Aleppo in a time of monsters

Aleppo in a time of monsters
Comment: With the world seemingly unwilling to exploit a legal framework to end Syria's carnage, the international community must send missile launchers to the rebels, writes Muhammad Idrees Ahmad.
6 min read
06 May, 2016
Syria today is a free-fire zone with no check on criminality [Getty]

In February 1994, during the Siege of Sarajevo, a Bosnian Serb mortar landed in a market, killing 68 and wounding 144. US President Bill Clinton, who had made his "never again" campaign promise to prevent genocide, was up in arms.

"Until those folks get tired of killing each other over there, bad things will continue to happen," he said.

Two decades later, confronted with indiscriminate bombings in Aleppo and a starvation siege in Madaya, Barack Obama waxed similarly fatalistic. "The Middle East is going through a transformation that will play out for a generation," he said, because it was "rooted in conflicts that date back millennia".

There are no conflicts in the Middle East that date back millennia. The conflict in Syria is just over five years old. Nothing about it is fixed. In its scope and its intensity, in its balance of forces and its cast of characters, the conflict has been constantly evolving. The only element that has remained static, however, is the international response.  

In speaking of the horrors unfolding in Syria, it is hard to avoid a certain sense of déjà vu. Everything that can be said about Aleppo has already been said about Homs, Houla, Daraya and Douma. But with each new horror comes a growing sense that, for all the obtrusive violence, for all our pleas, we are plunging into the deep, smothered by apathy, abandoned by hope.

Syria today is a free-fire zone with no check on criminality. The red line that Barack Obama set was blithely crossed. In having his bluff called, the constitutionally weak president was himself stung. Reluctant to initiate action in Syria, he has become fearful of setting new limits - lest they are crossed, further exposing his cowardice.

Barack Obama has betrayed the people of Syria twice over. First by drawing a line on chemical weapons, at a time when most Syrians were being killed by conventional means; and then by failing to enforce it, giving Assad an unconditional license to kill by any means, including chemical weapons.

Barack Obama is on his way out. He has nothing to gain politically from confronting Assad

For the US, there is no categorical imperative against genocide.

"Never again" is retrospective grandstanding. It is easy to take unequivocal positions when the political questions have been settled and there is no price to pay. The US has rarely acted to prevent atrocities in the present and, to the extent that it has, has been guided entirely by political imperatives.

No one has ever suffered for denouncing the Nazi Holocaust. But at the time of the Holocaust, few acted to stop it. Leaders then were speaking about political interests, resource limits, and military priorities - just as they are today. "Never again" they said, only afterwards.

Then came Rwanda. "Never again." And then Srebrenica. "Never again."

In 1995, when the US finally acted in Bosnia, the conflict was no worse than it had been a year before. But it was an election year and by flexing military muscle, Bill Clinton was able to erase the impression of weakness. Cynical motives notwithstanding, the action put an end to four years of "bad things" even though "those folks...over there hadn't yet "tired of killing each other".

Barack Obama is on his way out. He has nothing to gain politically from confronting Assad. And morally - well, he is "proud of this moment", a time when he has abandoned Syrians to Assad's inexhaustible appetite for killing.

Nearly three times as many people were killed in the two years after Obama's embarrassing climb-down than had died in the two years before - victims of "ancient hatreds", no doubt.

Then came Rwanda. 'Never again.' And then Srebrenica. 'Never again.'

Obama has meanwhile taken to encouraging "negotiations" and proclaiming that there is "no military solution" to the conflict. Assad, Putin, and Qassem Soleimani seem to disagree. They also welcome the negotiations to kill time while proceeding with their conquest. But when the Syrian opposition protests against such a farce, it is they who are painted as intransigent.

The US, however, is no mere bystander. As in Bosnia, it has actively blocked the transfer of much needed anti-aircraft weaponry to Syrian rebels, allowing the regime and Russia to bomb with impunity. And by accepting Russia's "war on terror" rationale, the US has made itself complicit in Russia's crimes.

The US legitimised Russia and the regime's ferocious aerial assault, while its military spokesman alleged that "it's primarily al-Nusra who holds Aleppo, and of course, al-Nusra is not part of the cessation of hostilities." The Nusra Front, al-Qaeda's local franchise, has a small presence in the city; it certainly doesn't "hold Aleppo".

But if the US hasn't fared well in Syria, neither has the UN.

In 2005, with much fanfare, the UN had introduced the doctrine of the "right to protect" (R2P), codifying "never again" into a norm of international conduct.

Its timely application in Syria might have saved thousands of lives. But even as the UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon was acknowledging the "shame" of its failure in Rwanda and Srebrenica, the UN was providing cover to the regime's starvation sieges across Syria, censoring its documents, and obfuscating responsibility with the anodyne language of "both sides".

But as the Italian writer and holocaust survivor Primo Levi noted, "to confuse [perpetrators] with their victims is a moral disease or an aesthetic affectation or a sinister sign of complicity; above all, it is a precious service rendered (intentionally or not) to the negators of truth".

In international politics, the power of knowledge is trumped by the knowledge of power

The negators of truth are myriad. They are not just governments, but also people, and above all media institutions.

Levi noted in 1974 that "every age has its own fascism" which is enforced "not just through the terror of police intimidation, but by denying and distorting information, by undermining systems of justice, by paralyzing the education system, and by spreading in a myriad subtle ways nostalgia for a world where order reigned".

Where once "no justice, no peace" was considered a truism, demands for justice are now deemed a threat to "stability". Peace without justice is the nostalgia hankered after by the negators of truth. Preserving truth is therefore the first step towards confronting fascism.

But truth alone will not change the imbalance of forces.

In international politics, the power of knowledge is trumped by the knowledge of power. Negotiations without leverage are doomed to fail.

The new moral order that was struggling to come forth is now dead

It is by now clear that no power will intervene to aid the Syrian people. But regional powers, unlike the US, will not be shielded from the consequences of a regime victory. In the form of the "refugee crisis", Europe is already feeling the repercussions.

It is time for regional powers to step up and provide vetted rebel groups with portable misile launchers to target regime aircraft. Only by revoking the regime's aerial capacity can it be coaxed into negotiating in good faith.

R2P and "never again" were examples of false hope. The new moral order that was then struggling to come forth is now dead. But that is no reason to let the monsters reign.

People have a right to defend themselves; let's give them the means.

Dr Idrees Ahmad is a Lecturer in Digital Journalism at the University of Stirling and a co-editor of PULSE. He is the author of The Road to Iraq: The Making of a Neoconservative War and is currently writing a book on the war of narratives over Syria. Follow him on Twitter: @im_pulse

Opinions expressed in this article remain those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The New Arab, its editorial board or staff.