um ditador pretendeu manter-se no poder ante os protestos pacíficos de cidadãos por uma abertura política e por mais democracia. Massacrados estes, o caminho estava aberto para os fundamentalistas.
Ditadores, por mais que pretendam "unir" o país, sempre colocam seus interesses pessoais acima dos da nação, e por isso devem ser afastados pela pressão da comunidade internacional. Como isso não foi possível na Síria, temos essa situação de caos absoluto.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

A DESINTEGRAÇÃO DA SÍRIA Estratégias da ilusão Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro Presidente da comissão independente internacional de investigação da ONU sobre a República Árabe da Síria Folha de SP, 29/06/2014

A ameaça de guerra no Oriente Médio está cada vez mais próxima. O conflito no Iraque terá repercussão devastadora na Síria e nos países vizinhos

No quarto ano do conflito armado, milhões de sírios ainda sofrem com a perda de familiares em bombardeios aéreos, com a violência em centros de detenção, com desaparecimentos e fome. Mais de 150 mil pessoas perderam a vida.

A incapacidade de proteger os civis dos bombardeios das forças governamentais sírias e dos ataques dos grupos não estatais armados levou a um sofrimento indizível.

Estima-se que 9,3 milhões de sírios têm necessidade de assistência humanitária urgente, com 4,25 milhões de deslocados internamente e 2,8 milhões de refugiados em países vizinhos. A expressiva maioria são mulheres e crianças.

A infraestrutura básica do país foi destroçada. Escolas foram reduzidas a escombros ou ocupadas pelas forças armadas. Hospitais foram invadidos. Bairros residenciais estão destruídos. Alimentos, água e eletricidade foram cortados para infligir sofrimento a populações civis. A guerra teve um impacto devastador sobre a economia do país.

Como meu colega Lakhdar Brahimi afirmou antes de renunciar a suas funções de enviado conjunto da ONU e da Liga Árabe, a Síria está a ponto de se tornar um "Estado falido, com senhores da guerra por toda parte", e o conflito não ficará restrito às fronteiras do país.

A guerra na Síria atingiu um ponto de inflexão que ameaça toda a região. O governo sírio e os grupos armados na oposição têm levado a violência ao paroxismo. Todos desrespeitam flagrantemente as regras dos direitos humanos. Uma impunidade generalizada campeia.

Combatentes e cidadãos são torturados até a morte dentro de centros de detenção, homens são decapitados e alguns crucificados em praça pública, mulheres vivem com o estigma do abuso sexual e as crianças são recrutadas pelas forças de combate.

Escolhas cotidianas como ir ou não à mesquita para as orações, ir ou não ao mercado para fazer compras de comida ou levar ou não as crianças à escola para que deem continuidade a seus estudos se tornaram decisões de vida ou morte.

Como as partes em conflito chafurdam na ilusão de que a vitória militar está a seu alcance, Estados com influência no conflito renunciaram a trilhar a via para uma solução política. Alguns continuam a fornecer armas, artilharia e aviação para o governo ou contribuem com assistência logística e estratégica. Outros países e indivíduos apoiam os grupos armados não estatais com doações financeiras, armas e treinamento. Alimentam, assim, uma guerra por delegação, uma "proxy war" de potências dentro da Síria.

A ameaça de uma guerra regional no Oriente Médio está cada vez mais próxima. O conflito armado que se alastra no Iraque terá repercussão devastadora na Síria e em outros países limítrofes.

O aspecto mais alarmante tem sido o aumento da ameaça sectária, consequência direta da dominação de grupos extremistas como o Estado Islâmico no Iraque e no Levante, o EIIL. Seus combatentes radicais atacam não somente as comunidades sunitas que não se submetem a seu controle, mas também minorias como os xiitas, alauítas, cristãos, armênios, drusos e curdos, todos considerados apóstatas ou infiéis que devem ser abatidos.

Diante das ilusões desse triunfalismo belicoso generalizado por todas as partes, deve-se continuar a insistir que não há solução militar para o conflito. Desde o início, a única via sempre foi e continua sendo uma negociação diplomática, política, que inclua todos os países com influência na região, desde o Irã até a Arábia Saudita.

Os povos da Síria têm o direito de exigir da comunidade internacional, pelas oportunidades perdidas de terminar o conflito e pelo sofrimento a eles imposto, que a paz não continue a lhes ser negada.

