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.
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
No comments:
Post a Comment