Two Party System, Representation of Public Opinion and Voting Behavior

Winner–takes–all system has led to a two-party system- a phenomenon described by Duverger’s law in USA -for three main reasons. First, the smaller parties are pressured to form an alliance with one of the two major parties to try to become big enough to challenge a large dominant party.[1] Second, voters adopt the strategic voting, and thus decide not to vote for candidates outside of one of the two large parties since they feel that their votes for third party candidates are usually ineffectual.¹ Third, many people do not vote if one of the two candidates appears to be dominating the race, because they feel that their vote will not make a difference in the outcome of the election¹. This trend has resulted in domination of two parties in the American Politics for a long time. One question, however, is whether this two party system is effectively representing the opinions of electorates or is it making the electorates to comprise and choose between unappealing narrow choices. Another question is how this two party system is affecting the voter turnout in election,

Critiques of two party system claim that restricting choices to two parties limits the free marketplace of ideas and reduces each voter's choice. Lisa Disch in the book “Tyranny of Majority” argues that two party system identifies popular sovereignty with choice, and then limits choice to one party or the other. If there is any truth to the analogy between elections and markets, America's faith in the two–party system begs the following question: Why do voters accept as the ultimate in political freedom a binary option they would surely protest as consumers?[2] This is the tyranny of the two–party system, the construct that persuades United States citizens to accept two–party contests as a condition of electoral democracy ².  Diverse citizens of the USA with diverse ideology are forced to choose between two choices, often very similar, which may or may not appeal to them. It is preposterous to think that the political rainbow can be summed up and represented properly by a bi-chromatic facsimile.[3] It is not only a political agenda that an electorate will be voting for a party, but all the political agenda that the party has put forward. This puts the electorate in trouble of deciding whom he is to vote, because his stance on one political agenda may be represented by one party while his stance on another political agenda may be represented by another party. Thus, a two party system forces people to make concessions on their beliefs, all in the name of simplicity³.

Two party system has been criticized for downplaying alternate views, and for not being able to include views from wide political spectrum.  Ariana Huffington in one of the Intelligence Square debate argued that two part system has made Americans prisoners of conventional wisdom. It has made us look every political problem through that obsolete binary prism of right versus wrong⁴.We will not be able to solve problems at same level of thinking that created it.[4]

With typically only two contestants for most offices in a general election, the candidates tend to converge to the middle of the political spectrum on the issues being discussed.  Voters do not feel that the parties give them even two distinct choices on Election Day. Voters also express their desire for a wider variety of candidates than those produced by the two parties. While some people censure the parties for their tendency to become more like one another over time to gather the centrist vote, few others criticize the parties for taking a black and white perspective with no gray area.³ No matter what reason a dislike for two party system may be, a majority of Americans (57%) agree that their views are not represented by either of the two parties and thus feel that there should be a third major political party in addition to the Democrats and Republicans.[5] According to Gallup polling data, in 2011 only 23 percent of Americans identified themselves as Republicans and 28 percent as Democrats, while 46 percent considered themselves independent[6]. If we are to apply those numbers to congressional representation, instead of the current representation, the Senate should be made up of 28 Democrats, 23 Republicans and 46 Independents, as well as three others, and the House of Representatives would contain 122 Democrats, 100 Republicans, 200 independents, and thirteen others. This gives a clear picture of representation of public opinion in American Politics.

The goal of effective democracy should be to achieve good government through high level of public participation. Therefore, voter turnout is very important in evaluating effectiveness of democracy and representation of public opinion.  Advocates of two party system argue that two party system encourage voter turnout by mobilizing the people to vote between two candidates.  They also emphasize that the two party system provides a stable balance by accommodating varied interests and opinions by considering the concerns of organized groups and individual voters. However, recent public polls on effectiveness of political parties have shown the opposite results. The report from the Center for the Study of the American Electorate, puts 2012 voter turnout at 57.5% of all eligible voters, questioning the representation of public opinion in American democracy. When 43.5 percent of the population stays home on Election Day, there is no question whether public opinion is effectively addressed in the process or not.