PAULO SÉRGIO PINHEIRO, 70, é presidente da comissão independente internacional de investigação da ONU sobre a República Árabe da Síria. Foi secretário de Estado de Direitos Humanos no governo Fernando Henrique Cardoso.

Oriente Medio: finalmente o fim da Primeira Guerra Mundial? - Foreign Policy

Os militantes do Estado Islâmico do Iraque e do Levante (também chamado do Iraque e da Síria) anunciam que pretendem eliminar as fronteiras criadas a partir do final do Império Otomano como consequência da Primeira Guerra Mundial e a divisão da região entre as duas grandes potências vencedoras, Grã-Bretanha e França.
Cem anos depois do início do conflito mundial que mudou a face do mundo, para sempre, tanto no plano político, quanto no geográfico e sobretudo no econômico, trata-se de notícia realmente histórica.
Cabe ver se as grandes potências, que são atualmente os Estados Unidos e, num plano bem menor, os aliados da OTAN, e do outro lado a Rússia (como sempre) e ainda mais distante, a China, sem falar do Irã, do Egito e da Arábia Saudita permitirão a ascensão do novo califado anunciado pelo ISIL...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Iraq Loses Control of Borders

Foreign Policy morning bulletin, June 23, 2014 Top news: The Iraqi government has abandoned the only legal border crossing with Jordan to Sunni tribal groups. Tribal groups are negotiating to hand the crossing, Turaibil, over to militants from the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS). ISIS also took control over the two main border crossings with Syria over the weekend. Jordan is putting its military on alert to protect its 112-mile-long border with Iraq, fearing ISIS militants could spill over. The strategically important airport town of Tal Afar in western Iraq has also fallen out of the Baghdad government's control as ISIS extends its sweep across western Iraq. ISIS's goal is to create an Islamic state across the Sunni Arab world and has said that it intends to erase the borders drawn by colonial powers after World War I. Meanwhile, Secretary of State John Kerry is in Baghdad to meet with Iraqi political leaders in an effort to push them toward reconciliation. That might create the confidence in the central government necessary for defeating ISIS.

Egito e Siria: um pouco da miseria do mundo - Foreign Policy

Inacreditável... É tudo o que eu consigo dizer... Paulo Roberto de Almeida  Defense Lawyers Quit Egypt’s Trial of Al Jazeera Journalists

The lawyers for two of three Al Jazeera journalists being tried in Egypt on charges of fomenting violence have quit accusing the Qatar-based news agency of a "vendetta." The lead defense lawyer, Farag Fathy said "Al Jazeera is using my clients" and that the network was "fabricating quotes" attributed to him. Additionally, the court has demanded defense lawyers pay $170,000 to view footage prosecutors say shows the journalists fabricated news reports to incite unrest. The trial has been adjourned until May 22, and the journalists have again been denied bail. Meanwhile, Al Jazeera Arabic correspondent Abdullah Elshamy, who has been held without charges since August 2013, has been transferred to solitary confinement after smuggling a video out of Tora prison highlighting his deteriorating health. Elshamy has been on hunger strike for 107 days protesting his detention. Syria A car bombing killed at least 43 people in the Syrian province of Aleppo near the Bab al-Salam border crossing into Turkey. The area is the main route used by Syrians refugee fleeing into Turkey. The region has been controlled by the Islamic Front's Tawhid Brigade, which has been engaged in fierce fighting with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) since January. Iran has reportedly been recruiting thousands of Afghan refugees to fight alongside President Bashar al-Assad's forces in Syria. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has been offering $500 a month as well as Iranian residency and has been training Afghan fighters. Meanwhile, growing frustrated with the inability of the United Nations to deliver humanitarian aid to Syrians, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said the United States is exploring other options for providing aid, including circumventing the Syrian government. Additionally, Kerry stated he has seen evidence suggesting that Assad's forces have used chlorine gas in attacks on rebel fighters and civilians in recent months, which would be against the weapons convention signed by the Syrian government.

Siria: como destruir um pais na indiferenca geral do mundo externo - WP

Barrel bombings emerge as new tactic in Syrian civil war KILIS, Turkey — The Syrians who reach this Turkish border town after escaping the northern city of Aleppo bring stories of horror about exploding barrels that fall from the sky. The worst part is the terrifying anticipation as the barrel bombs are unleashed from warplanes roaring overhead, said one man who fled after three bombs demolished the street where he was living. The sight of rescuers scraping human remains from the sidewalk outside her home prompted another of the refugees to leave. A third Syrian, a grandmother, said she left simply because life had become unsustainable in the wrecked, rubble-strewn city, where entire neighborhoods have been almost completely depopulated.

