“Can we overlook their [Britain and France’s] role in the region and their standing in the region? They're hated in the region. They're the former colonial powers, imperialist powers. We want to engage. We should be engaging the European Union as a whole, which has a slant and a point of view, which is not for military action, incidentally.
We should also seek to engage some major Asian powers, who are very dependent on continued flow of oil from the Middle East, and particularly China, which has a veto in the U.N. Security Council. China is not linked at the hip to Russia. China has its own interests, and I think it could be a constructive player.” Zbigniew Brzezinski, September 11th, 2013, PBS News Hour. I think it is wise to heed Dr. Brzezinski’s advice in regards to our overreliance on Britain and France, which serve as America’s “go to guys” when military action is necessary while leaning on Asia is, of course, critical to the current debate over Syria and our future relationships with both regions. Certainly, all nations have interests in the Middle East thanks to its oil production; however, China’s oil interests are more direct and influential due to its size. Consequently, America should be able to gain China’s support if we can demonstrate a particular course of action will lead to improved regional stability and increased energy security. In turn, they can help pressure the Russians. That said, the US must tread lightly as China will be leery of supporting action, if such action is framed as supporting democratic revolutionary thinking. After all, China is dealing with similar internal tensions that are building. Russia, on the other hand, has more than just its relationship with Syria at stake as well as its broader interests in the region. There continues to be an adversarial dynamic between Russia and the United States stemming from the Cold War. Consequently, Russia seeks to legitimize its power and world standing, just as America does, by framing US action as less than Russian action, i.e. Russia wants to be the parent scolding the child. In many respects, Russia has managed to temporarily frame potential US action against Syria as an unwarranted act of aggression, even though Assad violated human rights by starting the slaughter of his own people, Russia has been militarily propping up Assad’s government, and Assad used chemical weapons. (This is partially why the US is going along with the idea of a diplomatic approach in regards to Assad relinquishing control over his chemical weapons stockpiles.) Given that Russia will not afford the United States some option to take military action, if Syria fails to live up to its end of the bargain, shows Russia is “slipping back into Cold War thinking,” as Obama would put it. Unfortunately, the weaker nations of Europe and the rest of the world, especially given the memory of America’s frightening, ill-conceived preemptive invasion of Iraq, are extremely sympathetic to a line of reasoning that militarily neuters the US, thus these nations view the need to restrain US military power as a higher priority while budgetary constraints and their pacifists cultures make it easier to support such a course of action. On the flip side, the United States is not simply trying to address its vital national interests. Americans support doing what they think is the right thing. When the American People make a decision, it is based on how they feel then it is legitimized by making a logical argument about vital national interests and/or some others factors. This is partially why American foreign policy is so erratic. If American’s do not feel something is the right thing to do, the most intelligent, most fact-based, most logical argument in the world will not move the American People to fully support a proposal. If logical argument cannot be found when the American People feel they need to act, inaction will eat at us until we find some way of rationalizing our impulse to take the action we feel is right, which creates problems when we are wrong. Given our culture’s psychology, Syria presents a problem. Logically, the US should be fine with securing Assad’s chemical weapons and we are, intelligently, weary of war for a multitude of reasons, but we also know what is being done to the Syria People is wrong. Whether a democracy or otherwise, governments should not hurt their People, especially in the way the Assad regime is hurting its People. This is why the US will insist the humanitarian crisis is addressed in the chemical weapons deal while securing these weapons will not be enough. In fact, I think it is fair to say the chemical weapons issue is somewhat superficial when it comes to the decision on whether or not the US will intervene in Syria. (This is not to suggest chemical weapons are trivial, because they truly are a critical issue.) Moreover, unless all sides start recognizing these factors in this latest “diplomatic approach,” it will be a failed solution, just as every other solution will be in the future.
Comments
Twelve years has passed since the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001. It is ironic that we once again find ourselves debating the necessity of military intervention in the Middle East. Regrettably, it is the failures in the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars that make this decision so difficult, just as it was the failure of the world to properly engage the Middle East that helped foster the actions of Al Qaeda. Just consider that Osama Bin Laden, with his means and social position, had the tools needed to cultivate change through peaceful endeavors. Where the members of Al Qaeda chose to use violence to attack a civilian population instead of pursuing a more inspirational campaign against the harmful consequences of negative Western influence in the Middle East, i.e. start a peaceful revolution, the US and the rest of the world now struggle to cope with a decision on whether outside influence can effectively save and empower a civilian population suppressed by the violence of its own government.
