Introduction

International non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have issued a number of statements on the planned military response to the extensive use of chemical weapons in Syria. While claiming to provide moral perspectives, their statements demonstrate that these groups are largely irrelevant, with little to contribute in a meaningful public discussion.

The weak statements are reminiscent of their non-existent human rights campaigns on Syria in the decade before the outbreak of violence two years ago. Instead of emphasizing systematic abuses, NGOs such as Human Rights Watch (HRW) soft-pedaled the Assad regime’s violations – and the same was true in HRW’s activities regarding Qaddafi’s Libya.

A statement from Amnesty International USA (AIUSA), “Military Strikes in Syria Cannot Bring Justice” (August 31, 2013) exemplifies the current irrelevance.  After over the 1,400 people were reportedly killed in a chemical attack, this once powerful organization could only predict “a prolonged humanitarian emergency.” Aside from calling for more aid to manage the crisis, AIUSA provides no realistic solutions. It farcically suggests deploying “international monitors to investigate and report on human rights abuses” in order to end the “climate of impunity.” AIUSA does not explain why it believes the Assad regime, which has blatantly flouted “international norms of justice” for years, would change as a result.

Other NGOs, such as Christian Aid (UK), directly opposed to a military response, arguing that “We believe that a political solution is the only way to achieve lasting peace for the Syrian people… An escalation in military engagement within Syria will worsen an already precarious humanitarian situation; leading to more civilian casualties and further destruction of infrastructure.” It remains to be seen whether Christian Aid will change its approach if the parties continue to refuse to “negotiate a peaceful resolution.”

Similarly, Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF – Doctors Without Borders) released a statement (“Syria: MSF statements should not be used to justify military action,” August 28, 2013) in an attempt to disassociate itself from calls for a military attack on Syria: “MSF today warned that its medical information could not be used as evidence to certify the precise origin of the exposure to a neurotoxic agent nor to attribute responsibility.”

Human Rights Watch (HRW) issued a “Statement on Possible Intervention in Syria” (August 28), without substance, merely noting that the NGO “does not take a position advocating or opposing such intervention, but any armed intervention should be judged by how well it protects all Syrian civilians from further atrocities.” After repeating principles of the laws of armed conflict, HRW returned to its ongoing campaign on the International Criminal Court: “the Security Council should refer the situation in Syria to the International Criminal Court” – an impractical aspiration given the “repeated vetoes of Russia and China.”

Excerpts from NGO statements

Amnesty International USA, “Military Strikes in Syria Cannot Bring Justice,” August 31, 2013

“Amnesty International renews our call for the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to refer the situation to the International Criminal Court (ICC), to impose an arms embargo on the Syrian government, and to deploy international monitors to investigate and report on human rights abuses.
A climate of impunity will only embolden those on all sides who have shown disregard for international norms of justice that evolved from the darkest periods of human history. Long term, the best way for the United States to signal its abhorrence for war crimes and crimes against humanity and to promote justice in Syria, would be to reaffirm its support for the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court. Tragically, the conflict in Syria shows no signs of abating. The international community should prepare for a prolonged humanitarian emergency.”

Christian Aid, “Escalating military conflict in Syria: civilians will pay the price,” August 29, 2013

“We believe that a political solution is the only way to achieve lasting peace for the Syrian people. We urge the UK Government, and the international community to work through the UN to bring all parties to the table at the Syria peace talks in Geneva and negotiate a peaceful resolution.”
An escalation in military engagement within Syria will worsen an already precarious humanitarian situation; leading to more civilian casualties and further destruction of infrastructure.  It has the potential to jeopardise humanitarian access without bringing an end to the conflict any closer.”

Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF – Doctors Without Borders), “Syria: MSF statements should not be used to justify military action,” August 28, 2013

“the US Administration and other governmental authorities have referred to reports from several agencies, including Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders (MSF), while stating that the use of chemical weapons in Syria was ‘undeniable’ and to designate the perpetrators. MSF today warned that its medical information could not be used as evidence to certify the precise origin of the exposure to a neurotoxic agent nor to attribute responsibility.”

“Now that an investigation is underway by UN inspectors, MSF rejects that our statement be used as a substitute for the investigation or as a justification for military action.”

Human Rights Watch, “Statement on Possible Intervention in Syria,” August 28, 2013

“Human Rights Watch does not take a position advocating or opposing such intervention, but any armed intervention should be judged by how well it protects all Syrian civilians from further atrocities.”

“If there is a military intervention, all warring parties must strictly adhere to the laws of war.”

“Quite apart from any military intervention, the Security Council should refer the situation in Syria to the International Criminal Court so that those implicated in serious violations of international law can be appropriately prosecuted, and should implement targeted sanctions against such individuals.”