A Siria perto de ser uma nova Bosnia? - Nicholas Burns (Boston Globe)

Eu já havia aventado esta hipótese, outro dia, ao ler, na Foreign Policy, esta pequena notícia triste, no meio de tantas notícias desesperadoras sobre a Síria, e o seu presidente que prefere destruir o país, e matar metade dos habitantes, antes de renunciar ao seu poder ditatorial:

Syria
The U.N. mission to evacuate civilians from the besieged Old City of Homs and deliver aid resumed Wednesday after being suspended for a day. Talal Barzai, the governor of Homs, said operations had been suspended due to "logistical difficulties." The temporary cease-fire is set to expire Wednesday, but Barzai said it could be extended if more people wish to leave the area. The United Nations expressed concern over men and boys who have been detained after being evacuated. According to the United Nations, about 400 men between the ages of 15 and 54 have been detained, while the governor put the number at 330. The disparity in counts has raised concerns that 70 men have been transferred to the custody of security agencies. - See more at: http://diplomatizzando.blogspot.com/2014/02/siria-um-genocidio-em-curso-em-camara.html#sthash.50V47fzW.dpuf

Parece que a hipótese se aproxima, mas ninguém se adianta, pois a Síria não é a Sérvia... é pior...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

"A Srebrenica moment in Syria?"

Op-Ed, Boston Globe

February 13, 2014

Author: Nicholas Burns, Professor of the Practice of Diplomacy and International Politics, Harvard Kennedy School

Belfer Center Programs or Projects: Middle East Initiative; The Future of Diplomacy Project

As the savage killings and stratospheric refugee numbers in Syria continue to climb, a key question emerges. When will the United States and other global powers experience a "Srebrenica moment," when they can no longer stand on the sidelines and resolve instead that they finally have to act?

That is what happened at the climax of the Bosnia war nearly 20 years ago. When the Bosnian Serb army murdered more than 8,000 Muslim men and boys in the United Nations safe haven of Srebrenica in July 1995, it was the worst massacre in Europe since the Nazi era. Those killings shocked and shamed Western leaders who had resisted decisive intervention until that point.

I was State Department spokesman at the time and can attest to the collective guilt felt by officials in the United States and Europe, particularly over our inability to protect innocent civilians from a marauding army. When the Bosnian Serbs bombed the Sarajevo marketplace six weeks later, President Clinton and European leaders had had enough. They ordered a NATO bombing campaign. Together with Richard Holbrooke's brilliant diplomacy, it led to a ceasefire and the peace accord at Dayton.

As the UN's listless Geneva talks on Syria reconvene this week, world powers are passive, disunited, and lacking the collective resolve that ended the Bosnia war. But the latest estimates of the Syria carnage should make us reflect on the human cost of our indifference. Over 130,000 Syrians have died since the war began in 2011. A shocking 9.3 million Syrians (in a country of 22.4 million) are refugees. They have lost their homes and jobs and are on the run inside and outside the country to escape the vicious fighting. Aleppo, Homs, and countless other cities suffer under the siege of heartless artillery and air assaults against civilians that maim and destroy at will.

There are no easy answers to the Syria crisis. A US-led ground invasion would require something on the scale of the 1991 Gulf War - - hundreds of thousands of troops. That's not in the cards for a president, Congress, and public emerging from two major wars since 9/ 11. Russia and China continue to shield Syrian President Bashar Assad from international pressure at the UN, going so far as to object to proposals to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid. For now, the main, and mainly vain, hope is UN-led talks for a ceasefire and transition from Bashar Assad's rule. At its current languid pace, that could take years to materialize.

Washington finds itself in an uncharacteristically weak position to drive events in Syria. President Obama has taken force off the table, refusing to strike last September following Assad's use of chemical weapons against civilians. Obama has still not provided effective, lethal support to moderate rebels or threatened strikes on Assad's air force if the brutal killings continue. As a result, the United States lacks the leverage and credibility to intimidate Assad. The administration plods along the diplomatic path, remaining a responsible contributor of humanitarian aid but lacking the strength to produce a solution on its own.