In many respects, the mistakes of the past have been rooted in the tendency of all nations to act solely in the pursuit of their own perceived interests. In fact, this egocentrism has created a great deal of strife over the entirety of human history. Intervening in Syria, as one example, may not serve the direct interests of most countries, but it does certainly serve the interests of the Syrian People. That said, military intervention is not necessarily the best or only option, though it is important to remember the war is not the root problem nor is the use of chemical weapons. While the massacre of the Syrian People must be stopped, the Syrian government failed to adequately address the interests of the Syrian People, thereby creating the need for revolution. Sadly, continuing inaction and the current diplomatic solution of dismantling Assad’s chemical weapons arsenal only further validates the analogy between the Syrian war and the Iraqi-Iranian war, which means we can easily end up with a containment situation that may well turn Syria into an ongoing headache in a world filled with more and more headaches. Furthermore, it is no secret that the September 11th terrorist attacks helped inspire this writer to learn more about politics and foreign affairs, but everything learned since and before that terrible tragedy points to an need to understand why individuals act as they do and why we need to balance interests as an International Community ruled by Peoples of the world. People resort to violence, because they view it to be their best option for achieving their needs and wants. Violence can only be stopped when aggressors feel their interests can be addressed through other means. When two groups have incompatible critical interests at stake, i.e. the continued rule of Assad versus the removal of Assad for example, violence will likely continue until one side can no longer seek its interests. In essence, this is why might makes right, i.e. those who are able and willing to assert their interests determine what is acceptable behavior. Since World War Two, the US and the West have been attempting to build an International Community where the strength of our world order lies in balancing the interests of all the Peoples of the world. That said, it has always been those able and willing to use violence against the weak who have been able to seize power. Beyond the Syrian crisis, beyond the Arab Spring revolutions, the foundation of our International Community is buckling under the stress of one humanitarian crisis after another, which is a fault created by the International Community’s overreliance on the willingness of the US to act when the International Community fails to act. By the many Peoples of the world failing to use the might of the majority to determine what is right, the International Community grows weak and the disbanded weak become targets of those willing to use violence to fulfill their interests. What this means is that violent authoritarian regimes and terrorists are afforded a degree of legitimacy to rule over others, because the world recognizes their forced authority by failing to side with the weak. The United States acted against Afghanistan as a reaction to 9/11 attacks and continued on to Iraq due to a failure to deal with an ongoing headache that allowed those, who shared a overly hawkish, to legitimize an attack on Iraq as the only viable option. In the end, America stayed in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to live up to our democratic values and our responsibility to two neglected Peoples of the International Community. What the world should learn from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is that America cannot build and sustain the International Community without meaningful support from all Peoples of the world. “Don’t find problems; find solutions,” goes the saying. Unfortunately, the world seems far more intent on finding problems when it comes to making decisions and taking action, instead of working to find best-fit solutions. There is a great deal of benefit to living in a world where the might of the majority rules, versus those with the biggest guns, especially for countries that are not the US, so the Peoples and governments of the world really need to spend some time considering whether or not the concept of an International Community is worth supporting. In many respects, 9/11 woke the American People to the true impact the US government has on the world, yet the world continues to ignore the core reason why America is so influential, i.e. we have historically not been afraid to act on what we think is right instead of simply looking out for our own national interests. If the governments and the Peoples of the world want to be more influential, if they want their interests to be met, they need to do a better job of standing up for what is right, or at least what they profess is right. I wanted Russia to give the US viable alternatives to bombing Syria instead of just criticizing and the Assad regime seems to have stumbled upon an out. That said, this could simply be another example of the Assad regime trying to stall foreign military intervention while it continues to slaughter its own People with traditional arms.
