Clinton: "Friends of Syria" must unite to stop Russia, China "blockading" progress
The question, explains CBS News State Department correspondent Margaret Brennan, is whether Russia and China will finally and completely sever the financial lifeline which is keeping Assad in power. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has said they've essentially given Assad a free pass by failing to implement sanctions and continuing to import Syrian oil.
What should foreign powers do about conflicts in sovereign states? Should they get involved at all?
I hate to say it, but if the sanctions the U.N. has placed on Syria "have done little to stop the bloodshed," it may be time for the U.S. to physically oust Assad in a similar manner to Saddam Hussein. Senators John McCain, Joe Lieberman, and Lindsey Graham have already voiced their opinion on how this could proceed. Let's all just hope that this crisis can be solved quickly so that no more lives are lost. - Jeremy McMillan
ReplyDeleteOf course, there's always the possibility of more bloodshed once the intervention starts.
DeleteI partly agree with Jeremy - many countries would benefit if they were to monetarily (at least) assist the rebels in Syria, mostly because of the oil. As oil prices surge all over the world, it would be a worthwhile investment for any nation. However, foreign powers should be confident enough for the rebels' victory and should not put themselves too deep into the situation, as what happened in Vietnam, such that it would be a monumental task to set up the democracy. Yes, the NATO should be more proactive in this war, but no, it doesn't mean we should invest ALL of our resources. We should take it step by step and observe whether our steps are positively affecting the situation or not. Vishal Ravi
ReplyDeleteOut of curiosity, what is the middle ground? If NATO is going to go in, and sanctions haven't done the job, what options are there?
DeleteThis past, and present, Arab spring has left much of the Middle East in turmoil or unrest. I believe that although the situation is grave in Syria, individual countries shall not involve themselves. The philosophy of being "the world's police" has been used heavily in the United States and has pushed us into World War I, and other wars since then. NATO and the UN should, however, be utilized further as an obvious united front against Syria in an effort to cease the bloodshed and chaos. "Ousting" Assad may lead the U.S. into yet another war, and will leave Syria in the same state as Iraq is in presently -Sasha Galbreath
ReplyDeleteVery good points, Sasha. Of course, there's always the possibility that Syria could collapse into a failed state and yet another breeding ground for terrorism.
DeleteI whole heatedly agree with Jeremy, sanctions may have been a decent idea at the start of the conflict when it was low intensity and a few people were killed in riots and protests here and there but know that the death toll is above 15,000 (maybe even more depending on who you ask) the time for diplomatic and peaceful negotiations is over. The U.S and it's allies should not tolerate countries like Russia fueling this brutal massacre with arms sales or countries like China defending the regime. A military security force is needed to enter Syria, oust Assad and his government and facilitate the change to a different government. Along with the deaths of so many innocent people there are other risks associated with this conflict such as the vast chemical and biological weapon stockpiles Syria possesses falling into the hands of a group like Hezbollah in Lebanon who will not hesitate to use it against the U.S or Israel.
ReplyDelete-Ben Shemony
DeleteI agree with Sasha, it is for the UN to assist Syria, not individual countries. We would still be helping Syria indirectly because we provide people power and capital to assist the UN, so it isn't as though we are turning a blind eye to all the killing in Syria. In addition, as of 2011, the Arab league was still working towards a peaceful resolution, so it might be counterproductive to start intervening and sending troops. So in conclusion states should support organizations like the UN to end conflicts in foreign states, not act as individuals.
Delete-Feddi Roth
oops sorry I meant to comment not reply
DeleteBen: Good points. But who should lead this force? NATO? A UN peacekeeping force? A coalition of Arab states?
DeleteFeddi: Good points. This tends to be the norm nowadays: multilateral intervention.
DeleteI think that we should support the rebels in Syria, but not by sending in military forces. I agree that the death toll is too high to ignore, but what we must keep in mind is that sending in soldiers will result in more violence and death whether we intend it to or not. I also think that individual states should intervene. There are people dying in Syria and it is everyone's human duty to try to put a stop to that. However, for some states the only viable course of action may well be to support the UN and to pressure Russia and China to stop supporting Assad. Everyone should be involved in this issue, but only to the best of their ability. -Morgana Schuirmann
ReplyDeleteThanks, Morgana. But in what way should the various states intervene, such as the US, if the UN security council isn't going to support the intervention?
DeleteAm I the only person who is completely against any form of military action in Syria? The country is erupting into a full blown civil war, and if this escalates (which the influx of American forces certainly would cause)it could go regional, as the situation in Turkey is risking. War is not the most logical option in this situation what so ever. As Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Somalia to name a few has shown, bloodshed does not end bloodshed. I implore you to name one war in which American military involvement in a civil conflict has resulted in anything but further bloodshed. In fact, not just American experiences, but also those of earlier powers such as Great Britain and the French. The UN (although an extremely weak organisation)has no alternative but to put pressure on the Assad Regime, economically and politically. We need to also accept that it is becoming, if not it is a proxy of the USA and Russia and that this exposes the fundamental flaw of the UN. The 5 Permanent Security Council Members. Without the total removal of any nation's veto power, and the imposition of a full international legislature, the five members will continue to act in self interest, fully legally and in violation of a greater good.