The one country that could make a decisive difference to stop the fighting is Vladimir Putin's Russia. But Putin, aligned with Iran's Revolutionary Guard and Hezbollah, prefers to run arms to the Syrian government and serve as Assad's de facto lawyer in Geneva. Of course, Putin's attention this week is elsewhere. His $50 billion campaign to rebrand Russia at the Sochi Olympics began with last Friday's lavish opening ceremonies. But where was the Russian protest in the following days when Syrian women and children fleeing a besieged Homs were killed by Assad's blistering attacks?

This glaring gap between what Putin wants us to see in Sochi and the reality of his callous disregard for Syrian lives is obvious. But even Putin reached a new low on the hypocrisy meter over the weekend when the Russian Foreign Ministry solemnly asked "all parties involved in armed conflicts" to adopt an "Olympic truce" for the period of the Sochi Games. Putin doesn't want the world to be distracted by bloody Syrian atrocities while the Sochi games are underway. He will, without doubt, refuel Assad's machine of hate and destruction as soon as they end.

Putin will never reach a "Srebrenica moment" on Syria. That leaves the rest of us to consider once more -- how many more lives will be claimed by Syria's ceaseless civil war before we are finally shamed to stop the killings?

Siria: um genocidio em curso, em camara lenta, mas visivel e comprovado...

O ditador da Síria, desde que começaram os protestos contra o seu governo, mais de dois anos atrás, em lugar de abrir-se a uma nova etapa do itinerário democrático no seu país, está destruindo o seu próprio país, e matando o seu próprio povo, pois não pretende renunciar ao poder.
Não que todos os opositores sejam democratas, longe disso: existem fundamentalistas islâmicos entre eles, que talvez promovesses outras matanças, caso chegassem ao poder, e seriam intolerantes contra outras religiões que não a deles, enquanto a Síria, mesmo sob uma das ditaduras mais anacrônicas do planeta, sempre foi um regime laico, tolerante, multiconfessional.
A questão é a dos direitos humanos e da democracia, e percebe-se que um genocício está em curso, quando se leem notícias como estas:

"Syria
The U.N. mission to evacuate civilians from the besieged Old City of Homs and deliver aid resumed Wednesday after being suspended for a day. Talal Barzai, the governor of Homs, said operations had been suspended due to "logistical difficulties." The temporary cease-fire is set to expire Wednesday, but Barzai said it could be extended if more people wish to leave the area. The United Nations expressed concern over men and boys who have been detained after being evacuated. According to the United Nations, about 400 men between the ages of 15 and 54 have been detained, while the governor put the number at 330. The disparity in counts has raised concerns that 70 men have been transferred to the custody of security agencies. U.N. mediator Lakhdar Brahimi said peace talks between the Syrian government and opposition are not making much progress. Brahimi has moved up a meeting to Thursday with U.S. and Russian officials, hoping they can put pressure on their respective allies. On Wednesday, Russia said it would veto a U.N. resolution on humanitarian aid access in Syria if it remains in its current form. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov said of the draft that its "aim is to create grounds for future military action against the Syrian government." Meeting in Washington, U.S. President Barack Obama and French President Francois Hollande criticized Russian aims to block the resolution. Hollande said, "Why would you prevent the vote of a resolution if, in good faith, it is all about saving human lives?" Meanwhile, Syrian warplanes pounded the strategic rebel-held town of Yabroud near Lebanon Wednesday. Syrian government forces backed by Hezbollah fighters have stepped up an offensive in apparent efforts to consolidate control over the border region."

Na última segunda-feira, 10/02, fui a New Haven, na Universidade de Yale, onde assisti a este documentário sobre os genocídios do século 20, e sobre a vida de Rafael Lemkin, o polonês que assistiu ao genocídio de seu próprio povo pelos nazistas, e dos judeus, em seu país e nas cercanias, e que inventou o nome de genocídio para qualificar esses crimes de eliminação de pessoas.
Creio que o termo se aplica inteiramente ao que está ocorrendo na Síria.
Eis a informação sobre o documentário, que recomendo.

