New developments in the Syrian conflict have caused stirrings in the international community. The civil war, which has lasted twenty months and has led to the deaths of roughly 36,000 people, has torn the country apart. Now, the international community is attempting to unify the disparate forces and coalitions within Syria.
Soon, the capital of Qatar, Doha, will be hosting a meeting of Syrian opposition groups in an attempt to bring together an internationally recognized governing body of Free Syria. The Syrian National Council (SNC) is the main dissident body within Syria, but is seen as out of touch with rebel forces. Many other factions exist that are in opposition to Assad's regime, including religious and secular groups, Kurds, and dissidents of Assad's Alawite sect. Also on the table during this meeting will be recent war crimes committed by rebel forces and the possibility of popular political dissident Riad Seif becoming the head of a post-war government. Ideally, a new leadership body capable of representing the many groups within Syria will emerge from this meeting.
China has recently released its own plan for peace in Syria, which aims to eventually initiate a ceasefire. China wants the international community to identify a legitimate governing body which can then begin a transition of power. China has also stressed the importance of humanitarian aid to help make transition possible. However, it is China and Russia that have vetoed Security Council proposals that would have put more pressure on the Assad regime.
Also of importance the Syrian conflict is the role of Turkey which has had recent domestic problems in the form of civil unrest and economic stagnation. Syrian shells have landed in Turkish soil, killing five, and Turkey has returned fire and has troops deployed on the Syrian border. While Turkey is in a position to intervene in the conflict, it does not wish to turn the civil war into a regional conflict.
Ultimately, the real question is what a rebel victory will mean for the future of Syria and the international community. What do you think? How involved should the international community be, and is it our right to interfere in another country's affairs?
4 comments:
Hopefully, the various factions in Syria will finally be able to put aside their differences and work toward peace. However, I am skeptical if they can create a governing body strong enough to hold together the country. They really did not do such a good job before, not sure they will do better this time around.
China, though perhaps unsurprisingly given their own human rights track record, seems to be flip-flopping over its position on Syria. China calls for peace and humanitarian aid but also voted with Russia to not apply more international pressure to bring down Assad. Regardless of their motives, China will definitely want some sort of influence in the region once all is said and done.
Regarding Turkey, I feel the country probably should not get involved and I doubt if they want to get involved. It would be terrible mistake to cause the Syrian Civil War to potentially break out into the rest of the Middle East. That area of the world is in a perpetual staring contest to see who shoots who first.
To answer Anthony's question, a rebel victory could result in Islamist extremists gaining control of the government by using the emotions of the people, as we have seen elsewhere. I feel the international community should condemn Assad but not get directly involved. Let them mind their own business. As Nelson Mandela advised: "Intervention only works when the people concerned seem to be keen for peace."
I agree with Matthew that the international community should avoid getting very involved in the Syrian conflict, especially considering the frequently poor results that at least American intervention in the middle east has caused. While providing a moderate amount of humanitarian aid is reasonable, it is ultimately up to Syria itself how this conflict will be resolved. Turkey ought to remain as uninvolved as possible, beyond simply protecting its own people. The world should let Syria sort itself out, then deal with the consequences of any change in government there only in regard to their own country-not within Syria's borders.
While I understand why the international community would want to avoid getting involved in the Syrian conflict, I don't understand how the international community can sit by and let this civil war continue. How many more deaths are international community going to allow before they find it time to intervene? I understand how incredibly difficult American Intervention in the Middle East has been, but I feel it is a human duty to promote democracy and freedom. I don't think it's acceptable to do nothing, considering we are one of the most powerful nations in the world. Even though China has an interesting human rights track record, if they're calling for peace in Syria we should stand behind them. I think the US would rather be involved in a smaller Syrian Civil War than a civil war spread throughout the Middle East. If we let Syria figure themselves out, we run the risk of extremists gaining control. Rather than letting Syria figure themselves out, I think we should back China's plan or a different plan for peace and make a sincere effort to end the Civil War.
The situation in Syria is too tenuous to become heavily involved. I think that at the least, the UN or possibly NATO (to avoid any hampering by China or Russia) should definitely help to provide aid in Syria. At least this way, the new government can't blame the West for being apathetic, and so we avoid creating any new enemies.
The Free Syrian Army, the most widespread opposition group, would likely take control of the government following any abdication by al-Assad. For the most part, this is a positive thing. The FSA was the launching point for the whole revolution, and it's also the group that most of the former military has defected to, making it the most effective fighting force. Since this is the most likely outcome of a prolonged civil war, we should demand that the Syrian government allow us to provide basic aid to people in refugee camps or in war-torn cities.
If we stand idly by, that will only breed resentment. On the other hand, if we get involved militarily, it could complicate an already complicated situation. China and Russia would be strongly opposed, and if we get involved in Syria it would have to be like the Iraq War--completely US led without any formal Security Council resolution. That's definitely not the path we'd want to take.
And I don't trust any plan that China comes up with in regards to a transition to democracy.
Post a Comment