Of the many other reasons, the dynamics of the two-party system also contributes to low voter turnout of the candidates. First because the major two parties may not have appealing choices, and second because they may have same choices.[7] For instance, Bob Dole and Bill Clinton both entered the 1996 presidential election in favor of balancing the budget, decreasing expenditures on welfare and Medicare, and cutting taxes. With the two parties in basic agreement on so many major issues, voters felt that there was no difference between the two candidates and no reason to vote, leading to the extremely low voter turnout.⁸

Similarly, the supporters of minority parties in two party system abstain from the voting process because they feel that smaller parties are not likely to get representation in government, since these parties cannot win in system in which top parties get to make the government. [8] This results and scholarly quotes explicitly prove that two party system has not been able to address the preferences of majority of citizens, but is making them choose between with an option of voting between narrow choices and another option of abandoning the election.  Theodore J. Lowi in his book “The Republic of Parties? Debating the two party system” makes a point that public participation can increase with the number of political parties. He writes: Because one of the function of the party is to mobilize the voters, a third party would mean more party worker and more activities and this might well increase the public participation. [9] Therefore, alternative political system in the form of multiparty system can be effective in representation of public opinion than the two party system.  

James Maddison writes in Federalist writes, “Republic refine and enlarge the public view by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice, will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations.”¹⁰ Taking this as a base, some scholars argue that the number of the political parties should not matter much as long as Americans have wise representatives to represent the electorate given the representative nature of democracy in the USA.¹¹  They assert that the quality of the representative would be important than the position the representative holds on certain topic that are to be addressed by the representative.¹¹ However, two party system hinders the competition among the candidates to get the kind of candidates Madison defines.⁴

It can be assed that two party system has been inefficient in representing public opinion of people. Because two party system is based on binary solution of problems, it provides very narrow, often similar, options to choose from. The policy position that both the major parties hold do not appeal to majority of electorates as shown by recent poll data. The effect of which is also seen in voter turnout in each election.  Increase in competition, movement politics and removal of winner-takes-all system could be very effective ways to address wide spectrum of public opinion in American politics. 

---

[1] Duverger, Maurice. 1972. Party Politics and Pressure Groups, translated by David Wagoner. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell

[2] Disch, Lisa Jane. 2002. Tyranny of the two Political System. Page 9 Columbia University Press. http://books.google.com/books?id=2OSOnGvU_SQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22Lisa+Jane+Disch%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NiB_UvbJFq3NsQTKgQI&ved=0CDIQuwUwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false.

[3] 2010. "Is two party system preferable to multiparty system?" Debate.org. http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-a-two-party-system-preferable-to-a-multi-party-system.

[4] Huffington, Arianna. 2011. "Two Party System is making America Ungovenable." Intelligence Square Debate, February 15. Accessed November 17, 2013. http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/560-the-two-party-system-is-making-america-ungovernable&tab=2.

[5] Andrew Kohut, Carroll Doherty Michael Dimock, and Scott Keeter. 2012. Voter Attitude. PEW RESEARCH CENTER, 13. http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/06-21-12%20Voter%20Attitudes.pdf.

[6] Gallup. 2013. Party Affiliation . Gallup . Accessed November 16, 2013. http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx.

[7] n.d. Two Party System: Winner takes it all. Duke University. Accessed November 16, 2013. https://web.duke.edu/poli/classes/proprep/withouttext.htm.

[8] Hill, David Lee. 2006. American Voter Turnout. Page 64.Westview Press.  http://books.google.com/books?id=YcgTUi1At_MC&pg=PA66&dq=two+party+system+and+voter+turnout&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xlSEUqKPOIfM2gWgq4DQDg&ved=0CEEQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false.

[9] Theodore J. Lowi, Joseph Romance. 1998. The Republic of Parties?: Debating the two party system.  Page 63. Rowman &Littlefield Publishers, Inc. http://books.google.com/books?id=1bIVGPwmWgYC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false11.

10 James Madison. Federalist. Number 10

11 Theodore J. Lowi, Joseph Romance. 1998. The Republic of Parties?: Debating the two party system.  Page 63. Rowman &Littlefield Publishers, Inc. http://books.google.com/books?id=1bIVGPwmWgYC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false11.

Fiction Park: Do not Judge, Understand!

