Moral mantle for action in Syria slips from UN to Obama

The Obama administration has all but given up on the UN acting on Syria. It's beefing up aid to rebels taking other steps. But China and Russia can still save the UN's moral leadership by backing tougher sanctions on Assad.

Ugarit News/AP Photo
In this image made from amateur video released July 24, a Free Syrian Army solider drives a Syrian military tank in Aleppo, Syria.

Americans have long been ambivalent about ceding global leadership to the United Nations. Bill Clinton didn’t have UN approval to attack Serbia in 1999 just as George W. Bush didn’t for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Yet President Obama, who took office vowing respect for the UN, did wait for Security Council approval in the 2011 war on Libya.

Now Mr. Obama may also be turning his back on the UN as the civil war in Syria poses three ominous threats: the prospect of more civilian massacres, the rise of Al Qaeda in Syria, and the possible use of chemical weapons.

An administration breach with the UN came to the surface last Thursday just after Russia and China vetoed yet another resolution in the Security Council aimed at toughening sanctions against the regime of Bashar al-Assad.

US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice said the Council had “utterly failed” Syria. Ms. Rice then said Washington would work with “a diverse range of partners outside the Security Council” (read: coalition of the willing) to take action against the Assad government.

Those US actions so far fall short of direct military intervention. But the effect may be similar.

The CIA is monitoring the flow of weapons to anti-Assad rebels from Saudi Arabia and Qatar. It is also providing vital communications training and equipment to rebel groups, and perhaps intelligence support. And the United States is trying to hinder flights and ships believed to be carrying fuel or arms to Syria.

The Obama administration has warned Mr. Assad that he would “cross a serious red line” if he used his vast stockpiles of chemical weapons. On Monday, Syria not only revealed for the first time that it had such weapons, but it also threatened to use them if Syria were “exposed to external aggression.”

Concerns about these deadly weapons have led the US, Israel, and Europe to make preparations to intervene in Syria at any moment, especially if the Assad regime collapses. “It’s going to take an international effort when Assad falls – and he will fall – in order to secure these weapons,” said Adm. William H. McRaven, the head of the military’s Special Operations forces, last March.

Meanwhile, some 125,000 Syrians have fled the country, requiring international help and causing hardship in neighboring countries such as Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan.

The Security Council’s attempts over the past few months to impose a cease-fire and seek negotiations between Assad and the rebels has failed. Syrian tanks continue to bombard civilian areas. Nearly 15,000 people have been killed since the pro-democracy protests began in March, 2011.

Moral leadership on Syria is slowly ebbing away from the UN, forcing Obama to assume the mantle of a global leader ready to take action to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe, a war with weapons of mass destruction, and Al Qaeda from establishing a new beachhead.

Even if the regime collapses, the US may need to take the lead in preventing chaos in the heart of the Middle East, securing the chemical weapons, and blocking any meddling in Syria by Iran.

Russia and China still have time to bolster UN leadership in Syria to save the body’s leadership in a future crisis. The UN was set up to deal with issues like genocide, weapons of mass destruction, and terrorism. Syria is now a dangerous mix of all three.

A moral mantle may be difficult to bear for those two veto-wielding council members. But if they don’t don this mantle, Obama will continue to do so.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.