[E-rundbrief] Info 1253 - WILPF - against military intervention in Syria

[Matthias Reichl]

E-Rundbrief - Info 1253 - WILPF Statement on Syria, chemical weapons, 
and avoiding military intervention.

Bad Ischl, 31.8.2013

Begegnungszentrum für aktive Gewaltlosigkeit

www.begegnungszentrum.at

================================================

WILPF Statement on Syria, chemical weapons, and avoiding military 
intervention

http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/news/latest-news/8002-wilpf-statement-on-syria-chemical-weapons-and-avoiding-military-intervention

(posted 30.8.2013)

The Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) 
welcomes the decision by the British Parliament to refuse the 
endorsement of military action against Syria. Parliament upheld the 
principle that the use of chemical weapons can never be justified, but 
reasserted the importance of international law and the UN Charter in 
dictating any response by the international community. However, media 
reports indicate that the US government is still intent on a military 
strike against Syria, even without UK support.

It has been WILPF’s position since the first reports of use of gas 
that the use of chemical weapons is a serious violation of 
international law, regardless of which party to the conflict 
perpetrated the attack. But the use of chemical weapons, however 
abhorrent and illegal, should not be used as a pretext for military 
intervention. Other options are available and must be pursued.

Chemical weapons and international law

There is no doubt that the use of chemical weapons in armed conflict 
is a violation of international law. The 1925 Geneva Protocol 
prohibits the use of chemical and biological weapons in war. 
Furthermore, the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) outlaws the 
development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention, 
transfer, or use of chemical weapons. While Syria is party only to the 
1925 Geneva Protocol and not the CWC, legal experts and the 
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) have pointed out that 
these agreements have created a principle against the use of chemical 
weapons through customary international law.

This means the prohibition against using chemical weapons is just as 
binding as a treaty and is similarly binding on armed groups. 
Consequently, if either the government or a rebel faction that uses 
chemical weapons, they can be held accountable for this violation of 
international law. The alleged use of chemical weapons must not be 
used as a pretext for military intervention.

Against military intervention

Rather than rushing to military intervention or war, the international 
community must respond in conformity with international law. 
International legal obligations permit military intervention only 
under specific circumstances, none of which are applicable in this 
situation.

The rhetoric of the governments pushing for intervention is more akin 
to retribution and punishment than justice in accordance with 
international law. It presupposes both the “right” of Western 
governments to act as global police and the legitimacy of the use of 
force to resolve international problems.
The consequences of military intervention are inevitable: collateral 
damage, exacerbation of the conflict and suffering of civilians, 
radicalization of forces in the region, and making the prospect of a 
peaceful negotiation even more remote. Military intervention will not 
help the Syrian people secure relief from the violence nor will it 
result in a peaceful transition to a democratic and accountable 
government. A dialogue must happen and it must happen with the voices 
of those who advocate a nonviolent solution.

Alternative options

Alternatives to armed force have been carefully constructed over 
decades and there are systems in place that could and should be used.

1. Ensure effective investigation of the attack through an extension 
of the existing mandate of the UN inspections. The UN inspections must 
be allowed to be completed. The inspection team has so far collected 
samples and interviewed victims and witnesses. UN Secretary-General 
Ban Ki-moon has argued that the team must be allowed to do its job and 
establish the facts, pushing back against the US and UK government’s 
assertions of “certainty” about the facts of the case and their 
demands that the inspection team leave the country. Once the 
inspectors have determined whether chemical weapons were used and 
perhaps the origins of these weapons, the international community 
should then act in accordance with international law in its response.

2. Seek a UN Security Council resolution to secure the hand-over of 
any WMD in the possession of any party to the conflict. The first 
obligation on the UN Security Council is to ensure the prevention of 
further chemical weapons use. Consequently, it should promulgate a 
resolution to facilitate the seizure of the prohibited weapons. This 
could get the support of the Russian government, which has supported 
the prohibition of use of chemical weapons and which seems to have 
considerable influence over the Syrian government. Because of Russia’s 
strong participation in the Organisation for Security and Cooperation 
in Europe, (which has a larger geographical mandate than just Europe), 
the OSCE may also be able to secure the hand-over of the weapons.

3. Request the UN Security Council refer the matter to the Office of 
the Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC has 
been established to bring justice when a state is unwilling or unable 
to do so, as would be the case here. There needs to be an 
investigation into the identification of the perpetrators and the 
nature of the command responsibility. Syria is not a party to the ICC 
but the UN Security Council can and should refer the matter to the 
office of the prosecutor and ensure that funds are available for 
investigation and indictment.

4. Support a political solution through inclusive peace talks. The 
political process developed to provide a political solution to the 
Syrian crisis through “Geneva I” talks in 2012 and planned “Geneva II” 
talks this year have been established to provide a political rather 
than military solution to the crisis. The first set of discussions 
developed a plan for a transitional government in Syria involving both 
government and opposition members. This discussion needs to be 
continued in Geneva II talks with strengthened support from permanent 
UN Security Council members. Pressure also needs to be strengthened 
for an inclusive process involving women on all sides as well as 
nonviolent humanitarian and women’s groups to ensure a strong peace 
process and outcome.

In the meantime, arms transfers to the Syrian government and rebel 
forces must stop. These arms flows have achieved only more bloodshed. 
In calling for those providing weapons to either side to stop, UN 
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon notes, “The military logic has given us 
a country on the verge of total destruction, a region in chaos and a 
global threat.  Why add more fuel to the fire?

Moving forward

Some will question where the justice is in simply completing 
inspections and securing the weapons. Law is not about quick “fixes” 
often demanded by governments, or the immediate justice that is wanted 
by victims. However, it provides a process which is critical to engage 
with if we want to move away from violent retribution and towards 
processes of peace and justice.

WILPF calls, yet again, for choosing peace over violence, and 
political over militarized solutions. Sustainable peace cannot be 
built on more violence.

[PDF] (347.48 kB)

Links see: 
http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/news/latest-news/8002-wilpf-statement-on-syria-chemical-weapons-and-avoiding-military-intervention


Reaching Critical Will
is a project of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom
http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/

-- 

Matthias Reichl, Pressesprecher/ press speaker,
Begegnungszentrum fuer aktive Gewaltlosigkeit
Center for Encounter and active Non-Violence
Wolfgangerstr. 26, A-4820 Bad Ischl, Austria,
fon: +43 6132 24590, Informationen/ informations,
Impressum in: http://www.begegnungszentrum.at
Spenden-Konto Nr. 0600-970305 (Blz. 20314) Sparkasse Salzkammergut,
Geschäftsstelle Pfandl
IBAN: AT922031400600970305 BIC: SKBIAT21XXX

--

Ausgezeichnet mit dem (österr.) "Journalismus-Preis von unten 2010"

Honoured by the (Austrian) "Journalism-Award from below 2010"