Alliances and intrigues on the morality of sanctions

Return holiday travel paid by the taxpayer – how many would have been gleefully reaching for the brochures to see how far away they could have been when the Cameron call came?

But having been marshalled into the absurd theatre of catcalls and bombast, how suddenly did it dawn that they were indeed to be faced with the dilemma of examining their consciences and concentrating on fundamental questions of moral and political decision making?

It was a case of out of the sunshine into the spotlight, and the result proved as unexpected as it was politically inconvenient for the outmanoeuvred government front bench.

The United Kingdom parliament declared that it was not ready to sign up to military action against Syria – or more specifically the regime in Damascus – in the aftermath of shocking scenes that chemical agents had been used on civilians amid the carnage of its relentless civil war. Depending on whose interpretation best suits your own, it was either a victory for common sense or a dereliction of resolve.

Many breathed a sigh of relief, because at that stage, having first drawn his so-called red line against deployment of such weapons, the US president had appeared reluctant to follow up his own threats. So it had fallen to Mr Cameron and his hard-headed Foreign Minister to don the uniform of global police officers and raise the international clarion call.

However, while the debate raged in the UK, the White House also appeared keen to blink and offer the burden of responsibility for endorsing military action on the people’s representatives in Congress.

Britain might have taken heart to watch its closest alliance plot a similar course. But no, after the initial wobble in the Rose Garden, the mood in Washington toughened, and suddenly, on this side of the Atlantic at least, the mourners were queuing up for the funeral of the special relationship, tinged, it has to be said, with a large dose of enmity over the spectacle of an opportunistic François Hollande, mired in domestic derision, eagerly attaching the French tricolour to Uncle Sam’s puppy leash.

So the world’s leaders find themselves in a deeply uncomfortable position. You’re damned if you do, but you’re derided if you don’t. So many agendas to satisfy, with the potential to fulfil none.

Predictably, the G20 summit meeting provided nothing more than a tetchy punctuation point. There was little attempt to explore or promote anything but the reinforcement of self-interest and prejudice.

At the time of writing, there is indeed an ominous hiatus while UN inspectors prepare their report on what toxic material was deployed, though because of their limited mandate, they will shed no official light on those responsible for the outrage.

Nevertheless, there will be many who will hope that the mere threat of retaliation will be enough to scare the custodians of such vile instruments of warfare to keep their zips fastened. Moreover, the longer the debate on military action rumbles on, the more the realisation of its ghastly consequences will stay the hands poised to unleash it.

There certainly appears little appetite for punitive military strikes among civilian populations with the freedom to express their opinions. Religious and respected military advice is urging caution. As Colin Powell told President Bush before the US launched its onslaught on Iraq: ‘It’s the rules of the pottery barn – you pay for what you break.’

AND what of the civilians who will have the sky fall on them if this limited surgical slap on the wrists is launched? What we do know is that the suffering being inflicted upon Syria’s population is, in the words of the UN Refugee Agency, ‘the worst crisis of the 21st century.’

It is on their behalf that the plea to prevent this mess becoming an even greater disaster is made. Frankly, blowing up an apartment block filled with civilians or unleashing chemical agents becomes academic in the context of the atrocities reported on both sides. Any talk of ‘red lines’ serves only to trivialise international judgment and blunts the morality of imposing sanctions.

Furthermore, it smacks as a lame excuse to label one side a worse villain than the other. As the Balkan War demonstrated only too vividly, each side was perfectly capable of implicating the other when it came to manipulating the propaganda war.

The problem is that we live in a world where everyone now watches each other.

The soundbite grandstand has replaced the quiet intrigue of smoke-filled rooms. Had today’s intrusive 24-hour news culture been the medium of the day, I wonder whether the subtle diplomacy that averted the Cuban missile crisis from becoming World War Three could ever have been possible.

Politicians – as opposed to salesmen – feel they need to be seen taking a stand, even if in the fullness of time the majority of today’s overblown rhetoric becomes the dust of tomorrow’s discredited memoires.

So now, from the brink, comes the evidence that the unspecified threats of military strikes may indeed be more powerful than weapons themselves. The glimmer of hope of an international agreement to remove and secure Syria’s chemical stocks out of the hands of the belligerents could, at the last moment, diffuse one potential flashpoint.

It won’t, of course, solve the vicious internecine barbarism on the ground, but away from the conflict it will at least promote a sigh of relief through the capitals of the reluctant, the reckless and the confused, and even rescue some political reputations – until the next time.