Conflict in Syria; part II

Following my previous comments on the conflict in Syria;

I have a different concept as to how certain international circumstances should be dealt with by the international community.  It's a concept, a thought, a direction to consider.

Take the following examples:  Hafez Al-Assad followed by his son - Bashar Al-Assad, both of Syria; Moammar Khadafi former leader of Libya; Saddam Hussein of Iraq.  These are the most significant and well known examples that I think of.  Hafez Al-Assad in power from 1971 – 2000 upon his death, followed his son, Bashar, currently in power.  These are both “Leaders” of a sovereign nation who are known by the international community to have committed large scale atrocities including voluminous murders and torture on large numbers of the population of their country. 

However, neither of these two are or ever were  “Legitimate” leaders of their country!  They were/are dictators; having unjustly attained power.  While Syria and other countries should be considered as sovereign nations; an illegitimate “leader” of a sovereign nation, does not attain the status of the “Leader of a sovereign nation” – they are illegitimate.  The nation is sovereign, they are not.  An illegitimate ‘dictator’ of a sovereign nation, who, abuses the power that has been usurped in their favor, and conducts murders, torture and other atrocities in order to hold onto power, is in violation of “Crimes against Humanity” and probably even “War Crimes.”

In these two and other cases when it is known among the international community that they are guilty of using the country’s military in attacking, murdering and torture of innocent and helpless civilians; they should be then considered as war criminals. 

They have no claim as the “Leader of a Sovereign Nation” because they are not; they are not legitimate, and have no protection as leader of a sovereign nation. 

Their status is that of “war criminal” and one who is guilty of committing ‘crimes against humanity.’

With this being the case, then they have no protection as a sovereign leader of a sovereign nation; and should be subject to apprehension and justice under international laws. 

If the U.S. and other countries think that the actions of Bashar Al-Assad in using his military against the citizens of that country are unacceptable, and believe that he should not be allowed to continue, then, I believe that under international law, as interpreted through international courts and possibly coordinated through the United Nations, the offender should himself be apprehended. 

With the circumstances as they are in Syria, the U.S., Great Brittan and possibly other countries are considering arming the civilian rebels who are fighting the Assad Government forces, in order to provide a more realistic balance of power and affording them a ‘fighting chance.’  In my thinking, although this would be considered well intended, and/or, better than nothing; I think that it’s not the best option by a long shot.  Doing this, expands the ability of one side to conduct war on the other, while the other side, already has significant power.  Among the people who will die and/or be injured in these actions are numerous innocent and basically helpless civilians; and/or, soldiers who may or may not be personally in support of Al-Assad. 

Following this, the apprehension, taking-out of Al-Assad which should easily be considered legitimate by the international community, would be far and away the best resolution and provide the least casualties. 

Following this, it is up to the people of Syria to form a legitimate government.  The country/people of Syria would be advised of the status of Al-Assad as an international criminal subject to apprehension by the international community.  If Syria is to be considered a sovereign nation, then it is not the place of another country to determine their status or leadership; following the removal of an illegitimate dictator.  The dictator is the offender, he is responsible, offer him the opportunity to surrender, then if not, take him out, with as little damage as possible to the non-responsible civilians or soldiers as mentioned earlier. 

I believe that the circumstances concerning Moammar Khadafi former leader of Libya and Saddam Hussein of Iraq, could have and should have been considered under the same criteria.  Especially considring the case of Saddam Hussein of Iraq, there could have been incredible differences in the number of people who had to die or be injured in order to complete what has been referred to as ‘regime change.’    

This would be far and away preferred to the possibility of further conflict within Syria between civilians and the Govt, especially considering the potential for larger/regional/global conflict as I believe should be  considered, as stated in my post of June 13^th, preceding this.

If there are no provisions under international law and or provided by the United Nations, then they should be implemented.   

For the sake of argument; if any of the individuals mentioned above, or any one else who ever comes under similar circumstances has or had in fact been legitimately elected by their country; even if so, once they have committed the atrocities, murders, etc…, as mentioned above, they have given up their status as a legitimate leader of a sovereign nation.