Always seated in the last bench of the class was an overweight boy with thick eyeglasses named Kancho. Small eyes with big eyeglasses, small head with large torso, tall and heavy but weak, Kancho was an eccentric person- obnoxious, introverted and anti-social. Characterized by a reclusive nature, he rarely spoke to any of the classmates in the class, let alone the teachers in school. Isolated, in so as much by his own will as by social boycotts, he was not interested in social activities and gatherings. His eccentric behavior became the subject of mockery to the class. The whole class, not excluding me, used to bully him for his attire, looks, and big eyeglasses.  A day never went by in which we did not make fun of him.  However, he neither responded to us verbally or physically, nor did he complain to teachers in his defense. This stirred us to decisively make fun of him as much as we liked.  

      It never occurred to me why Kancho acted the way he did. There should have been a reason, if not many, I never thought- it was too much to think for a twelve year old kid like me. I did what most of the people did to him: teased and made fun of him. Time moved along as we made progress towards our junior year of high school. Even after a couple of years together in the same school, our attitude towards Kancho unfortunately did not change; neither did Kancho’s attitude and behavior. In the junior year of our high school, Kancho transferred to another high school.

    The same year that Kancho left our school, great adversity struck my family.  My father, the only economically active member of my family, had to wash his hand of his job because of job cut offs in my country following economic depression. This made my family economically weak and volatile. I started to work an average of four hours a day to support my family while still continuing my studies, in the process making my academics as fragile as the economic situation of my family. My routine became so hectic that I had scarcely any time to do school work. Thus, it became hard for me to cope with rigor of the curriculum. In the meantime, I was struggling economically even after my earnest effort to improve economic condition of my family. My family had a scarce amount of money to perform even the mundane economic activities. I passed through such miserable times that I did not have enough money to get myself a pack of lunch. I went from a well off and brilliant student to an impecunious underperformer in one turn of event!

     

       This change in circumstances changed the behavior of my friends towards me in an unprecedented way. My friends started to harass me for not being tidy, for struggling to pay my tuitions, and for being an underperformer. They started to speak in patronizing tones whenever I approached them; they just were not as co-operative as they used to be.  This led to my isolation from my friends’ circle. I neither cared what my friends said about me, nor tried to elucidate them of my changes in circumstances which attributed to the ways I acted in my life. Whether or not they included me in their gatherings, parties and hangouts did not bother me after all. Nothing besides myself became a matter of my concern. I started to enjoy my struggling life which was, to a great degree, analogous to Kancho’s life when he was in our high school: dejected, declined and desolated.   

      With profound understanding of reasons for my own isolation, I then understood the reasons for Kancho’s isolation as well.  I concluded that it was not Kancho who was responsible for his eccentric behavior, but the society around him which shaped him to act in certain ways. Because he was obese and wore thick glasses - traits which he might have obtained from the genes of his parents- he was disliked, and thus bullied by the majority of the students.  These two judgmental effects made me reach some understanding of my life, which I would not have deciphered had I not gone through similar circumstances as that of Kancho. I, like my friends, was disposed to judge Kancho on account of his obesity and optical problem. Then, I went through an uncontrollable circumstance in my life that affected the way I acted in my life, which in turn catalyzed my friends to derogatively judge me.  This unique juxtaposition taught me to never judge people on basis of uncontrollable circumstances, genetic traits or possessions which they gain by birth. 

Shia Sunni Conflict

After the death of Prophet Mohammed in 632AD, Islamic world got divided in the question of Prophet Mohammed’s successor as the caliph of whole Islamic community. This was the start of long conflict in the Islamic community, which we now understand as Shia- Sunni conflict. Shia are the minority Muslim population comprising an approximation of 10 to 20 percent of total Islamic population with their majority population in Iran, Azerbaijan, Iraq and Bahrain, while Sunnis are the majority Islamic population with majority population in all other Muslim countries.

Modern Shia-Sunni conflicts holds much of the importance in politics of Middle East and also in the politics of many western countries ,which is one way or other associated to Middle East. The Iranian Islamic revolution changed the calculus of Shia- Sunni power equation in Muslim countries with overthrowing of the rule of Shah Mohammad Pahlavi supported by the United States and United Kingdom, by Shia leader Ayatollah Khomeini; thus arousing the traditionally subservient Shia to the alarm of traditionally dominant Sunnis. Shia dominated Iran was in favor of Shia- Sunni harmony, but their contentious relation with Saudi Arabia divided Arab countries into two different front. Countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan went through a new wave of revolution following this Islamic revival. American military intervention in Iraq also fueled Shia- Sunni conflict to new height.

