Houla Massacre: Time to rejig the extant World Order?

The cold blooded murder of 108 people in the central Syrian village of Houla is an outrage. A ‘response’ to an attack on an army picket, the Houla massacre is an eerie echo of the Hama massacre where hundreds of Syrians were murdered at the behest of Hafez Al Assad. The context and the background however were different but the impulse more or less the same.  The Houla massacre comes amidst the background of the Arab Spring while as the Hama massacre was premised on the desire of the Assad regime to crush its Islamist opponents. The Houla massacre raises a whole host of questions and issues that has both domestic and international ramifications.

At the domestic level, it reflects the jitteriness of the Assad regime and its attendant need to stay in power by taking recourse to  disproportionate force,  disarray among the ‘rebels’ and  their inability to forge a coherent response to the regime. At the level of international politics, the Houla massacre reflects the dated power structures of the post World War II wherein the veto power held by China and Russia shields the Assad regime, the force and durability of the Westphalian construct of sovereignty-another shield under which dictators like Assad hide and murder their own people- and the dilution of military intervention and tepidity of the western response.

 Another issue that may also come under the broad rubric of the international response to the Syrian condition is the lack of condemnation of the Assad regimes brutality against its own citizens wherein fellow Muslims and killing Muslims in cold blood. In a different context, if the perpetrators of the massacres had been non Muslims, the Muslim world would have been up in arms and seething with rage and anger. This double standard and hypocrisy may be one of the most glaring contradiction that stares the Muslim world in its face.

Cumulatively, these sets of conditions point out to a world wherein drastic change is required. This change is warranted to save human life and improve the human condition. No dictator or regime should even think of harassing , let alone murdering its own citizens and flout the rules of international law.  Bringing about this condition calls for far reaching changes in international relations and politics and these are nothing short of revolutionary. The first and foremost change to be brought about is in the structure of international politics. It is perhaps about time that the UN structure is changed and veto power accorded to democracies like India, Brazil and Germany. This will align the contemporary distribution of power with extant reality and countries like China and Russia will not then be able to shield odious dictators like Assad. Concomitantly, the Responsility to Protect (R2P) formulation needs to be strengthened and accorded teeth.

This can perhaps only be done by a vigorous consensus within the West about the need to   in thrall and at the mercy of vicious dictators and regimes. This implies that the west introspect and think deep about its moral and ethical obligations towards humanity. A word of prudence is necessary here: this obligation is not the equivalent of the ‘white man’s burden’ but accrues from the very nature of the west: a set of principles and philosophies about man, society and the economy which place human rights and dignity at their centre. If the west shies away from the responsibilities and duties these entail, it amounts to nothing but disaster for humanity.

Here it is the doyen and the lodestar of the west, the United States that should take the lead. It should lead from the front and build a consensus over military intervention in the 21st century in cases like the one in contention. This would, among other things , set a precedent and make regimes and dictators like Assad think twice before taking recourse to mass and massive repression.

Last, it is about time that the Muslim world shakes itself out of its torpor and the hypocrisy that defines it. Mass murder is mass murder regardless of the nature and identity of the perpetrator(s). And it not only needs to be condemned in the strongest possible term but also concerted and collective action be taken against the perpetrator especially if he/she is a Muslim. Both morality and common sense warrant it. It is sheer hypocrisy to condemn the United States for its alleged hostility towards the Muslim world or protest against Israeli actions in Palestine and maintain a stolid silence when even more gruesome acts of wanton cruelty and murder are perpetrated by fellow Muslims. The need for introspection is even more poignant and strong in the Muslim world.

  

In concert and in unison, action on these fronts identified in this monograph should potentially lead to a changed and different world order-the kind that is responsive to the current world disorder. It is incumbent upon all to mull and introspect and come up with solutions that not only pre-empt gory massacres like the  Houla one but also pre-empt them. And it is again on the west that responsibility largely falls.  The health, strength and vitality of the westis indispensable to world order, peace and respect for human rights. It is therefore time that the west led by the United  States rises to the occasion and come to the help of the hapless victims of power and depravity.