While Syria has been deeply economically damaged by economic sanctions by the EU and the United States, these new sanctions are expected to hit even harder. A large majority of Syria's trading partners are Arab nations. And even though, by design of the Arab League, countries which abstain or vote against the passed resolution do not have to adhere to the resolution's clauses (in this case, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon are likely not participating in the sanctions), the Arab League's move sent a broader symbolic message.
It should be remembered that the Arab League resolution suspending Libya from the Arab League was the pivotal point before international powers intervened in Libya. This new resolution on Syria may likely have a similar effect.
At the same time, it should be noted that the NATO General Secretary, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, has repeatedly said that there a NATO operation in Syria was out of the question. Certainly, the NATO engagement in Libya would differ greatly from a prospective on in Syria. One of the key differences between the two countries is geographical. In Libya, a majority of the population lived on the strip of land bordering the Mediterranean Sea. Meanwhile, the population in Syria is more interspersed. This would mean a campaign in Syria would likely involve more unintended victims.
Moreover, Syria still has many close regional allies. While Libya was practically deserted prior to Ghadaffi's downfall, Syria still has enormously close ties with Lebanon and increasingly nuclear Iran.
According the the Qatari foreign minister, the resolution did not specifically call for foreign military intervention. Rather, the sanctions were aimed at stopping the bloodshed in Syria. Still, many are worried that the imposition of economic sanctions will not hurt the government or the elite. Rather, many in Syria believe, as has been the case in many other countries, the imposition of economic sanctions will only hurt the poor. The New York Times article quoted a man saying:
“Those who couldn’t afford buying bread now can’t afford even smelling bread.”
It should be noted that the U.S. is now placed in an interesting position. The U.S. does stand to gain from a governmental change in Syria. The government of Assad, which favors the Alawite sect of Shi'ite Islam, is a state sponsor of Hezbollah. Hezbollah, a Lebanon based militant Islamic group which has a large amount of power in the Lebanese government, has a record for calling for the destruction of Israel. Moreover, it believed that Iran has been supplying Hezbollah weapons by proxy of Syria. If the Syrian government were to change to represent the Sunni plurality in Syria, Syria may drift away from the Iranian sphere of influence and take a more pro-compromise stance on the Palestine-Israeli conflict.
But at home and around the world, there are many reasons by which the US would be reluctant to engage in Syria. With the ongoing economic downturn, many in the U.S. believe that it is no time for another war. Moreover, elections come in but less than a year. Committing in Syria now would likely have repercussions during the voting season. Considering an international perspective, the Arab region dislikes American hegemony. Any move by the U.S. without Arab approval would make the U.S. seem like it is overstepping its boundaries.
At the same time, it should be noted that one of the reasons the international community was so quick to intervene in Libya was due to a feeling that the international community had failed in Rwanda. It could almost be said that there was a bit of a knee-jerk response by the international community which wanted to make amends and ensure that genocide did not take place once again.
In conclusion, the recent Arab League sanctions further complicate the situation in Syria. In the past, sanctions have often proven ineffective. In fact, the regimes in the DPRK (North Korea), Iran, and Cuba thrived off of sanctions. Considering that the U.S. and EU have already imposed sanctions on Syria and that two of Syria's major industries of tourism and oil have already slowed to a stop, these new sets of sanctions will likely have a greater symbolic meaning than an actual economic effect. Whether international sanctions will end the bloodshed in Syria is still a mystery, but as of right now, thinks in Syria are not looking bright for protesters.
In my opinion, if these sanctions prove ineffective, a Syrian mission is likely forthcoming.
5 comments:
I generally believe that economic sanctions have little true effect and are usually always symbolic.
However, I think that NATO is right to be worried about intervening because of that widely spread population. Nonetheless, taking action in Syria could both help and harm candidates in the presidential race. Helping Syria would garner support from those currently involved in the occupy protests, but entering a war would cause people to label Obama as a blood-thirsty interventionist.
And although a majority of the focus is on the poor economy right now, a war actually has the potential to increase the GDP as the military would need a larger supply of guns and the like. the most extreme example of this is WWII after the Great Depression.
I somewhat disagree with Sophia. I think the sanctions will at least have some kind of affect on Syria.
An example that was mentioned in the post refers back to how sanctions on North Korea have been very ineffective. This is obviously true, especially on the more recent sanctions, given that since there's basically no trade activities going on between the western world and the DPRK, imposing sanctions yielded little to no change. However, Syria does have close trade relations with most of the Arab countries (the majority of Syria's top trading partners are all Arab nations) so the circumstances are obviously quite different.
Furthermore, I think it would help move things along if the UN were to pass a similar resolution as well. After all, the EU and China are among Syria's top 5 trading partners. [x] Further isolations may just be the push that is needed to stop the Syrian government.
On another note, I personally find this sanction super ironic given that most of the Arab league member nations are themselves very brutal and unfair to their own people. The hypocrisy...
In reference to Sophia's note, Maybe helping Syria would garner support from Occupiers. Unfortunately, however, the polls show that most Occupiers don't vote in the first place.
I believe that sanctions prove ineffective and would just cause more violence and create a bigger blood shed. I also believe the US should stay out of situation because we dont need to be getting our selves into another war that has no meaning
In reference to not getting into another war. Humans I think in this case, are naturally tended towards war. Examples being from cavemen to Hitler and liebenstraum. I think that eventaully something new will occur and the country will rally behind it just as we did in ww2 after ww1. Right now we are afflicted from war weariness and that should be taken into account. As for this particular case I think that these countries have relatively small meaning towards our country and that we would seem meddlesome and loose more international support, therefore worsening our total overall power. This is why I believe that no matter what happens, there will not be a NATO mission, especially because the votes need to be unanimous. As for the economic sanctions, they are relatively symbolic until they are followed up with threats of troops, and the way the US has been meddlesome recently, that threat carries weight, thus then, it would have affect. In terms of the close relations with the middle east, I think that no action is against our wants there, such as Israel, but wouldn't hurt terribly and it would could possibly improve relations with the other countries in the middle east. In general I think that there will not be any official overall reaction to it, unless a foreign power that we are tied to declares that they want help.
Post a Comment