As tragedy continues in Syria, new reports of tragedy emerge everyday at the time of this writing. Without trying to ascertain who or what is to blame, there really is an urgent need for a new international law to prevent such tragedies in Syria and wherever they take place in our world. The world community must come together to alleviate the distress of fellow humans. A possible new International law that needs an urgent debate would imply;
- If there is chaos, disorder, massive loss of life and human displacements from any country of the world on a continuing basis for a period longer than a year, that has caused refugees to flee not just their homes but also their countries in hundreds of thousands, then the governance of such a country should be regarded as having failed and in need of international intervention by force if necessary.
- Such a country shall be placed under an international governance, imposed if necessary by an international force for five years
- During these five years a new constitution and supervised elections shall be imposed while every attempt is made to restore order. The constitution can later be modified by a two third majority of the elected representatives and the country shall be handed back at the end of these five years but the next two elections shall also take place under supervision
When refugees pour out in large numbers from a country, it is no longer an internal matter of that country alone.
This is only the initial draft for discussion. It may be finalized after debate. An appropriate forum for such a debate is the general assembly of United nations. If approved by a majority of two third members it may then be sent forth to the security council with the condition that a veto shall not apply but a majority decision prevail.
The only alternative to a new law as described here and termed as PHICS for the world is to host millions of refugees from disturbed countries and in the long run create disturbance in their own countries
Details of such a law may be finalized after debate in the security council of UN or even a new international body if necessary. The leading powers of the world must come together to act on these suggestion if they are interested in shouldering their responsibility towards humanity. Even a small country that has the love of humans at heart can ask for such a debate to take place in the general assembly of the United Nations.
Some may question if other countries can be taken over. Why not? In the past some of the leading countries of the world colonized several other countries beginning with a small force. They still have that expertise with them. Why not today? However, this colonization would be for a humanitarian purpose, for specified periods and by a conglomerate of other countries in the world, not any one country or power alliance, a conglomeration in which Russia and China can be as much in partnership as UK and USA besides other countries of the world. The Americans have shown how to do this sort of thing in days, not weeks during the Iraq-Kuwait invasion of August 1991
In the past when many less developed countries of the world were colonized by a few for their self interest, they did it with enthusiasm. The suffering world does not expect similar enthusiasm for a humanitarian cause but the tears of a sweet little child, nay thousands such, with broken arms and legs, driven out of their homes by foul poison and raging fires, crying beside an unconscious mother and bleeding father beg for it. Hushed voices respond that it is not our problem; we are not responsible for it. Lone voices from the depths question, Is it so? how about some human values instead?
Dark Clouds over Syria, Oil on Canvas by Ashok
The new law may be called the Protocol for Humanitarian International Colonisation and Supervision (PHICS) or be given any other name but it is a necessity. It is very tragic that while such tragedies take place, investigations, debates and so on take place as to what is right or wrong and who is responsible for what. It is fine to send in UN teams to investigate and debate about that but that must not delay or prevent what needs to be done first. While all that can go on there should be no argument about intervention by the world as soon as it is ascertained that a massive tragedy has taken place for an extended period of time involving innocent children, vulnerable mothers and common citizens. While there can be debates about who has done it, there can be none about the fact of the tragedy such as one that is taking place in Syria at the time of this writing. Concluding that millions have been forced out of their home requires no investigation. Miss Marple or a UN team can be sent in to find that out in relaxed times when what really needs to be done has been done. That debate must not distract our attention from the suffering that is being perpetuated. Just for a moment imagine them as your own child or mother and decide whether it is more important to investigate who did it or provide action for immediate relief first. When the distress of our fellow humans is ignored ours too shall be one day.
When persons injured in a road accident are found bleeding in the middle of the road or beside it, sensible humans provide relief to the injured first and do not ignore them to engage in an investigation of who was responsible for it. When accidents take place on that road daily on a continuous basis for an extended period of time it is imperative that those who have been unable to manage the situation on the road are replaced with others who can.
Some may argue that it is good to uphold the principle of non-interference in the affairs of other countries but is that principle more important or the principle of saving the lives and relieving the distress of humans that are no different from our children, mothers and brothers, when it takes place on such a massive scale? Some argue that such an intervention, when it involves military action would lead to violence. Indeed avoiding violence is the first step of evolution for humanity, but it has to be used in order to protect oneself and other humans one cares for from violence. That is the only circumstance where it may be justified. Human consciousness must expand, at least in its moral and legal framework to view all humans on the planet as oneself.
CONCLUSION: Howsoever simple and logical the ideas of this note may seem the author is not very hopeful that the Syrian and other such conflicts in the world would be solved in a hurry. The reason for this may be vested interests fueled by greed that profit from conflicts such as the arms manufacturers. Some ask if such evil greed is possible? If it was not so, an unimaginable concentration of world wealth in a few hands would not have been possible.
UPDATE: September 11, 2013 Whenever a question of dislodging an existing government comes, even a bad one, the question of what happens later arises. Would there be peace or Mayhem later? The present proposal of PHICS takes care of that situation later in the best possible way feasible. As regards Syria, there is not enough time to get the world together for installing PHICS, but a start could be made by a few countries coming together to try it e.g Qatar, Turkey, USA and France. It will be a demonstration of how it works as a prelude to similar measures as required anywhere on the planet.
PEACE IN IRAQ: The author has also written passionately about Peace in Iraq earlier with suggestions that have sadly been ignored and the unfortunate situation unfolded as the author predicted years ago. For a summary of these please check the Facebook note here: https://www.facebook.com/notes/malhotra-ashok/peace-in-iraq-and-syria-too/705100519505599