Summary<\/b><\/p>\n
\u2022 Any U.S. attack on Syria will be a gross violation of international law, including the UN Charter.
\n\u2022 al-Assad\u2019s admission of UN inspectors obviously was seen by Washington as an obstacle for its war plans.
\n\u2022 An attack will come only as a consequence of deliberately ignored opportunities for professional, impartial mediation and peace-making, the lack of backing of Kofi Annan\u2019s plan of April 2012 in particular.
\n\u2022 An attack can under no circumstances be seen in the light of a responsibility to protect since it will cause even more violence and human suffering throughout Syria.
\n\u2022 Again, we see how the vast majority of people in conflict zones who do not resort to violence are being abandoned.
\n\u2022 Any attack is likely to have grave consequences for the region as a whole.
\n\u2022 For these reasons any attack must be condemned as illegal and counterproductive.
\n\u2022 Governments and citizens everywhere must now use whatever time there is to persuade the U.S. to back down.<\/p>\n
1. Immediately after President al-Assad accepted UN inspectors, Washington declared it was \u201dtoo little too late\u201d. <\/b><\/p>\n
Secretary of State Kerry said evidence strongly suggested that it was the government that committed a \u201dmoral obscenity\u201d and accused it of covering up its chemical weapons attack. A \u201dred line\u201d had been crossed. The U.S. report on the chemical attack is conspicuously weak and Pentagon had prepared for a military attack way before it was published. Washington is now about to fall into its own threat trap, one way or the other – no matter President Obama\u2019s latest manoeuvres.<\/p>\n
2. Any U.S. attack on Syria will be an indisputable violation of international law, an attack on a sovereign state that has not invaded any other state.<\/b><\/p>\n
An aggression on Syria can only take place in complete defiance of Article 1 of the UN Charter which spells out that peace shall be established by peaceful means and only when every civilian means has been tried and found in vain can an international military action be considered – but then only under command of the UN itself.<\/p>\n
3. Any military action must be seen as a consequence of deliberately ignored conflict-resolution opportunities over the last good two years and, in particular, the undermining of Kofi Annan\u2019s six-point peace plan<\/b><\/p>\n
<\/b>that contained e.g. a ceasefire agreement (April 2012) and an inclusive Syrian-led political process to address the legitimate concerns of the Syrian people, humanitarian assistance to the Syrian society. More on Annan’s plan and its fate here.<\/a> 4. Furthermore, any attack will fall far outside even a broad definition of the \u201dResponsibility to Protect\u201d for at least these reasons:<\/b><\/p>\n – it will cause more deaths than the chemical attack it is a response to;<\/p>\n – it will make a negotiated solution even more difficult;<\/p>\n – it will prolong the suffering of the Syrian people.<\/p>\n 5. This type of military action could have been ruled out if there had been:<\/b><\/p>\n A space for professional, impartial mediation backed up by leading powers; 6. It must be deplored that the U.S. and its president continue, against the wish of the world and the provisions of international law, to see the U.S. as a global police <\/b><\/p>\n acting as if it had a superior morality and law on its side and as if its own use of chemical weapons (e.g. Vietnam, Iraq-Iran, Serbia) could be ignored.<\/p>\n 7. How grave the regional consequences of an attack on Syria will be is difficult to assess.<\/b><\/p>\n If it\u2019s president is killed or its government destroyed, the delicate balance of groups in the complex Syrian society will be upset and more violence will follow, most likely for years. Syria\u2019s problems are such that no solution can be found by external military actions and also not be infusing more weapons, ammunition and training into any side.<\/p>\n 8. The failed interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya should have taught us the lesson<\/b><\/p>\n that external military means are likely to do more harm than good. That will be the case in Syria too. \u2028There is a broad spectrum of possible actions between wrecking a country and doing nothing. Regrettably, this is still not recognised by governments and, thus, the world continues to be in urgent need of intelligent civilian conflict-management mechanisms and real peace processes in crisis situations.<\/p>\n _________________________________<\/p>\n Submitted by TFF Director, Prof. Jan Oberg, a member of the TRANSCEND Network for Peace, Development and Environment.<\/i> September 2, 2013<\/i><\/p>\n
\nIt is also a consequence of the ill-considered set-up of \u201dFriends of Syria\u201d in political and military support of the pro-violence rebel opposition in Syria.<\/p>\n
\na focus on solving problems rather than condemning one or the other side;
\ninitiatives of various types to support the vast majority of Syrians who do not resort to any violence but are squeezed between the government\u2019s and the armed rebels\u2019 violence;
\nan understanding that complex conflicts won\u2019t go away because single persons or a small elite leave the stage.<\/p>\n