Monday, February 10th, 7:00pm - Yale University Luce Hall Auditorium, 34 Hillhouse Avenue On Monday, February 10th the Jackson Institute will premier "Watchers of the Sky"  a documentary film that exposes the uncanny parallels of genocides across time and culture. The film interweaves four stories of remarkable courage, compassion, and determination, while setting out to uncover the forgotten life of Raphael Lemkin - the man who created the word "genocide," and believed the law could protect the world from mass atrocities. Each of the stories open a different window onto the atrocities of genocide, and shows the accumulative power of individuals to transform the world from apathy to action. Opening remarks by Jackson Institute Senior Fellow, Luis Moreno Ocampo, the first Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court and producers Amelia Green-Dove and Elizabeth Bohart.

Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Siria: toda a atencao para as armas quimicas; mas e o desastre humanitario?

Parece que, com essa discussão sobre as armas químicas, estão deixando de lado o drama dos refugiados e deslocados pela guerra cruel, uma guerra que dura dois anos e só existe porque um ditador -- aliás muy amigo dos companheiros -- pretende manter sua ditadura...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Debate político ofusca desastre humano na Síria

Pablo Uchoa

Da BBC Brasil em Washington

Atualizado em  12 de setembro, 2013 - 05:00 (Brasília) 08:00 GMT

ONU recebeu apenas 30% da ajuda requisitada para ajudar os refugiados sírios

Elas são a razão subjacente e, paradoxalmente, um dos fatores menos citados na discussão sobre uma possível intervenção militar na Síria: as vítimas de um desastre humanitário que já dura dois anos e meio.

A ONU calcula que o número de mortos desde o início da guerra civil síria supera 100 mil – mais de 1,4 mil só nos ataques com armas químicas no dia 21 de agosto, segundo os EUA – e cerca de 2 milhões de pessoas se aglomeram em campos de refugiados nos países vizinhos.

Apesar disso, até julho, a agência da ONU para refugiados, Acnur, havia recebido apenas 30% dos US$ 4,4 bilhões em ajuda requisitados junto aos países membros para prestar auxílio no conflito.

Nações como o Brasil são acusadas de dificultar a entrada de refugiados sírios, piorando a situação em um país onde mais de 4 milhões já contam como deslocados.

E enquanto as principais potências mundiais debatem o destino das armas químicas sírias, organizações e analistas de direitos humanos lamentam que pouca atenção seja dedicada também à questão humanitária no país.

"Não creio que as discussões correntes façam grande diferença (para a questão humanitária), porque estão focadas unicamente na questão das armas químicas", disse à BBC Brasil um porta-voz da Human Rights Watch em Nova York, Philippe Bolopion.

"Aplaudimos os esforços para garantir que a Síria não volte a usar armas químicas contra sua própria população, mas eles não mudam nada em relação às mais de 100 mil mortes que já foram causadas no conflito."

Questionado sobre se o adiamento da ação militar em favor da opção diplomática poderia recolocar as necessidades da população civil como uma preocupação central, Bolopion expressou ceticismo.

"Quisera eu que assim fosse", disse o porta-voz. "Mas a questão das armas químicas já é um tema demasiado complexo e divisivo, e se acrescentarmos a dimensão humanitária à discussão corremos o risco de fazer com que a Rússia dê um passo atrás na sua própria proposta."

Debate precário

A brevidade do debate sobre os refugiados ficou evidente no conjunto de argumentos que o presidente Barack Obama reuniu na terça-feira à noite para tentar convencer o cidadão comum a não descartar a opção militar por enquanto.

"Resisti aos pedidos de ação militar (na Síria) porque não podemos resolver o problema alheio à força, particularmente depois de uma década de Iraque e Afeganistão", disse Obama.

"A situação mudou profundamente nas primeiras horas de 21 de agosto, quando mais de mil sírios – incluindo centenas de crianças – foram mortas por armas químicas lançadas pelo governo (do presidente Bashar al) Assad."

Apesar da menção aos civis sírios, a explicação do presidente caminhou para falar do risco da proliferação das armas de químicas – que não fazem distinção entre civis e militares – não para as vidas sírias, mas para as de americanos e seus aliados.

"O que aconteceu àquelas pessoas – e àquelas crianças – não é apenas uma violação do direito internacional: é também um perigo para a nossa segurança", argumentou Obama.

"Com o tempo, nossas tropas podem enfrentar o prospecto de uma guerra química nos campos de batalha. Ficaria mais fácil para organizações terroristas obter estas armas e usá-las contra civis. Se o conflito extrapolar as fronteiras da Síria, estas armas podem ameaçar os nossos aliados na região."

