by Diana Crandall
Tension in Syria is reaching a breaking point as the United Nations struggles to move forward in protecting the civilians of Syria. Last week, amidst speculation that civilians were being targeted by chemical weapons, Barack Obama came forth to state that “the Syrian government in fact carried out these attacks,” speaking to “NewsHour.” Mr. Obama continued, saying that “there needs to be international consequences” for these actions.
Unrest in Syria has culminated for months, but the speculated deaths of over 100,000 Syrians and increasingly violent attacks against citizens has prompted international attention and sparked major controversy amongst the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. On August 28th, officials representing Russia and China stood up and walked out of a UN Security Council meeting in New York City, after a permanent United States representative called for action in Syria.
Both Russia and China strongly oppose the use of force in Syria, while Britain, France and the United States wish to pursue immediate action.
“As of this moment, there is no discussion about using military force to force out the Assad regime, only to send a message that there will be consequences should Assad authorize the use of chemical weapons again,” Dr. Dan Skinner, of the Political Science Department, said.
Historically, remaining isolated or failing to intervene has led to horrific torture and murder in dozens of countries, including the relatively recent genocides in Rwanda and Cambodia.
The alternative viewpoint claims that there is “no solid proof” that the Syrian government carried out these attacks, but that a rebel group could have been responsible. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, a seasoned Russian diplomat, continues to ascertain that there is no basis for the Syrian government as the perpetrators of attacks against their civilians; the ministry then went on to accuse Washington of attempting to “create artificial groundless excuses for
military intervention,” as reported by the BBC.
Syrian officials began to echo this statement last week on national television. “Western countries, starting with the United States, are inventing fake scenarios and fictitious alibis to intervene militarily in Syria,” Prime Minister Wael al-Halqi said. Later, during a press conference with the Associated Foreign Press, the Prime Minister went on to say that “Syria will turn into a graveyard of the invaders.”
Even more radical viewpoints were broadcast in Syria, accusing Western powers of encouraging terrorist rebels to “use poison gas, while blaming it on the Syrian government, as a pretext for a Western intervention.”
Mr. Obama, however, vehemently stresses that rebel forces could not have obtained or carried out such severe attacks against the people, but that it was, in fact, the Syrian government.
Potential intervention by the US in Syria raises questions about the level of involvement of the US military in or around Syria. Criticism has spouted from every major news source, and across Facebook newsfeeds everywhere.
“Going to ‘war’ over the premise of the questionable existence and use of chemical weapons seems a lot like going to ‘war’ in search of nuclear weapons. Consider this food for thought. How have our policies and presidents been working for us?” read one Capital student’s status.
Another student echoed this sentiment, stating: “Our generation is sick and tired of hearing the words ‘terrorist’ and ‘war’ so easily and liberally strewn about like those words have no weight anymore. I don’t think another conflict is necessary.”
While speculation of another war continues to be tossed around, The Associated Press reports that Obama is not planning on putting troops on the ground, nor does he intend upon deploying fighter aircrafts into the area, as Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has a strong air defense system put into place. An air strike, launched from a Naval ship, would be the most likely body of force used against the Syrian government.
“The UK Prime Minister respected the democratic process by insisting that Parliament vote on British involvement in a Syrian military action. They voted no. Most Americans want President Obama to get Congressional approval before launching a strike,” Dr. Skinner said.
“Similarly, United Nations support would assuage some global fears that the American warrior posture is at it again, raising memories of the deceptions that led to the Iraq invasion,” Dr. Skinner articulated. “Given that this situation doesn’t pose an imminent threat to US national defense, Obama would be acting unconstitutionally should he launch an attack without Congressional approval. Launching without UN backing would be a violation of international agreements.”
Mr. Obama is taking the issue to Congress, but will have to wait until they get back from “summer break” and meet the week of September 9th. Even if they vote not to launch the strike, Dr. Skinner argues that the United States must get involved in some way.
“It’s important to note that gassing civilian populations is a crime against humanity, prosecutable under international law – the international community can’t stand idly by. Not acting is not an acceptable option.”
dcrandal@capital.edu
