Last night CNN reported that over 200 Syrian protesters were killed and hundreds more injured in what was the by far the bloodiest day since protests began. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's has labeled the protesters as, "armed criminal groups" and "thugs." So far the only armed criminal group appears to be the Syrian Government. Syria is going through a very similar situation that we saw with Libya when opposition groups who opposed Moammar Gadhafi tried to overthrow the brutal dictator. Actually there isn't much of a difference in terms of the actions by both regimes, heavy force against the people which seems to be unrelenting. According to the Syrian opposition the number of people killed in a little over 15 months since the opposition began, is a staggering 7,398. The number of civilian deaths in the Libya opposition was between 5,000 and 7,000 with some estimates being over 12,000. Clearly almost identical situations between both regimes and its people. During the Libyan conflict the United States worked with the UN to impose an internal naval blockade, establish a no-fly zone and take military action (air support only) in the name of protecting the Libyan people. That resulted in the eventual topple of the Gadhafi regime along with his capture and death shortly after. However, with Syria the Obama administration has been rather apathetic. While President Obama has condemned the the violence "in the strongest possible terms" the US has only sought to increase the pressure on the Syrian regime in a targeted way. That has amounted to simply talk thus far. I find it very that strange that there has been very little involvement from both the UN and US. There has been extensive journalistic reporting from Syria from various international news sources, all documentation points to clear human rights violations.Yet UN and US intervention remains non existent. Personally I don't believe the United States needs to have a hand in every international conflict. We are conducting way too much nation building and have been for many years, but if we're going to vigorously help the Libyan people in the name of human rights than how come we stay silent with Syria? I'm interested in hearing your thoughts and opinions.
An interesting pathway to explore in this issue would be the US's perspective or the Obama administration's rationale for the policy that has been sketched out. What is our plan of action, what is our position? what are we actually doing? what do we say we are doing? You have sketched out recent events in Syria but to get a clear idea we need to trace the events as they have happened and add as much historical information surrounding those events as possible. We might take this from a different perspective as well -- we might look at what are the interests of the US or the UN or of Syria and try to interpret what each party has done in terms of the benefits/risks of that party.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThat's a good point you brought up, I did a little more research and discovered that the US as of now is looking to solve this through a diplomatic approach. The UN Security Council's efforts to support a political transition, in which the Syrian President would resign and give power to a "deputy" that would set up a general election, was blocked by Russia and China. The US has stated there is a "Plan B" The US is considering exploring options that would put pressure on Syrian allies to impose sanctions, including halting the sale of new weapons. We have also pulled all of our diplomats out of Syria but will maintain all of our interests and contacts, including the Syrian opposition. In Libya, a UN resolution supported the use of all necessary means possible (military intervention) to help the Libyan people overthrow the Gadhafi regime, but Russia and China vetoed such a plan with Syria siting security concerns. To me the US does not want to damage any relations with China or Russia, a "plan B" in my estimation would include support from those two countries. There is also an option of the UN General Assembly that would overrule the Security Council vote by a two-thirds majority vote, called Resolution 377. Maybe that's the US's "Plan B" or C? Either way it seems getting support from Russia and China is in the best interest of the US.
Delete