Interesses de quem

"

"Nunca escondemos que, quando integravam no Conselho de Segurança, Brasil, Índia e África do Sul poderiam ter feito muito, muito mais para cuidar das necessidades dos civis sírios. Agora que está fora do Conselho, o Brasil poderia ser uma voz mais firme denunciando o apoio incondicionalo da Rússia ao governo sírio."

Philippe Bolopion, porta-voz da Human Rights Watch em Nova York

É compreensível que o presidente, ao se dirigir ao eleitorado doméstico, enfatize os interesses de seu país ao defender uma intervenção mais direta na Síria.

No entanto, mesmo em outros contextos, a falta de um plano contido na proposta americana para reduzir o impacto humanitário da ação militar é uma das críticas levantadas por ONGs.

Além da questão do financiamento, organizações de assistência humanitária se queixam da falta de cooperação do governo Sírio em permitir o acesso a áreas onde a população carece de necessidades básicas, como alimentos, medicamentos e combustível.

Segundo a Human Rights Watch, 2,8 milhões de sírios dentro do país vivem em situação de risco à vida por falta de assistência, ainda que a ajuda esteja, nas palavras de Bolodion, "a alguns quilômetros de distância", nas fronteiras dos países vizinhos.

Nesta quarta-feira, a Comissão da ONU criada em 2011 para monitorar a questão dos direitos humanos no país apresentou um relatório em que acusa ambos os lados do conflito sírio de cometer crimes de guerra e contra a humanidade.

Do lado do governo, a comissão recolheu acusações de massacres contra civis, bombardeios a hospitais e uso amplo de bombas de fragmentação.

Entre os grupos rebeldes, o órgão, chefiado pelo brasileiro Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro, disse ter ouvido denúncias de assassinatos, execuções sumárias, tortura e sequestros.

Fora da agenda

Nada leva a crer que o tema seja discutido em profundidade pelo secretário de Estado americano, John Kerry, e o ministro do Exterior russo, Sergei Lavrov, quando se encontrarem para negociar uma solução diplomática para as armas químicas, em Genebra na quinta-feira.

A Rússia não somente tem bloqueado iniciativas humanitárias no Conselho de Segurança da ONU, como é acusada de continuar suprindo o governo Assad de armamentos pesados, como caças.

Outros atores internacionais, como os países emergentes, são criticados por expressar sua preocupação com o conflito sírio, defender uma saída política mas continuar ausente das operações para apoiar os civis em situação de fragilidade.

"Nunca escondemos que, quando integravam no Conselho de Segurança, Brasil, Índia e África do Sul poderiam ter feito muito, muito mais para cuidar das necessidades dos civis sírios", disse Bolodion.

"Agora que está fora do Conselho, o Brasil poderia ser uma voz mais firme denunciando o apoio incondicionado da Rússia ao governo sírio."

Durante o encontro do G20 – o grupo de 20 principais nações industrializadas e emergentes – em São Petersburgo, na Rússia, na semana passada, organizações pediram apoio político para a proposta de investigar os abusos cometidos por governo e oposição sírios no âmbito do Tribunal Criminal Internacional.

Onze dos vinte membros do grupo – incluindo o Brasil – não haviam se manifestado sobre o tema.

Falando especificamente sobre a questão das armas químicas, a presidente Dilma Rousseff afirmou que o governo brasileiro "repudia e considera como crime hediondo qualquer uso" desses armamentos

Xi para Obama: seja pacifico, paciente, calmo, nao se meta (sobre a Siria) - Shanghai Daily

Nada como um bom conselho para acalmar ardores guerreiros.
Na verdade, o bom mesmo é não fazer nada, deixar que se matem; em qualquer hipótese, o vencedor vai continuar comprando armas e vendendo petróleo, se for o caso...

Xi urges Obama to find political solution on Syria
Chinese President Xi Jinping told his US counterpart Barack Obama yesterday that the crisis in Syria should not be resolved through a military strike and urged him to consider a political solution.

(From: Shanghai Daily)

A lei dos homens, do direito escrito, e o dever moral, do direito natural: Siria e Bolivia

O argumento pretende se ater ao caso da Síria (embora se deva ainda provar que foi efetivamente o governo do país o responsável pelo uso de armas químicas contra a sua própria população), mas creio que o mesmo se aplica ao caso do diplomata brasileiro envolvido na "fuga" do senador boliviano, que parece já ter sido "condenado" politicamente, aguardando-se, agora, a punição institucional.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida  

Op-Ed Contributor

Antigone in Damascus

By RONALD SOKOL

The International Herald Tribune, September 2, 2013

 

As America seeks a legal justification for intervening in Syria it might do well to explore a different road to Damascus.

