As discussed in class, the current chemical weapon crisis in Syrian relates to the Prisoner’s Dilemma for it’s a game of cooperation and not cooperating; where the U.S. and Syria are the two players in the game. The best cooperative for both parties is for the U.S. not to strike Syria, and for Syria to give up their chemical weapons. With the U.S. and Russia coming to a common bargain on removing chemical weapons in Syria, all parties have reached a desired outcome when it comes to the chemical weapons crisis. The problem for the U.S., is to ensure that their trust in Russia’s commitment to stand with the U.S when it comes to removing chemical weapons in Syria was well placed. With Sergei Lavrov and John Kerry coming to common grounds on the removal of chemical weapons in Syria, Russia has benefited from this bargain with the U.S. for it has portrayed them in a better light to the international community and has received recognition. “A Syrian minister hailed the deal on the Assad regime’s chemical weapons as “a victory … won thanks to our Russian friends” (The Guardian). The only thing that the U.S. can do, is to hope that Russia does not defect on their commitment to the removal of chemical weapons in Syria.
I enjoyed reading this post, I believe you have asserted that the best case scenario in the Prisioners Dilemma has occured. The United States has avoided a costly and presumably unpopular war as well as feel that they have heriocally stopped Assad from commiting immeasurable damage, Russia is holding the the weight and can say they've contributed to international peace and the avoidence of a possible Turkish Iranian war, and lastly Assad can say he avoided the worst case scenario. I applaude the international cooperation and the outcome as well. However, I wonder what will happen to the Syrian people? Will the civil war continue or the attention it has accrued on an international level lead to the end of it all? I suppose only time will tell.
ReplyDeleteI personally agree that this cooperation is the best course of action for all parties involved. I could not see Russia defecting on their promise due to the light that has shined on them in the international community. However, I am wondering if Russia's promise to remove chemical weapons from Syria will scar their alliance, and if so, will it create a turning point in the civil war itself. If Syria believes Russia will act on behalf of the US's desires, rather than in the best interest of Syria as an ally, than Syria may lose faith their allegiance. Cutting ties with Russia as an ally would open the doors to a UN intervention on this civil war. So is it possible that this is something Syria would want to risk, or is the risk so high that Bashir al-Assad will be forced to simply “suck it up” that Russia may appear to be acting on Syria’s behalf?
ReplyDeleteI agree with your analysis that the 'best outcome' when dealing with the prisoner's dilemma is that the US doesn't strike and the Assad regime gives up its chemical weapons, but in the eyes of Assad, this is not his best option. As we discussed in class on Monday, September 16th, Assad's decision to give up his chemical weapons may seem like a rational decision to us, but we may be thinking of rationality in a different perspective. Looking to the definition of rationality through an International Relations scope, Assad has been a very rational actor in the Syrian Civil War, as he has been very concerned with protecting his own interests. In Assad's eyes, the use of chemical weapons on civilians is necessary to stay in power and remain an important actor throughout the Syrian Civil War, which through the perspective of IR is very rational. I would like to point out, however, that because I am saying it would be rational for Assad to not concede and give up his chemical weapons, it is not what I believe he should do. It would be best for the international community with the other actors involved for Assad to give up his weapons and to cease the mass killing of Syrian civilians, but not the best option for Assad.
ReplyDeleteI find myself slightly cautious of Russian foreign policy and involvement in Syria, and their level of commitment in partaking/instigating in the chemical weapon removal. Even considering they have so much at stake, a large naval base in Syria and likewise Syria being one of Russia's customers in military exports. Is their new, supportive diplomacy a means to get positive attention world wide? Is Putin trying to overturn a new leaf or cover up something? Russia generally seems to take the "no blame" approach, take Chechnya Massacre at Beslan in the 2000's...I'm only surprised they are intently focusing on Syria and eagerly supporting proper, mostly peaceful cooperation on both sides. I see it as Russia being a more important player than Syria almost, because failure to cooperate with the Russian powerhouse on the U.S's end might yield in future complications in diplomacy, trade, and foreign relations.
