Syrian brutality: SA sees no evil
When it comes to the war in Syria, the official stance of the South African government — that there can only be a political solution to the conflict — is on the surface appropriate and correct.
The militarisation of what began as a popular uprising against Bashar al-Assad in the context of the Arab Spring, in a region fraught with armed conflict and sectarian violence, has amplified the human cost and suffering enormously.
Half the Syrian population of 22-million are now displaced, 5million of them outside of Syria. Three-quarters of a million people have been killed and entire cities laid waste. While war is always cruel and brutal, Assad has bombed rebel-held areas with no holds barred, using chemical weapons (nerve agents), causing horrible and indiscriminate death among civilians, including children. Civilians have also been dying not just through violence, but because they cannot get enough food to eat, medicines to treat illnesses and other humanitarian assistance.
But while SA’s overall stance on Syria is correct, on the smaller, less explicit aspects of the conflict, its foreign policy has been shaped not by principle but by distasteful motives and opportunistic political alliances. There has been repeated tacit support for one side in the conflict — Assad and his major ally Russia — which gives the lie to the assertion that SA is genuinely in favour of a quick and peaceful resolution.
From the beginning, SA expressed support for the Syrian peace process, co-ordinated by the UN. Early on in the conflict the Department of International Relations and Co-operation joined the high commissioner for human rights and the International Committee of the Red Cross in classifying the Syrian crisis as a “noninternational armed conflict”, acknowledging that this entailed obligations on both sides under international law.
In one of the earliest votes at the UN in early 2012, SA voted in favour of a Security Council resolution that unequivocally sought an end to the war. But within several months of that first vote, SA became increasingly cautious, withholding its support in a vote only a few months later because, it said, the wording of the resolution was “too one-sided”. Since then, SA has regularly abstained on resolutions at the UN Human Rights Council condemning atrocities in Syria. Last Friday it voted against an urgent debate on the Syrian crisis at the council in Geneva.
SA still maintains diplomatic relations with the Assad government. It does not criticise the excesses of the Syrian army or of Russia in Syria, yet two days ago issued a statement condemning the raids by the US, France and the UK on Syrian targets. While the Department of International Relations and Co-operation was correct in saying that the missile bombardment would not solve the problem of the use of chemical weapons and that the raids were also a violation of international law, SA’s condemnation is appallingly one-sided.
Neither has SA been active in pressuring Syria to meet its obligations in war, particularly in terms of humanitarian assistance to the population. Several international humanitarian groups are shut out or operate under very restricted circumstances.
As the war in Syria stretches into its seventh year there is now a strong case to be made, as has been done by UN Human Rights Commissioner Zeid al-Hussein, for the perpetrators of the Syrian conflict to be tried at the International Criminal Court.
As a country that, in living memory, experienced atrocities of our own, perpetrated by a state at war with largely defenceless civilians, SA should remember the value of international solidarity and action.
The past two months have been one of the bloodiest periods of the entire Syrian conflict, with strikes on medical facilities and the dropping of barrel bombs containing chemical agents.
It is shameful that SA continues to hide behind a pretence of nonviolent neutrality. SA is turning a blind eye to brutality.
SA’S FOREIGN POLICY STANCE HAS BEEN SHAPED BY OPPORTUNISTIC POLITICAL ALLIANCES