Iraq was dominantly ruled by Sunni people under the leadership of Saddam Hussein until 2003, under which period some 50,000 to 100,000 Shia were mercilessly persecuted. After an intervention from USA in 2003, Shia majority have handled the administrative position in Iraq which previously used to be hold by Sunni. The violent Sunni-Shia conflict took a new turn with Sunni majority killing Shia population by suicide bombings, and Shia majority through death squad, a practice of extrajudicial killings and forced disappearance for political reasons to keep the secrecy of killed and to avoid the accountability.

Al-Qaeda, terrorist group against any anti-Sunni Islamic principal, is also responsible for provoking sectarian violence among Muslims. Al-Qaeda has carried out many attacks on non-Sunni Muslims and  non-Muslims; 9/11 attacks,  Yazidi community bombings, the Sadr City bombings, the Ashoura Massacre and the April 2007 Baghdad bombings are some of the examples of attacks. Taliban, another Islamic terrorist group, has also been instigating the sectarian conflict between Sunni Pashtun and Shia population in Afghanistan after Soviet Union’s withdrawal in 1989. Similarly, recent Syrian uprising has reawakened the sectarian tensions in Syria, which now is turning into a sectarian strife between the Alawits and Sunni Jihadists.

In countries like Syria, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, sectarian conflict is pervaded primarily by an effort to change the political system in the country- this sectarian conflict has not come by itself. When Iran tried to transform itself into republic state, it brought about the sectarian conflict all over the world that has influence up to today’s world. When USA tried to bring democracy in Iraq by out-casting the Sunni minority led by Saddam Hussain, it brought about a political havoc not only in Iraq but also in USA, whose aftermaths  of involvemnet still has influence in downturn of American Economic to this date. Similarly, when Soviet Union in one end of the spectrum and USA and Saudi Arabia on the other tried to solve political fiasco in Afghanistan, it brought about the sectarian problem with Taliban and Al-Qaeda, the greatest threat of Western world. Contemporary Syrian crisis is another vivid example where an effort to change political system has backfired the struggle into a sectarian conflict. It is safe to assume that whenever Middle East nations have tried to transform their fundamental political system, it have always created a problem with Sectarian issue.

If world wants stable, non-extremist and democratic Middle East, it needs to settle sectarian conflict before it wants middle east countries to walk along the road of democracy- the political change these countries are trying to embrace. Trying to change the political system without ousting the probability of sectarian conflict will always create troubles in world.

References: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=a-QH_CxIFTEC&oi=fnd&pg=PA9&dq=sunni+shia+conflict+iraq&ots=pqbl9nh-TN&sig=LJgBXm69IzWi6RQ0jY9UYWaeHtI#v=onepage&q=sunni%20shia%20conflict%20iraq&f=false

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia%E2%80%93Sunni_relations

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/09/sunni-shia_conflict_being_stoked_by_syrias_civil_war.html

Spreading Smiles through Toilet Papers

I used to spend quite a lot of time in the library reading, doing homework or preparing for the tests. One Tuesday, as I was preparing for a calculus test, I got bogged down in few questions. Tired of unsuccessfully trying the same questions again and again, I rested my head on the table, covering my face with my hands. It was then that I heard a heavy and gruff, yet affectionate voice. "Are you alright, son?,” asked a tall African American man with an oval face, a pointed nose, large and wide ears, and intense brown eyes below dense eyebrows. He cleared his throat, and patted my leaning torso. Raising my bowed head, I looked at the tall figure with amazement and replied that I was okay, rubbing my eyes. He introduced himself and offered me a bottle of water, which I took without hesitation. He was Lawrence Perry, a janitor at the University of New Orleans. This was the first time I was approached with such kindness after I had left my country, Nepal. Even though Mr. Perry holds a mop, not a briefcase, he holds the power to spread a smile, and he has every reason to be happy himself.

“I think my job is one of the most important jobs in UNO”, says Lawrence Perry, who has been working as a janitor at the University for the last five years. “Imagine what would happen if I did not keep toilet papers in the restroom”, he continues with a giggle in his voice.  He has a defined chin and a strong jaw line that gives an aesthetic element to his broad smile. He always smiles when he sees a familiar face. “There are people who show nonchalance when I smile or try to talk to them, but I never have any grudges against them”, Perry says with immense weight in his voice. “Life is about sharing what you have. I have a smile to give to people. It is their discretion whether to respond to me or not”, he continues in a slightly indignant tone.  “I am happy with my life, you know! I have done what I need to do to my family, and I try to be good to every person. That is my life to me”, he ends abruptly in a graver toner.