If this option is truly viable; however, it acts as a double-edged sword against the United States. One the position side, it affords the Obama Administration a means of saving face should it fail to achieve Congressional approval and sufficient international support while it shows the Assad regime is somewhat reasonable, i.e. it gives the rest of the International Community a means to justify inaction in favor of barren diplomatic solutions. On the negative side, now the United States looks like a warmonger instead of a benevolent superpower trying to end a humanitarian crisis. For those on the ground, a failure of the US to act due to a possibility of a nonmilitary solution hurts America’s image as many of these individuals viewed the use of chemical weapons to be an excuse for action against Assad’s massacre of civilians. From their perspective, the US and its allies are hypocrites hiding behind international law. In essence, the US is damned if it does and damned if it does not. Quite frankly, the International Community was looking for another excuse to neglect its commitments to human rights and civil liberties; it found it. The US is on the verge of taking on its traditional role as the villain/hero to pick up the slack in order to maintain the stability and legitimacy of the International Community, yet this latest twist in the Syrian story means military intervention is less likely. For those seeking to maintain stability in the Middle East, this option is compelling and serves the purpose of sustaining the Assad regime in order to limit the risk of a failed Syrian state. For those seeking to end attacks on civilians and support revolutionary demands, the use of chemical weapons was a tragic opportunity to break the back of the Assad regime, thus they see the Assad regime giving up chemical weapons as simply extending the duration of Syria’s war. Knowledge is power. Businesses, researchers, and government officials rely on encrypted data to secure sensitive material, which is pivotal to their daily operations, while all individuals have a need for secure internet access to protect their identities and their personal affairs. From free speech to economic stability, our society must be able to trust in our information technology firms in order to function in the modern world. Thanks to Edward Snowden, solely thanks to Edward Snowden, the American and the other Peoples of the world have learned the NSA has the ability to break and bypass encryption protections. Quite frankly, this is exactly what the NSA should not be doing, if it respected the need for balancing national security and civil liberties interests. In fact, reporting on this revelation is exactly why we need whistle blowers and a free press, which this type of overreach undermines. Given the world’s dependency on information technology, the Nation Security Agency should be helping to secure the data behind legitimate activities instead of breaking the encryption that protects the sensitivity, private information of all people, especially from abusive corporations and oppressive governments. Not only is this terribly hypocritical of the United States, it gives the NSA too much power over the international community, the American People, the Peoples of the world, and political leaders of every government. Bluntly, the NSA having such a broad ability to easily crack the encryption of so much data of so many people is unacceptable. America’s national security apparatus needs to help information technology firms secure data and afford them the tools they can use to help identify possible wrong doings; they should not have direct access to the data of so many people. (Feel free to check out this blog post on the subject for further information; http://washingtonoutsider.weebly.com/1/post/2013/08/much-to-do-about-whistle-blowers-but-what-about-official-channels-for-whistle-blowing.html) "My credibility isn't on the line, the whole international community's credibility is on the line" – Obama
It looks like the US is closer to military intervention in the Syria conflict thanks to Wednesday’s hearings on Capitol Hill. Although this approach would have been more ideal than arming opposition forces earlier, i.e. doing so lacks the long-term threat of loose arms, time has complicated things. If the International Community is, at least, supporting US action with some nations participating in limited military strikes, the US can shield itself from some of the ripple effects that result from the Assad regime’s eventual collapse. What really matters in terms of military intervention is the aftermath. From the testimony of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey, Security of Defense Chuck Hagel, and Security of State John Kerry, we can assume the US can intervene with relatively few costs and few risks to our forces while we can significantly degrade the ability of the Assad regime to retaliate militarily, though the treat of retaliator terrorism may be a different story. Consequently, what steps are taken to support a transition of power once the Assad regime begins to crumble will determine the foreseeable future of Syria, which will not be the responsibility of the US alone. Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s comments against US lead action should be heard, but taken with a big grain of salt. The US is taking a risk in terms of circumventing UN channels; however, Syria has broken international conventions and that affords us a high degree of legitimacy in terms of acting with a resolution. Meanwhile, Putin chose to arm the Assad regime as it accelerated the slaughter of its own people. Putin has continually blocked attempts to reprimand and punish Assad for his misbehavior. Putin failed to dissuade the Assad regime from using chemical weapons. Moreover, Putin does not offer any effective solutions to dealing with the use of chemical weapons. A diplomatic approach and/or the use of sanctions cannot be effective, because the Assad regime is in crisis. In such a state, the regime will do anything it can to survive while it will only react to any immediate consequences, e.g. military intervention, and deal with any other consequences, if it survives, later. As such, Putin and other critics of US lead intervention need to demonstrate other solutions can be effective. |
Read old posts
April 2020
|