The West has concluded
hat Syrian President Bashar Assad used chemical weapons against
civilians last Wednesday. The horrific incident, in which many women and
children were killed, meets the definition of a crime against humanity.
The world has the capability to respond and Israel has recently proved,
according to foreign sources, that Syrian military targets can be
attacked without risk. There is also clear political and moral
justification for striking the Assad regime. So what is the world
waiting for?
First of all, the U.N.
Security Council would never approve such action. Russia will continue
to support the Assad regime, which is Moscow's last ally in the Middle
East. But there is also another reason for the world's lack of response:
U.S. President Barack Obama pledged to himself -- and to us -- that he
would go down in history as a president who ended wars, not one who
started new ones.
In August 2012, Obama
said that use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime would be, in his
eyes, "crossing a red line." Since then, Assad has used chemical weapons
13 times, according to the respected Le Figaro newspaper. But Obama
chose to bury his head, and U.S. deterrence, in the sand, troubling
America's allies. This is not the America they know.
Obama has good cause
for hesitation. The Syrian opposition contains jihadist elements, but
the Nobel Peace Prize winner hopes that things in Syria, as well as
Egypt, will somehow work themselves out. In Egypt, Obama first bet on
the Egyptian people, then the Muslim Brotherhood, and finally the
military, which won't quickly forgive him for the impressive zigzag.
Obama acts largely through speeches, as well as drone strikes in places
like Yemen and Afghanistan. The rest is just words, words and more
words.
Washington might also
remain out of the game this time, even though there are options to
bypass the U.N., such as a solution via the Arab League or using the
precedent set in 1999 in Kosovo, where Russia also opposed Western
military action.
We are currently at an
impasse in Syria, despite the world's awareness of the horrors taking
place there. One must admit that Obama is in a bind after his red line
was turned into a global farce. The U.N. is also incapable of taking a
tough stand against a leader who is slaughtering his own people with
chemical weapons. It is ironic that even Iranian President Hasan
Rouhani, a top ally of the Syrian regime, recognized that chemical
weapons were used in Syria, without specifying who used them (although
he hinted that it was the Syrian opposition who used them). The Iranians
would likely sit by quietly during military action against the Assad
regime. The Iranians prefer that the world's spotlight be on Syria,
Egypt, Lebanon and the Maghreb, as long as they can continue their
important projects (their nuclear program) unimpeded.
Right now, Obama is
gambling on finding a diplomatic solution at the second Geneva
conference, where the Syria issue will be discussed. An American-Russian
meeting is set to take place in October in The Hague, where, in a
normal world, Assad would be put on trial at the International Court of
Justice.
The Middle East
continues to become more and more complicated. Qatar and Saudi Arabia
both support the rebels in Syria, but are battling with each other over
what the nature of the next regime in Damascus will be. Turkey is very
fearful that weapons could reach the Kurds who aspire for independence.
In Egypt, the situation is not yet stable, and in Lebanon, as usual,
there is a free-for-all. It is good there are peace negotiations between
Israel and the Palestinians to serve as a fig leaf for U.S. foreign
policy in the Middle East.
From the start, we knew the
choice in Syria was between bad guys and other bad guys. Obama must now
choose to back -- with actions, not just words -- the weak side, meaning
Syrian civilians. He will definitely have time for speeches later.
No comments:
Post a Comment