Mr. Perry is a familiar face around the Earl K Long Library, where his work is mainly concentrated. Mr. Perry, who has been working as a custodian for the last nineteen years in one place or another, is very aware of cleanliness. Mr. Perry’s job is to clean the restrooms and to make sure that every restroom in the entire four story building has toilet paper and soap. He performs his task of cleaning with great care and sincerity.  His job is such that if he does everything right his work is rarely given a credit. “I wonder if people ever notice that there is a man who is doing all the work behind the scene”, Perry speaks contently in response to the question of what people’s response is towards his job.  He recalls the time when he was ignored by some people on account of what he does for living. “When I say my profession is a janitor to people, some people try to forestall the conversation. You know what, next time those people see me, they just ignore me”, he quickly lifts his shoulders as he speaks with wonder.

 In the same momentum of the conversation, he mentions about an incident when he was excluded from an invitation to a staff member’s wedding, when the whole building was invited.  “I have come to realize that some people judge me as being unworthy of their time and attention, but the bitter truth is that those people need a through contemplation of their own life”, he says vaguely.   He takes a deep sigh and looks at his wrist watch. His sad and humble voice, when he spoke, reflected his disapproval of the people’s prejudiced attitude towards people like him. “But again, I feel my life is the way it should be. You cannot really make grievances against anything”, he gives his second thought, shifting his focus from his watch to my spectacles. That belief is the reason why he starts every day with a cheerful smile.

In his twenty eight years of marriage, Perry values his family the most. He believes that his marriage is the greatest blessing in his life. “My wife is the most influential person to me. She has always been by my side to support me in ups and downs. She accepts me for who I am, and that is the reason why I feel satisfied even though I have not accomplished a great deal in life,” he says, leaning on the chair. In response to the question of what makes him happy, he says with a smile in his face, “My reasons for happiness are rather modest. My wife’s birthday, my children’s birthday, my children’s promotion to the higher grade, my dog and my small world are the causes for my happiness.” Perry believes that everything that makes his family happy is the biggest achievement of his life. “My family is happy with what we have. This is actually an achievement for me. When my family becomes discontent or dissatisfied with me, then making them happy will be my challenge”, he says re-iteratively.  

         

 Mr. Perry made me realize that people become great by their deeds, not by the job they hold. He does not hold grudges against any people, but performs his work with sincere effort and tries to help others as much as he can. “What distinguishes men from another creature is their care and concern for another being .I try to make my family happy, and try to give others what I can”, he says in a philosophical tone. After an awkward silence, he says,” I do not frown to people, nor do I hate them whatsoever. I respect everyone for who they are”. Mr. Perry always reminds me of the importance of positive attitude in life. 

Syrian Issue- A political Conundrum

Whether USA should attack Syria or not is the most debated topic as of 11th of August, 2013 as far as international politics is concerned. This topic has gathered varying opinions on what USA’s move should be, typically after Obama’s “red line” has now been crossed. This is my attempt to explore, analyze, critique and improve two contradicting opinions, one from Radwan Ziadeh, spokesman for the Syrian National Council,   and other from Stephen M. Walt, professor of international affairs at Harvard University. Walt makes valid arguments against intervention, but fails to address possible ways the Syrian Crisis can be resolved. He is more concerned about the interests of the US than of a conflict that has clearly gone out of control. Ziadeh represents that side of the world, which still look up on the western world to help check the atrocities against civilians around the world. He however, fails to explain how western intervention will lead to or even help reach political stability in Syria.

