As the Syrian crisis continues, we hear more and more direct calls to arm the rebels. The idea is clear — the more weapons the opposition forces have the sooner the Syrian government will fall. These self-styled “Friends of Syria” seem to have already decided that this idea will be good for the country, regardless of the opinions of Syrians themselves.
Those who call for sending more weapons to the rebels must know that such actions will inevitably lead to a further escalation of the conflict and to new deaths. This reminds one of an old and dubious saying, “the worse, the better.” But will arming the rebels indeed be better?
World history gives us plenty of evidence to prove that peaceful evolution is better than bloody revolution, that it is easier to stir up violence than to put an end to it. Why should this prove any different in Syria?
Those who call to arm the insurgents also seem to believe that the principles of international law and of the United Nations Charter can be replaced by political expediency. We have already witnessed such a situation during the NATO-led operation in Libya, when the countries that supported the arms embargo and even undertook the responsibility to implement it were at the same time delivering arms to opponents of Muammar el-Qaddafi’s regime. They did not even deny doing so, as if the contradiction in policy was something trivial. Their argument was that “evil” should be fought by any possible means, regardless of international law or their own commitments.
Apparently the Libyan “success” looks encouraging to some, a temptation to bypass United Nations Security Council. This is a dangerous precedent. In other parts of the world, certain countries may be itching to use the same methods to achieve their goals. If one nation may do it, why can’t others do it too?
We have to remember — breaking single agreements, ignoring basic principles, or abandoning concordant decisions unavoidably leads to destruction of the whole system of international law. Sometimes it is not easy to find mutually acceptable solutions, but honoring our international commitments and following the rule of law is the only way to keep our world stable and secure.
We must not forget another point. When providing weapons to one force or faction, you cannot be sure that they will not someday be directed against you. In order to stop the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, certain countries sent arms shipments and trained insurgents. Just a decade later, those “freedom fighters” showed their true face. Some are now the avowed enemies of the very countries that helped empower them. And now the efforts of the entire world community are needed to fight the evil of international terrorism.
Russia’s message is clear. Any dispute should be settled by peaceful, political means. Pouring oil on the flames of internal conflicts or other “simple” solutions that violate international law will only lead to a destructive chain reaction. Once opened, this Pandora’s box will be impossible to close.
Nikolai Korchunov is the acting permanent representative of Russia to NATO.