I suppose the usual suspects must be lathering themselves into a frenzy of self-righteous incandescence at the thought that the UK could become involved in Syria.
Leaving aside for the moment the fact that we are involved already, since those being shot, bombed, tortured and/or gassed are our fellow-humans and not some kind of alien garbage, there is the interesting question of “legality”.
What in fact makes a “legal” government? Suppose that the BNP staged a coup in Britain and after a brief period of brutal confusion emerged in total control of the country, having murdered or imprisoned all resistance? Would it then become “the legal government” of Britain? This after all seems to be the usual yardstick for a large number of the UN members. The Assad family-dynasty despotage is usually recognized as the “legal” government of Syria, yet holds power only through brute force, including mass-murder.
Apart from the mass-murder aspect in most countries, the same is true for almost all the Middle East, except ironically Palestine. It is of course true for China, Iran, Cuba, North Korea and multiple other states, including, for example, Gabon, which has a pretence of democracy even though power has been in the hands of a single family for nearly half a century, during which they have controlled the military, the finances and the judiciary, making it hardly surprising that people vote for them “democratically”. Just as with the Labour Party in Britain they effectively bribe people (with their own money) to vote for them.
It is of course all utter bollocks. Who in their right mind would consider the BNP as legitimate rulers of Britain in the circumstances described above, and yet this is what is done elsewhere.
“You have seized power by force, murdered all the opposition, placed your people into all positions of power and thus exercise totalitarian control of your country? Well done. We now recognize you as the legitimate government of your state. Welcome to the family of nations.”
As I said, total bollocks. No, the ONLY way a regime can claim legitimacy is through a free, fair and openly democratic election, which of course totally includes the entire Syriano-Iranian-Russo-Chinese et friends axis of fascist nastiness.
Logically, it CANNOT therefore be illegal to wage war on an illegal regime, and thus the long-drawn-out debate about this which is about to take place is ridiculous, though it will be used by the nationalists to keep Britain out of any involvement and allow the above-mentioned axis to wipe out all opposition. Except of course that the US has now gone too far in its statements and has to act to retain any sort of credibility.
“nationalists”? The argument of the usual suspects amounts to: “You can shoot, bomb and/or gas all your own people, indeed anyone you like, provided you don’t do it to OUR people.” How selfishly nationalistic is THAT?
There will NEVER be peace on earth until the free world (what little there is of it) refuses to accept dictatorships. You’d think the UN would make a start on this, but as is clear, a big part of the UN actually COMPRISES dictatorships. Therefore, the idea that only the UN can legitimize the defence of the defenceless is morally and logically idiotic, with Russia and Chine for a start having a power of veto. The UN should in fact be reconstituted and true democracy become a requirement for membership. As it stands now, it is all an utter sham.
Nobody “wants” to become “involved” in Syria, but the alternative is to send a message to despots that they can mass-murder our fellow-humans with impunity in order to hang onto their illegitimate regimes.
The free nations cannot do EVERYTHING to bring down dictatorships, but doing NOTHING would be morally wrong.