In Syria, it’s not the West vs Islam
The news from Damascus is not good. History is repeating itself and the Baathist regime is determined to quash the civil uprising. President Bashar al-Assad has proven himself to be his father’s son, despite ‘modern’ education and outlook! It is, however, important to understand what is happening inside Syria in the backdrop of international law as the present uprising and the regime’s violent response to it, is being looked upon in some quarters of the Muslim world and especially in Pakistan as yet another episode of West vs Islam.
It would not be incorrect to state that there is a brewing civil war inside Syria and the Baathist regime of President Assad has tried on more than one occasion to quash it with all means possible including violence. Rather, violence more than dialogue has been too often used as a tactic to soften and than completely silent the insurgents. The strategy in the long run has always been to further tighten the grip on the annals of power.
The latest siege and later destruction of Homs is nothing but redux of Hama massacre of 1982 wherein Gen Rifaat al-Assad, current president’s uncle had massacred 20,000 Syrians including women, children and the elderly, if veteran journalist Robert Fisk is to be believed. Their crime was that they opposed the regime on political and religious grounds. This was done at the behest of late President Hafez al-Assad, current president’s father. Bashar Al-Assad seems determined to outdo his father!
Ever since January, 2011, President Assad’s forces, along with vigilante groups, supposedly supported by them, are said to be involved in heinous crimes like murder, rape, and torture of political descendants. Allegations of unlawful detentions, destruction of property and abductions of those opposing the regime, are also in abundance. The world community has not stayed oblivious to these developments. President Obama has called upon President Assad to step down and Secretary General of the United Nations Ban Ki-Moon has condemned him as someone who has “lost all sense of humanity.” Irrespective of the rhetoric, the fact remains that there is no consensus amongst the P-5 of the Security Council, clearly evident in the recent 13-2 vote.
The most serious allegation levelled against the regime however is that it is directly involved in crimes against humanity. A cursory look at few of the paragraphs from the United Nations Report of the independent international commission of inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic dated 23 November 2011 makes it abundantly clear that the Syrians are in dire straits:
“The Syrian Arab Republic has violated the right to life, as enshrined in article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, through the use of excessive force by military and security forces as well as by militia, such as Shabbiha, acting in complicity with, or with the acquiescence of, State officials and forces.”
“Information received demonstrates patterns of continuous and widespread use of torture across the Syrian Arab Republic where protests have taken place. The pervasive nature, recurrence and reported readiness of Syrian authorities to use torture as a tool to instill fear indicate that state officials have condoned its practice. Information from the military and security forces defectors indicates that they received orders to torture. The commission is particularly disturbed over the extensive reports of sexual violence, principally against men and boys, in places of detention.”
“The commission concludes that the extensive practices of torture indicate a state-sanctioned policy of repression, which manifestly violates the state’s obligations under article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention against Torture, and article 37 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.”
The acts perpetrated by the Syrian regime are nevertheless sanctioned by the highest law making body in the country. The Syrian government has enacted laws legitimising the use of violent and excessive force. While international law empowers a state to legislate on any issue, be it specific or general, within its boundaries or outside, it does not allow a particular state to legislate on any measure which violates the most fundamental of customary international law rules; jus cogens. The right to life and the prohibition of torture are primary examples of such fundamental rules, which no treaty may modify and which no state defence may be able to explain and justify.
Customary international law makes a regime responsible for the acts of its security forces, be it uniformed or non-uniformed. In a way, President Assad is responsible for all the acts of omission and commission of his armed forces, down to the last soldier. It is incumbent upon the regime to seize all violent activities at once, arrest the perpetrators and punish them, along with providing the victims with reparations, that they rightfully deserve. But should the Baathist regime be expected to mend its ways now and act responsibly? It is highly unlikely.
Under the principles of State Responsibility, President Assad’s regime is responsible for committing horrific acts against its population. Since the Syrian regime has willingly and habitually participated in perpetration of crimes against humanity, it is legally incumbent upon the comity of nations to act and punish the guilty regime. Comparing Syria now and then and, unfortunately, not much has changed. The lust for power remains the same amongst the ruling elite, while the tools of repression have further gotten sharper.
