UN
Security Council must act to end repression in Syria

By Salil
Shetty, Secretary General of Amnesty International

10
August 2011

Majd Al
Kurdy was a junior member of Syria’s ruling Baath party in the small town of Tell
Kalakh near the border with Lebanon. One day in May, at an anti-government
demonstration, he took a megaphone and announced to the crowd “I announce my
resignation from the corrupt Ba’th Party!”

Days later,
on 17 May, Syrian forces dragged Majd out of the house he was hiding in. It was
two weeks before his family heard any news of him.

The
authorities handed over his body in a nylon sack. It was clear he had been
tortured before his death. His face was severely disfigured and his chest and thighs
had been cut, and there were what seemed to be gunshot wounds on the back of his
legs.

Given the
weight of evidence that suggests that Syria’s Bashar al-Assad’s government has
committed crimes against humanity, possibly including in the last few days in
Hama, it is frustrating that the UN Security Council remains unable to react
adequately to the carnage.

Over 1500
people have died during the months-long onslaught by security forces against
overwhelmingly peaceful demonstrations, yet the UN Security Council’s only
reaction so far came on 3 August when it adopted a non-binding “presidential
statement” that, while condemning widespread violations by the regime, merely
calls on the authorities to make good on their own commitments to reform..

The Council’s
impotence in relation to Syria stands in stark contrast with the quick and
decisive action it took in the case of Libya. 
But, in fact, it is the aftermath of its resolution on Libya that has
paralyzed the Council.

Permanent
Council members Russia and China, joined by temporary members South Africa, Brazil
and India, say Western members have gone beyond the mandate in resolution 1973
on Libya by supporting the opposition and seeking “regime change” in
Tripoli.  They suspect the proponents of
a rather weak draft resolution on Syria
– mainly the United Kingdom
and France – of wanting to
do the same with Damascus
and have pledged to thwart them, which has effectively granted the Syrian
regime a pass to continue the repression.

But why should the Syrian people pay the price – in lives, displacement,
torture and other ill treatment – of this political dispute among Council
members?  It is perfectly legitimate to
question what lies behind any measures on Syria
proposed by France, the UK,
the US
or others.  But that something must be
done to stop the carnage in Syria
is also beyond doubt.

If they suspect Western countries of ulterior motives, it is the responsibility
of countries like South
Africa – a state aspiring to global
leadership – to engage with other Council members to try to ensure that any
resolution adopted serves only to protect civilians.  To date, however, the three temporary members
– let alone China and Russia, who have their own reasons for curbing
action on Syria
– have not proposed any credible alternative and refuse even to discuss the
text of the draft resolution.

The focus on South Africa, Brazil and India is not accidental.  The three are part of the increasingly
influential BRICS grouping, together with China
and Russia.  Unlike the last two, however South Africa, Brazil
and India
are vibrant democracies.  They also have
recent histories marked by popular struggles for human rights and freedoms,
which many in positions of leadership in all three countries remember or were
even a part of. 

The three are uniquely positioned to steer an independent path in the Security
Council.  They are strong enough to
resist political and economic pressures from the traditional power players and
have regional, and even global, ambitions of their own.  As free and open societies that cannot be
accused of harbouring neo-colonialist intentions, they arguably also enjoy more
credibility and legitimacy when championing the human rights of people wherever
they are trampled.  Were they to support
a Council resolution on Syria,
it is believed it would be difficult for China
and Russia
to use their veto.

So far, however, South Africa,
Brazil and India have
failed to exercise the leadership many expected of them.  As the situation in Syria continues to deteriorate, the question
remains whether the three will continue in lockstep behind China and Russia or, together or
individually, be strong and independent voices in the Council, defending
internationally rights their own citizens should enjoy and which they consider
universal.

http://livewire.amnesty.org/2011/08/10/un-security-council-must-act-to-end-repression-in-syria/