Walt makes strong arguments against the intervention in Syria. He holds strong proclivity against any kind of attack against Syria on USA’s part. Walt addresses the fact that deadlier weapons than those used by Assad regime have been already used, so violation of international law against chemical weapons should not be the triggering factor for a reaction. He reminds us of how USA has violated the international laws to get what Washington D.C. wanted in the past; thus, it would be inappropriate to talk about international law at this point.  He further believes that half-hearted attack as proposed by Obama Administration contributes nothing towards depriving Assad of his power, and even if this attack helps rebel group backed by Jihadists to topple the ruling government, it would be unfortunate for Syria and western countries to have the extremist Jihadists as the ruling power of Syria. In his view, the USA need not intervene at this point regardless of use of chemical weapon when people were mercilessly killed from the beginning of the conflict. In Walt’s view, Obama’s red line is the only reason for the USA to attack or at least punish Syria for using chemical weapons. This drawing of a line was foolish in his opinion due to the presence of deadlier weapons already, and responding to a foolish decision with another foolish move would not be what the USA would want to do. Any reluctant action taken to hold firm on the earlier stance might push USA into deeper trouble, Walt further argues.

Walt’s argument on why USA should not attack Syria following recent chemical attack is agreeable from the American point of view. It is true that the USA cannot afford to go to another war, particularly in Syria, because the consequences are unknown, yet most likely miserable. He defends the counter argument too by convincingly putting forward the domestic concerns of the USA. His argument on the last paragraph about intervention being a foolish act to save Obama’s face sounds convincing, especially when looking back at the aftermaths of American intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

On the other hand, Radwan Ziadeh argues that the USA and international society have decisive power to control the rebel in Syria as the only legitimate organ to respond to these attacks is paralyzed by Veto Power of China and Russia in United Nations Security Council. It seems reasonable, in his View, for powerful western nations to take action against impunity by Assad’s regime.  He elaborates that preceding events which were not kept on track by the NATO and other nations opened the door for the attacks of higher magnitude and destruction by Assad’s Regime. He believes that targeted air strikes and enforcement of non-flight zone can end impunity and bring back stable Syria.  However, he does not defend counter- arguments about retaliation from Syria and its allies. Even though Ziadeh mentions that international intervention can thwart away the evils of Syria, he fails to address looming questions of world war, as well as stability and leadership in Syria after intervention.

It is interesting that a Syrian writer himself is expecting intervention from the western world because Syria indeed has lost all hopes. However, Zaideh doesn’t sound convincing in his proposed solution of targeted air strikes and enforcement of a non-flight zone, especially after the international community has already decided that intervention is not going to solve the problem and that Syria is rather on its own. While the argument is whether western intervention is essential for checking chemical weapon use, Zaideh is hoping too much by pointing that the international community might be able to solve this crisis.

After 9/11 attack, USA government is keeping tight scrutiny in Middle East countries with an influence of either Al-Qaeda or Taliban. It has also been cautious over the issue of nuclear weapons, linked especially with North Korea and Iran. Syria seems to attract attention from both of these issues. USA fears that conflict ridden Syria can act as base for terrorists groups like Al- Qaeda. On top of that, recent use of Chemical weapons have attracted its attention as it is something USA is weary of. However, intervention is still a bad idea even for USA at this point. Middle East is going through a lot of trouble, and involvement of USA could mess the situation more. The half -hearted attack, as the United States Government claims, will only outrage allies of Syria namely Russia and Iran, which in turn can disturb the delicacy of international politics leading to serious political crisis. If half-hearted attack as USA government proposes turns out to help the opposition Jihadists, whose involvement in the protest have lately been verified, to take control over Syria, it will only escalate the burden of USA and international society. Learning from experience at Iraq and Afghanistan that foreign intervention in internal conflict of country does not work out well, USA does not want to get involved in Syria the way it did in Afghanistan and Iraq. If USA is to attack Syria even at small scale, danger persists that attack to punish the violation of law against Chemical Weapons may drag USA into the war, in which it does not want to be involved. As far as the question on violation of international law about chemical weapons is concerned, it would be ironical to attack by violating another law, law concerning UN Security council, as Watt argues.

 

In a vicious circle where every action looks inappropriate to give direction, the best way to solve the issue would be to wait and watch as the questions on attack is adjourned by the agreement between USA and Russia. As far as punishing Assad regime for chemical attacks is concerned, it should be a step taken not only by the USA, but by a collaboration between powerful states. Although Chemical weapons are less destructive than several other weapons, as argued by Walt, it is best for the world to have it under control because of its tendency to affect more civilians than the intended target.

Radwan Ziadeh’s Article

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/08/26/is-an-attack-on-syria-justified/the-west-must-finally-respond-in-syria

WALT’s Article http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/08/26/is-an-attack-on-syria-justified/type-of-weapons-assad-uses-shouldnt-affect-us-policy