Monday, January 20, 2014

Progress for Syria?


Source: CNN

On Saturday, representatives from Syria's opposition voted to attend peace talks in Geneva aimed at drawing up plans for a transitional post al-Assad government. While on the surface, it sounds like good news and that we may be making progress toward a peaceful solution to the civil war, the CNN article explains several points that may suggest otherwise.

First of all, al-Assad seems to be pummeling the under-armed and fractured opposition at the moment, and little foreign military aid has been given to the rebels to change this. Seeing as the Syrian regime is currently winning the war but will not be visiting Geneva, this all but renders the peace talks pointless at this time. Additionally, with al Qaeda gaining strength and numbers within the opposition, al-Assad can use his fighting against the terrorists to paint himself as a sort of hero. Thus, due to the two points above, it is becoming less and less feasible to remove him from power through peaceful methods. Finally, even though peace talks have begun, the humanitarian crisis within Syria is dire and needs to be resolved as soon as possible, perhaps through more efficient means than peace talks.

When these talks were conceived, the assumption seemed to be that al-Assad would be losing the war and would be under significant international pressure to step down. However, this clearly hasn't been the case, and the article suggests that this may have been the fault of countries like the US who refused to intervene earlier in the war to aid the disadvantaged rebels in their cause. On the other hand, there are many who do believe that the US learned from prior failed interventions and made the right decision not to intervene in Syria considering the possible costs in both life and dollars involved. Do you think the US's non-interventionist stance with regards to Syria was the correct decision? If we did decide to intervene, would the correct approach be to arm the rebels or directly neutralize al-Assad's forces? What differentiated Syria from Libya, in which a NATO-led series of airstrikes successfully turned the tide of the conflict away from Gaddafi and in favor of the rebels? What, if anything, can be done to resolve the humanitarian crisis on the ground in Syria?

No comments: