On March 15, 2011, the people of Syria rose up to overthrow an oppressive government. The uprising was part of the movement that was taking place across the Arab world, known as the Arab Spring. It wasn’t so much the uprising, but the response by the government that made the world pay attention. President Bashar al-Assad refused to leave, and responded to protests with major violence, that has since sent Syria into a civil war that pits the government against the rebels. Many Western Countries and other International Government Organizations have condemned the actions taken by the government. There is now evidence that shows the government used chemical weapons against their own people. These countries and organizations are now having to put their money where their mouth is and start to practice what they preach.
Saturday, August 31, 2013 President Obama made a much anticipated statement on how the U.S. was going to respond to reports that the Syrian government used chemical weapons on their own citizens. By this point, U.S. allies were drawing lines in the sand. The British government voted against participating in any action, should the U.S. decide to strike, which was a major political blow to David Cameron, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
Shockingly enough, France has come out and said that they would support the U.S. in taking action. Obama announced that he was prepared to make a swift strike, but he will wait to act until congress is back in session. It was a very strategic move, but one that could also prove politically disastrous. Will he make the strike if he doesn’t receive support from congress? To further complicate theissue, Russia has said that it will not support any action against Syria, and without the mandate from the U.N., any strike would violate National Law. This brings in the very paradox of this situation: Do we violate International Law to punish another country for breaking International law?
A major part of the problem is the U.N.’s inability to act. The problem in Syria is an example of exactly why the U.N. was created in the first place. Its stagnation on this issue has given all the U.N. critics the fodder they need. For those of us idealistic enough to believe in the U.N. and believe in what they can accomplish, this is the perfect opportunity for them to show what they can do and how they can make the world a better place, but unfortunately, if they do not act soon, the world will start to act, good or bad. Another consequence of U.N. inaction would be a further lack of adherence and support by nations in the future, because it shows utter weakness. If the U.N. refuses to act, why should the world put its resources into an organization that is not doing what it is supposed to do?
This whole episode has proved just how much politics are involved in decision making, especially in Foreign Affairs. The decision to act is probably one of the biggest decisions that Obama will make in his presidency. A strike could mean retaliation to our friends in the area, such as Israel. It would mean violating International Law. If it fails, it would mean the life of millions of Syrians. If it succeeds, we could face further embarrassment if the government that replaced Al- Assad is just as repressive and violent.
This may seem like a simple issue: a country violated international law by using chemical weapons against their own people. A sitting government is killing their own people. If the United States is going to preach certain ideals, we have to live up to them. That being said, we are still paying for hasty decisions such as the war in Iraq. The consequences of that decision,as well as arming the anti-Soviet Bin Laden still weighs heavily on the minds of policy makers. The decision now is on congress, and the American people. If you feel strongly about this issue, write to your representative. If you want to talk about this issue further, come to the political science club meetings Fridays at 4, Ruffner 456.