ReplyDelete(Response based off an culmination of an article in the Washington Post, September 5th, and the discussion above)
I also believe that this is the best outcome from a US perspective. Syria gives up chemical weapons and the US threat of using force against Assad seems to be credible and effective. Russia’s cooperation with the US seems to be its best outcome as well. At this point, even though Russia has had long-lasting and powerful relations with Syria, Assad has shown himself to the world as a ruthless tyrant capable of doing anything to stay in power. It worked for his father during the 1982 Hama massacre where estimates from 10,000 to 40,000 civilians were killed (Wiki) but in this case, the whole world is watching and condemning Bashar for his actions. His use of chemical weapons has taken things too far and since Russia has billions upon billions of dollars invested in the Syrian economy and strategic military ports in Syria, I think they would rather see cooperation than US intervention in Syria. It makes sense to me that Russia would be willing to seize chemical weapons from Syria to appear cooperative on a US scale and to protect their domestic interests as well.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Syria_relations
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/29/world/meast/syria-iran-china-russia-supporters/index.html
When I first heard about the Syrian conflict (which I'll admit was actually not long ago due to a lack of attention paid to the news) I had no idea what was going on, other than it was becoming a serious thing and it involved the U.S. I have since been very up to date on the conflict, and done much reading about it. Reading this post was definitely helpful as well. I agree that cooperation is always the best way to go, however I'm skeptical that everything will work out as peachy-keen as everyone is now hoping. Assads use of chemical weapons definitely warrants some kind of reprimand, but I also do not believe the U.S. should get involved in another war, which seems plausible if we were to strike Syria. I think many people were, and still are, nervous about our involvement in Syria because we still have open wounds from Iraq, and the last thing Americans want is further involvement in the middle east. However, if chemical weapons is our main, or only, concern, Russia getting involved and threatening to seize Syria's chemical weapons is a god send for America. I think it was very smart on Russia's part to at least appear cooperative and get involved in order to prevent a strike, and so far, I remain hopeful that the situation will end up being a win-win, at least for the time being.
ReplyDeleteWhile I wish the deal the U.S Secretary of the State John Kerry and Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov discussed would be put into action and work, I don't think it will. The Economist article below talks about how any attempt to take out Syria's chemical weapons arsenal could take years. Also when violence is erupting in Syria, it'd be nearly impossible to gain access to all the chemical weapon sights and to protect the UN officials. I hope everything turns out okay and all the states get their desired result in this Prisoner Dilemma but things don't usually go the way everyone wants them to go when it comes to states. The Syrian minister you talked about that's 'hailing the deal as a victory thanks to the Russians' probably shouldn't jump the gun on hailing just yet. This situation is far from clear skies.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21586318-russias-plan-disarm-syrias-chemical-weapons-makes-sense-only-if-it-backed-threat
I really enjoyed reading this post, and as most of the others commenting have said, I too agree that this is a best possible case scenario for dealing with Syrian use of chemical weapons. Although there are obvious reasons for skepticism regarding the follow through one of the biggest questions I continue to have throughout this entire issue of chemical weapons is that many seem to lose sight of the fact that chemical weapons are just one among many different types of weapons being used in attacks in Syria. Removal of chemical weapons will obviously be a positive, but I believe it is important to realize Assad still has access to mass amounts of weapons that achieve the same result of mass civilian casualties with or without the chemical weapons being in the picture. I wonder if this could potentially be a starting point for the international community to keep up a discussion on weapons in Syria where we could potentially observe less hostile interactions between parties involved?
ReplyDeleteI think I'm probably beating a dead horse when i say this, but this is a great post, and I couldn't agree any more then the next person with this being the best scenario when it comes to the conflict with Syria we are currently dealing with. The removal of chemical weapons, is certainly a step in the right direction, however chemical weapons are just the tip of the iceberg. New forms of weapons are constantly being worked on and produced, which in turn could lead to other problems.
ReplyDelete