The death toll in Syria keeps mounting as forces loyal to Bashar al-Assad continue to pummel the civilian opposition to his regime. In fact, after it had crossed the 5,000 mark in January of this year the United Nations stopped keeping count of the casualties. The attempts of the Arab League to induce Assad to see reason and make the necessary concessions to end the blood-letting have failed. Now it has turned to the U.N Security Council to pass a resolution that would impose multilateral sanctions on Syria.
Russia, which is a major arms supplier to the regime, and is also loath to support the growing norm in support of humanitarian intervention, is proving unwilling to go along with other members who are ready to act.
Not surprisingly, China, which shares similar domestic concerns and faces much current unrest in Tibet, is also resistant to imposing sanctions on the Assad regime.
The reasons underlying their reservations are fairly transparent. Democracy in Russia is increasingly under siege and China’s record on human rights remains abysmal in general and in Tibet in particular.
Why, then, is India coyly lining up behind these two states? After all, it’s a liberal democracy with a free press, an independent judiciary and has a vibrant civil society.
Sadly, despite India’s obvious democratic credentials it has some important, nagging and trying shortcomings of its own. Its ability to uphold the rule of law has been in question as it has fought a range of domestic insurgencies ranging from Nagaland in the northeast to Kashmir in the northwest. Consequently, it fears, perhaps unwisely, that if this norm of humanitarian intervention is bolstered it may, one day, come home to roost.
India’s record on protecting human rights in suppressing insurgencies has hardly been exemplary. The state, on occasion, has chosen to remain oblivious to such violations when the country’s national unity has been at stake in the Punjab and Kashmir. That said, this callousness to the arbitrary exercise of coercive power has never reached the conditions that are prevailing in Syria where there is widespread, systematic and brutal use of military power to cow a hapless population seeking minimal rights.
Biding its time unfortunately undermines India’s own moral stature, corrodes its international standing and reduces its claims for a permanent seat on the Security Council. One can only hope that India will not again abnegate on its responsibility in this vital global body.
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
James
Commentators aligned with neo-imperialism would obviously paint a tainted picture. One must examine the forces behind the various insurgencies in India for a balanced review.
Sanjay
Assad’s regime is a brutal police state and thug-ocracy, to be sure. What the author attributes to India is really more the result of the current ruling Congress Party and its Nehruvian old-boy non-aligned ties. I don’t know what the author hopes to achieve by mentioning Kashmir, which has only been inflamed by Pakistan’s cross-border terrorism, much in the same way that Afghanistan has been.
If anything, both the Afghan and Kashmir conflicts owe their origins to Pakistan’s illegitimate desire to hang onto the Pashtun lands stolen by the British (it was in 1948 that Pakistan despatched Pashtun tribes to attack Kashmir, which started that conflict.)
Look, we all understand that the USA is attempting good old-fashioned regime-change in Syria, just as it attempted to in Iraq by crying “WMD”. Why the author wants to build on that tarnished legacy is for him to explain.
Mazo
Because we don’t “care” about the Syrians – Assad or whatever else holier-than-thou preaching that the West would like the rest of us to swallow! Presently, the Syrian “revolution” (if it can be called that) is confined to Syria and due to various domestic forces that nobody internationally really has much of an understanding on. For example – who are these “revolutionaries”, what are their beliefs, what do they hope to achieve after Assad is gone and what would their impact be on the wider Arab neighborhood? It is easy to be swept away with the rhetoric of freedom and the fight against dictatorship but wisdom dictates a more cautious approach so that the “ends” are better than the “means” employed so far.
Further, such action also lays a precedent and that is something India is keen to avoid enabling. What is the line the UNSC will draw when it decides what is a legitimate case for interfering and what isn’t? Sometimes government’s have to use harsh measures to impose order and this might mean violating a few rights for the greater good, can some international body with no direct interest in the outcome nor any first hand knowledge be qualified in making a determination on which side of the conflict is more deserving ?? No.
The fact of the matter is if a cause has sufficient popular support – no external intervention or help is needed at all. People are quite able to achieve their goals themselves through demonstrations, violence or any other means that they need to adopt. Egypt showed the world that! The West has a disturbing tendency to micro-manage the world and try to shape it in its image every chance it gets, without allowing for all the intermediate steps of failure and evolution to take place.
India has learnt that hard way that in international politics – Morality and an empty sack are still worth an empty sack! Only money and the force of arms mean anything.
sona
“The death toll in Syria keeps mounting as forces loyal to Bashar al-Assad continue to pummel the civilian opposition to his regime.”
• that saudi-US-nato mantra does not wash – the rebels are very well armed, thanks to the gcc? and governments have a responsibility to maintain law and order – refer to the report by the arab league that was suppressed by qatar, the current president of the league and saudi tool, despite being approved by the other league members – sometimes leaks are invaluable in exposing the stenographic echoes of faux analysts
“Why, then, is India coyly lining up behind these two (russia and china) states?”
• because it serves no purpose nor india’s strategic interests to follow a US subservient foreign policy – and this was a welcome show of some spine and it is holding with iran too
i certainly do not buy the explanation – the rule of law operates in india as well as it does in the USA
it has nothing to with democracy or the rule of law but a geostrategic putsch by the wahabi sunnis, in concert with US and nato, to maintain regional dominance and stop shia influence – interesting that iran, lebanon and iraq do not agree either – all with substantive shia populations which actually wield considerable political clout
in the end analysis, regime change is a foolish excuse for foreign policy nor does it guarantee democracy – the shah of iran was not democrat but an autocrat, and all that humanitarian military kinetics hasn’t exactly produced either democracy or the rule of law in lybia and dare i refer to iraq? the rule of law is not exactly its defining characteristic
sona
what really corrodes india’s reputation is to act like a US colony as the suggests india should – hands off syria and iran – it might help to cut off the flow of arms to the so called rebels
mahanama
How long can India pride itself being the worlds’ largest democracy and be on the same side with Russia and China in the face of gargantuan human rights violations that happen in Syria ? Is it a question of geopolitics over moral issues?.How funny.
macqa
India advocated democratic world order immediately after its nuclear tests (
See Vajpayee’s New York speech). Did the West listen? No !! Now things are
turning again and India is wiser from past experience.