Doing what is right

The legal word estoppel, in layman language, means that a party that is wrong cannot benefit from the wrong act of another party over the same issue.

This principle of law applies to the situations of Iraq and Syria after US President Barack Obama’s declaration of war on the Islamic State, and his hint that air strikes against IS forces would not be confined to Iraq but could also expand to Syria. 

Both Moscow and Damascus immediately cried foul and argued that any air strike against IS in Syria without Damascus’ permission or coordination would amount to a grave violation of international law in regards to Syria’s sovereignty.

Such criticisms would have been more valid had Russia and Syria come forward with “clean hands”, another legal maxim that applies in this instance as well.

The Russian performance and interventions in Ukraine, and its annexation of Crimea, is not in conformity with international law.

Before criticising US’ and its allies’ supposed violations in Syria, for bombing IS forces in this Arab country, Russia must demonstrate that it itself complies with international law and respects the sovereignty of other countries.

Having blocked any effective action by the UN Security Council on the Syrian civil war through the use of, or the threat to use, its veto power for well over three years, Moscow has contributed to the creation of an environment favourable to the rise of extremism and terrorism.

Damascus is also estopped from bringing the international law argument on two counts.

Arguably the some 200,0000 Syrians who were killed in Syria, the nearly a million who were injured, the indiscriminate destruction of the country, the millions of Syrians who became internally displaced and dispossessed, and the nearly 3 million Syrian refugees in neighbouring countries were, in part at least, the responsibility of the Syrian government.

All these grave human rights violations, together with the thousands of cases of extrajudicial executions and arbitrary detentions, for which Damascus can also be held partly accountable, do not entitle the Syrian government to charge that the US intends to violate international law. 

Damascus does not come with clean hands either. 

Over and above all these arguments and submissions, IS targets considered by the US for its air strikes are actually on Syrian territory.

In de facto terms, arguably Syria has no longer control over the swathe of land that is occupied by IS and can, therefore, be bombed with impunity.

Bombing the Syrian areas under IS occupation would be no different from bombing hostile targets in the Golan Heights, which are under Israeli occupation from Damascus’ perspective.

Ideally, Syrian government force and the moderate Syrian opposition should now get together to combat their common enemy, IS.

This would require a historic reconciliation between the two sides.

After nearly four years of bloodshed and destruction, the two sides should strike a conciliatory deal to end the plight of the Syrian people.