On choosing one's response

It's difficult to believe that so many European states are still taking Bushco's word on so many issues. But consider these respective responses to the U.N.'s report on the assassination of Rafik Hariri.

Hariri's son wants to see the perpetrators brought to justice through an international tribunal:

Hariri, who had demanded the UN probe into his father's killing, called for an international tribunal to try the alleged killers.

"Reaching justice presents the Arab and international community with additional responsibilities that prompt us to urge them to continue all aspects of the investigation in the crime and refer it to an international court that is capable of punishing the criminals," he said.

"We do not seek revenge. We seek justice," he said.

Sounds to me like an eminently reasonable request. But for Bushco, the response was a bit different: never mind the people directly responsible, let's punish Syrians in general instead:

The United States, Britain and France are preparing to ask the United Nations next week to impose sanctions on Mr. Assad's government in the wake of a damning UN report that pointed to Syrian complicity in the Feb. 14 bombing that killed Mr. Hariri and 20 others.

Of course, we should be familiar with the ultimate effect of sanctions: whatever government assets get frozen abroad, the cost is passed along to its citizens. Meaning that however much the Syrian government was responsible (and presumably its own members hold varying degrees of responsibility in any event), it'll be the general public in Syria that loses out the most. One more step in Bush's brilliant battle for hearts and minds.

In fairness, France is seeking a more reasonable scope for the threatened sanctions (demanding only justice for those responsible as well as Syria's commitment not to meddle further in Lebanon). But the U.S. also wants to condemn Syria for defending its own border on Iraq, since apparently U.S. incursions into the country haven't gone as smoothly as planned. And when any state goes into talks with the U.S. as to how to present a "united front" before the Security Council, there shouldn't be much doubt as to who will set the terms of that front.

Meaning that as with the initial Iraq invasion, the U.S. is using the aftermath of one event which demanded accountability to try to impose its will on completely unrelated issues. It's far beyond me why any other country is still willing to play along with such charades, rather than listening to those closest to the victim in their calls for justice rather than vengeance.