ReplyDeleteSimon, it doesn't seem to me that you're alone on this issue. Intervening in a civil war can sure be dicey. There are, however, some who would say the bloodshed is worth it.
DeleteI too am against military action in Syria. While the situation in Syria becomes worse every day, international diplomacy must continue. This does include continuing with U.N. sanctions and formal diplomacy. If the U.S. and other countries does militarize in Syria the world would end up with another war on our hand that would most likely be lengthy, similar to the wars in Iraq and Vietnam. Both of these wars came with a huge loss in human lives and most notably in Iraq, left the U.S. and other nations in huge monetary debt. And because funding a war does cost a large sum of money, it would not be advisable in our current situation as we are in a economic recovery from a recession. I refuse to accept that military action from the U.S. and our allies is the only option as there are other alternatives such as continuing talks with Syria, Russia, China. -Rafael Baino
ReplyDeleteFair points, but what if diplomacy simply isn't going to work anymore? It's important to remember the lessons of Rwanda and Darfur.
DeleteFirst of all, I want to mention that I enjoyed reading the article a lot. I have always been a person who believes that everything can be solved in a diplomatic way, by having a conversation with both sides in order to take a wise decision or come to an agreement. I personally believe that this is a very controversial topic, but that a decision should be taken as soon as possible. I believe that what needs to be done is to first try AGAIN solving things in a diplomatic way, and after that if it is not possible, the only option would be to send troops, or this might as well continue on forever.-Ces Escobedo
ReplyDeleteThanks, Ces.
DeleteAs the situation in Syria is escalating, it is becoming a prime example of the appropriate time for the world community to work together toward a solution. Of course, a diplomatic, non-violent solution is optimal, but should it continue for much longer, a military solution may be inevitable. As Ben said, the more unstable Syria becomes, the more likely its resources could fall into the hands of Hezbollah or another dangerous organization. Avoiding this outcome as well as the facilitating freedom from the struggle for the Syrian people should be the top priority for the US, its allies, and the whole UN, including Russia and China. I think it is certainly appropriate for foreign powers to get involved in a sovereign state in this situation, for all the above reasons. --Molly Reiner
ReplyDeleteFreedom would be great, but there's always the possibility that even an intervention that leads to elections might not elect people who would ensure freedom.
DeleteThanks for all the comments, everyone. Great discussion. Feel free to keep it going and respond to each other.
ReplyDeleteWell in all honesty I believe international response to this would be a double edged sword. In other words It could make it better or perhaps only enrage Syria's government and spark even more violence. I do however believe the best option is simply to cut off their trade income as doing this would perhaps cause the least amount of violence, where as a military intervention could quite possibly cause another Iraq(nation building). - David Kramer
ReplyDeleteThat would put some pressure on the leaders, but might it also deprive those who want democracy of their economic power?
DeleteI believe that world super-powers should be involved yet not overly involved. It is okay for theses superpowers to give advice to smaller and weaker nations. Yet, what many super-powers, including the United States, tend to do is to control the situation in order to get something that will benefit themselves. Yet the result of getting to involved is not good. What many superpowers fail to realize is that they can not be the superhero in every situation and problem in the world.
ReplyDeleteAshlyn Coleman
Good analogy (or non-analogy)
DeleteI agree with what Simon said further up (down?). Not only does intervention rarely seem to stop the bloodshed, and it often times increases it as he said, but our, or anyone's, intervention doesn't seem entirely necessary. While we hate to hear about torture camps and genocide, etc. From what I understand, especially after the defection, the tide seems to be turning in the rebellions favor as it is. Given their likelihood of success, any military intervention would rob the Syrian people of the civil war they deserve. Now, I know that sounds like an odd thing to say, but if their victory is handed to them by the United States, or any other country, it'd harm the legitimacy of what they're trying to do, essentially ruining their "Arab Spring". Given that, if I thought for one second that less people would die if we intervened, I'd be all for it, but as Simon said, that simply isn't the case. -Jake Kincer
ReplyDeleteGood point about legitimacy. Even if outside powers can help, they may turn public opinion against the elements that they are trying to support.
DeleteAccording to our discussion in class today, it seems the basic answer to what foreign powers should do about conflicts in sovereign states and whether or not they should get involved depends on the situation. Will intervention hurt or help, ultimately? We can be assured bloodshed will result from certain conflicts regardless of whether or not other states intervene, but the question is how much more bloodshed would result and would the means to the end be worth it? In this particular case, I'd say I mostly agree with Molly and others who said we should try diplomatic efforts first- I find it hard to see the justification in military intervention at this stage because we are not yet down to merely one option, especially if Jake is correct in saying that the tide is turning in the rebels' favor. Let's negotiate with China and Russia; of course, we have been letting them know where we stand. Let us decide what we want to support in Syria and what we can do (with the least amount of violence) to disable Assad's regime.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to comment on Burhan Ghalioun's quote in the article: "...What preoccupies the Syrians today is the way we can stop the massacre. Every day there are 100, 130, 150 victims and the people only think about that," he said. "They want action, they want measures and practical mechanism to stop the killings."
So the civilians want us to do something, they want us to take action. Surely they have military intervention in mind. But their desperation should not make us act rashly. We are all disturbed and frustrated by the violence in Syria, but that doesn't mean we should jump the gun with our emotions. We need to focus one what will save more lives in the long run