The news about the evolving compromise between the United States and Russia regarding an international intervention in the Syrian Citizens War, due to the recent chemical weapon usage, should naturally be judged skeptically.
The Ghouta attacks, a Chemical Weapons bombardment, occurred on Wednesday, 21st of August, 2013, in the Ghouta suburbs near the city of Damascus. It has most probably taken a toll of more than a thousand dead, among them many children. Since then, the international community has been torn between a clear will that something has to be done, and a clear hesitation, hopeful that someone else will be the one to do something about it.
Some of the hesitation probably was due to the bitter accusations between the Syrian government and the rebels, each blaming the other for the attacks.
But although it seemed at first that most of the international community considered the government as the one responsible, an interesting process began. The United Kingdom, whose government was clearly in support of attack, discovered that its parliament was not so supportive, which did not change the government's stance, but its ability to act. The U.S response to these turn of events was rather surprising for many, as he too, chose to seek support from the U.S congress. Some explained it as a sign that the U.S does not wish to intervene alone. Others thought that it was his attempt to cope with the War Powers Resolution in accordance with his own past views of the matter. However one views these decisions, once cannot ignore the impression of the international community avoiding a run to save the citizens of Syria from their murderous government.
Considering the fact that there has been proof of a repeating usage of chemical warfare in the civilian war of Syria since December 2012, another puzzlement joins the rational viewer of these events: why now ?
Joining both wonders together: the "why now", and "why so hesitantly", one cannot avoid the obvious conclusion: the international community is terrified from any substantial result in Syria. Both results - a decisive victory for the current regime or a decisive victory for the rebels - are considered as too dangerous "for the world". And thus, a slowly developing compromise, which shall be enforced by the international comminity, is being developed, and shall be advanced, under the veil of the chemical weapons compromise. One could say that this is a great victory for China and Russia, both promoting the necessary compromise approach to the Syrian conflict since day 1 of its emergence. Both fearing the image of a post-Assad Syria and its impact on the world. Both fearing a world in which a state is held accountable by the international community when human rights are annulled by a government. Everyone fearing an endless involvement Vietnam/Afghanistan style. Fer is the key.
Viewing events in countries changed by the spring of nations of the middles east, like Egypt or Libya, one cannot deny the fears raised as senseless, but one can insist that fears must not be the key to the construction of the moral stand of the international community. This approach has been tried in the past, and has lead the world to the 1938 peace treaty with Hitler. We all know what followed That approach, and how much misery it has brought to the world.
Further reading
The Ghouta attacks, a Chemical Weapons bombardment, occurred on Wednesday, 21st of August, 2013, in the Ghouta suburbs near the city of Damascus. It has most probably taken a toll of more than a thousand dead, among them many children. Since then, the international community has been torn between a clear will that something has to be done, and a clear hesitation, hopeful that someone else will be the one to do something about it.
Some of the hesitation probably was due to the bitter accusations between the Syrian government and the rebels, each blaming the other for the attacks.
But although it seemed at first that most of the international community considered the government as the one responsible, an interesting process began. The United Kingdom, whose government was clearly in support of attack, discovered that its parliament was not so supportive, which did not change the government's stance, but its ability to act. The U.S response to these turn of events was rather surprising for many, as he too, chose to seek support from the U.S congress. Some explained it as a sign that the U.S does not wish to intervene alone. Others thought that it was his attempt to cope with the War Powers Resolution in accordance with his own past views of the matter. However one views these decisions, once cannot ignore the impression of the international community avoiding a run to save the citizens of Syria from their murderous government.
Considering the fact that there has been proof of a repeating usage of chemical warfare in the civilian war of Syria since December 2012, another puzzlement joins the rational viewer of these events: why now ?
Joining both wonders together: the "why now", and "why so hesitantly", one cannot avoid the obvious conclusion: the international community is terrified from any substantial result in Syria. Both results - a decisive victory for the current regime or a decisive victory for the rebels - are considered as too dangerous "for the world". And thus, a slowly developing compromise, which shall be enforced by the international comminity, is being developed, and shall be advanced, under the veil of the chemical weapons compromise. One could say that this is a great victory for China and Russia, both promoting the necessary compromise approach to the Syrian conflict since day 1 of its emergence. Both fearing the image of a post-Assad Syria and its impact on the world. Both fearing a world in which a state is held accountable by the international community when human rights are annulled by a government. Everyone fearing an endless involvement Vietnam/Afghanistan style. Fer is the key.
Viewing events in countries changed by the spring of nations of the middles east, like Egypt or Libya, one cannot deny the fears raised as senseless, but one can insist that fears must not be the key to the construction of the moral stand of the international community. This approach has been tried in the past, and has lead the world to the 1938 peace treaty with Hitler. We all know what followed That approach, and how much misery it has brought to the world.
Further reading
אין תגובות:
הוסף רשומת תגובה