New Internationalism

The council was created "precisely to prevent the biggest powers, the strongest powers, from going to war, partly against each other but in general to restrain them," said Phyllis Bennis, director of the New Internationalism Project at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington.

"From that vantage point, the so-called deadlock of the council, the refusal to endorse war, is exactly what the UN role should be," she said.

There are essentially three wars being fought in Syria right now. There is a war between the armed opposition, some of which, but not all of which, is being supported by the original democratic, nonviolent opposition in Syria against a repressive regime.

RT: The Red Cross and other experts are saying the situation in Syria has descended into full-scale civil war. How does that affect the positions of the US, the positions of the West versus the position of other countries?

Phyllis Bennis: So far we have seen no indication that either the US or any of the outside actors are taking seriously the consequences of the determination by the International Committee of the Red Cross that it is a full-scale civil war. What it means, among other things, is that the international laws of war what’s known as international humanitarian law applied throughout the region and it applies to the opposition as well as to the regime. They are obligated under the conditions of international law not to use certain kinds of weapons, not to attack civilians, not to hold prisoners without some kind of process. All of those things are part of international humanitarian law and we have seen no evidence yet that any of the outside actors are taking any of that seriously. 

"Putting this all on Al Qaeda as if it’s separate from the legacy of what the U.S. left behind in Iraq is a big mistake," said Phyllis Bennis, a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies.

The idea that the U.S. should have stayed in Iraq longer remains hotly disputed. Far from preventing such attacks by keeping troops in place, the U.S. actually planted the seeds of sectarianism during the war, said Phyllis Bennis, a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies.  

"This would have happened if the U.S. pulled out earlier or in another 10 years," Bennis said. "What we left behind in Iraq was raw sectarian identity that is playing out in absolutely brutal ways."

Nathan Thrall raises crucial issues about the failures of the "peace process." But he does not mention two critical points.

The loudest chant in Tahrir Square remains "Down, down with military rule!" Many protesters in the Square have already announced their intention to remain in Tahrir once again, reprising the 18 days of the spring uprising, until the SCAF has transferred real power to the elected civilian government. Until that happens, the status of Egypt's revolutionary transformation remains precarious, active, and unfinished. It is a reminder that no part of the Arab Spring is yet a finished revolution. These are revolutionary processes, still contested and still in formation. Revolutionary times, indeed.