In Dostoevsky’s “Crime and Punishment” a father and son walk along a road and see a man brutally beating an old horse. The horrified boy tries to help the nag, but his father pulls him away, saying “It’s not our business!” The boy’s moral instincts, Dostoevsky shows us, are still intact whereas the father’s have atrophied. But does the father or the other witnesses have a legal or moral obligation to stop the cruelty?

Law students studying liability read the case of a man walking along a beach who sees a person drowning just off shore. Does he have a duty to save the drowning person? English Common Law says no; the French Civil Code says yes, as long as he can do so at no risk to himself.

Whether or not there is a legal duty to save a drowning person, there is surely a moral duty to do so.

That was the point Albert Camus made in his short novel, “The Fall.” If an atrocity is committed before our eyes, whether it is the methodical killing of Jews, genocide in Rwanda, slaughter of civilians by chemical weapons, or a person in need of immediate assistance in a highway accident, and we have the power to stop the atrocity or help the person in need at little or no danger to ourselves, surely we have a moral duty to do so.

So enmeshed have we become in the web of law that we have lost sight of the fact that laws are built on a moral foundation. We don’t need a law to tell us that it is wrong to kill or that there are times when there is a duty to help.

The question becomes more complex if the law actually forbids us to do what we feel is the morally right thing to do. The classic example was given by Sophocles in his tale of Antigone. King Creon’s edict forbade the burial of Polyneices, who had fought against Thebes; he was to rot outside the walls of the city.

When Sophocles wrote in the 5th century B.C., burial rites were a sacred duty. At dawn, Polyneices’ sister Antigone is spotted outside the wall performing the rites. Captured and brought before Creon, she admits the crime but utters words that might profitably be studied by legal advisers to nations that embrace the rule of law: “I never thought your laws had such force that they nullified the laws of heaven, which unwritten, not proclaimed, can boast a currency everlastingly valid; an origin beyond the birth of man.”

This ancient belief in a natural law that stands above written law was ridiculed in the 18th century by the English philosopher Jeremy Bentham, who called it “nonsense upon stilts.” Bentham’s view has mostly prevailed, and it is his view of law that troubles the legal advisers to President Obama as they seek to place military intervention on a sound legal basis. While the attempt is praiseworthy, it may be misplaced.

Almost no one today defends what came to be called the Natural Law tradition, yet it alone supports the “self-evident truths” proclaimed in the American Declaration of Independence, or the affirmation in the French Declaration of the Rights of Man that men are born free, or the rights proclaimed in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and those in the European Convention on Human Rights. In short, it is a tradition to which no one adheres but which stands as a live witness to the eternal human desire for an absolute moral order.

If such an order does exist, there is no consensus as to what it consists of. Yet there are instances in which nations have reached unanimous agreement on a specific moral duty. The prohibition against the use of chemical weapons is one such example. The Chemical Weapons Convention has been signed and ratified by all but a handful of the 193 nations that are members of the United Nations. Only Syria, North Korea, Egypt, Angola and South Sudan have not signed, but even Syria does not claim that the use of chemical weapons is legal.

Syria denies their use, but if it is found that Syria committed the atrocity, then a legal justification to stop it is superfluous. Once an atrocity is acknowledged, a moral duty arises to stop it — provided that one has the power to stop it and can do so at no serious risk to oneself. Of course to argue that no legal justification is needed is a slippery slope because it is rare to find unanimous consent on the existence of a moral duty.

In the case of Syria there exists moral agreement that the use of chemical weapons was an atrocity, and perhaps even that Syria committed it, but no consensus will be reached about who should be the 21st century Antigone who must go to Damascus, or what rites need be performed once she gets there.

_________________________________________________

Ronald Sokol is a member of the bar in France and the United States and practices law in Aix-en-Provence. His books include “Justice After Darwin” and “Federal Habeas Corpus.” 

A version of this op-ed appears in print on September 3, 2013, in The International Herald Tribune.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/03/opinion/global/antigone-in-damascus.html?ref=global&_r=0