As many news sources have stated, a resolution has been put
forth to Syria in order to avoid immediate American intervention. To summarize
briefly, the Syrian government must let international agents take inventory of
all chemical weapons within a week (the report is ready! Click here!), and said
weapons must be confiscated and destroyed by July 2014. This is a proposal
agreed upon by France, the UK, Russia, and the US. However, the United States
would also like to add the threat of imminent force if the agreement is broken.
This is where Russia and the US differ.
In the New York Times op-ed article written by the Russian
president himself, Putin claims that the threat of an American airstrike
without UN authorization (something that cannot be achieved without Russia’s
vote in the Security Council) erodes the sanctity of international law. If
states cannot trust international law, they will have incentive to continue
externally balancing their power with weapons of mass destruction. President
Obama and select members of Congress such as Senator Carl Levin disagree with Putin,
and state that the threat of force is the only thing keeping this agreement
credible.
Through an institutional lens, Putin is certainly right.
Institutions help build cooperation among countries, and the Syria deal could
be a great triumph in international diplomacy. If successful, it could signal
to the international community that cooperation and diplomatic resolutions are
possible, and have the potential to really work.
However, a realist lens spits Putin’s words straight back at
him, and mocks the ideas of international law. Ultimately, there are no world
government forces enforcing international law, and in all reality every state
is still fending for itself militarily. The threat of force is the only thing
keeping such an agreement viable. In fact, Putin’s idea of a weapons-confiscating
compromise is troubling to many realists, seeing it only as a stalling tactic
to keep an American airstrike from tipping the balance of the civil war. After
all, Russia has a relationship with Assad dating back to Soviet times, sells
the Syrian government a stockpile of weapons, and has a naval base in the
region.
Regardless of what intuitionalists or realists might have to
say about the new developments in the Syrian conflict, there are a couple of
key points that must be addressed. First is the likelihood of Congressional approval
of intervention. President Obama can threaten Assad with airstrikes all he
wants, but it is common knowledge that he must have Congress’ approval to carry
out war acts. With a large number of war-weary democrats, domestically oriented
republicans, and isolationist conservatives loudly opposing American
involvement, there is no chance in my opinion Obama will gain approval. If I
have arrived at this conclusion, it’s pretty probable Assad has, too.
Therefore, what incentive does Assad have to cooperate? Secondly, the concept
of time must be taken into account throughout the Syria conversation. The
proposal suggests all chemical weapons in Assad’s possession must be handed
over within 9 months. A LOT can happen during 9 months in a civil war, creating
an unsafe situation for international agents, aside from the thousands killed
in the conflict and the millions of refugees.
In conclusion, while the world holds baited breath watching
this event of international interest unfold, innocent blood is still shed at
the hands of both Assad and the Al-Queda-allied rebels.
For further reading, explore this new york times article and this article by the economist, which inspired this post.
I believe you are arguing that the international community is giving a large emphasis on the fact that three countries with seperate goals and intentions all came together and compromised which most likely avoided a war. You are also stating, correctly I might add, that due to internal United States pressure there would have been a slim chance for a war regardless. I would like to play devils advocate here and remind you that, "we [the United States] have used force abroad more than 100 times but declared war inly five cases: the War of 1812, the Mexican-American and Spanish-American Wars, and World Wars I and II." (Yoo) Therefore, with that knowledge it is entirely possible an undeclared war or intervention could occur. I think that Schelling (1966) is applicable here with his Deterrence Theory. A credible threat with foreseeable and atrocious damage would deter states to ender a war.
ReplyDeleteYoo, John. "Like it or not, Constitution allows Obama to strike Syria without Congressional approval | Fox News." Fox News - Breaking News Updates | Latest News Headlines | Photos & News Videos. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Sept. 2013. .
I really enjoyed your blog article Jessalyn and my opinion on the matter at hand is pretty much identical. I'm split on what I believe the United States should do. I absolutely see President Putin's reasoning for why force should not be taken on Syria if they do no cooperate. Attacking Syria without UN authorization would set a bad example for countries in the future in that it would show them that international law holds no weight. It would be just another mark on the United States track record of being international bullies. I believe you're absolutely correct when you said that from an institutional perspective, Putin is right. Moreover though I agree with President Obama and Senator Carl Levin's view. I think if we were to portray that no force will be used if Syria does not cooperate would not properly incentivize them to obey our commands. For example, the only way to get a stubborn kid to do his chores is to tell him there will be a spanking or timeout if he doesn't. According to Fox news, top diplomats working on a U.N. Security Council resolution referred to "serious consequences" if Assad runs afoul of the agreement. Those consequences as far as we know are just sanctions though. Hopefully a decision will be made soon about how to handle this delicate situation.
ReplyDeleteRead more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/16/us-allies-vague-on-whether-syria-resolution-will-include-threat-force/#ixzz2fOImu0NP
This was a great post! Quite simply put, the geopolitical implications of a strike, or even inaction on the part of the international community, are not enviable, and in that regard I am largely on the fence. From an institutional standpoint, with specific regard given to the UN, I would certainly say that the US should be kept within the bounds of its mandate and respect the collective decision of the security council. HOWEVER, I still find it deplorable that China and Russia have consistently stalled international efforts to improve the situation there. In my opinion it is in their collective interest as well to see this conflict end. Assad certainly has no incentive to cooperate with anything beyond the surrender of his chemical weapons.
ReplyDeletePutin makes a valid point that the UN and the US need to trust international law and that Syria will dispose of its chemical weapons as promised by Russia. True, Syria and Russia have no real power holding them accountable for honoring their promise, so from a realist’s standpoint they would defect on this promise, it is only logical for the US to want to add a threat of force on Syria if no one was able to hold them accountable. However, I would argue that there is a power incentivizing each of these states to cooperate with the US’s requests. Syria would not be able to continue without the support of Russia because Russia is the only thing standing between them, and a UN intervention on the civil war. So if Assad wants to continue to hold power through this civil war than he will do what Russia asks, making Russia the power that holds them accountable. Russia has too much to lose if they were to defect on a promise to the US and the UN. By telling the world that they will remove these weapons from Syria and then going back on that promise they would see serious repercussions from the UN and its allies. Russia would lose all credibility that their nation has in regards to resolve, ultimately affecting their future international relations. Since these two states have much to lose if they defect on their promises to the world, logically, the UN and the US should be able to trust that the weapons will be destroyed without the need for an imminent force.
ReplyDeletePutin makes a valid point that the UN and the US need to trust international law and that Syria will dispose of its chemical weapons as promised by Russia. True, Syria and Russia have no real power holding them accountable for honoring their promise, so from a realist’s standpoint they would defect on this promise, it is only logical for the US to want to add a threat of force on Syria if no one was able to hold them accountable. However, I would argue that there is a power incentivizing each of these states to cooperate with the US’s requests. Syria would not be able to continue without the support of Russia because Russia is the only thing standing between them, and a UN intervention on the civil war. So if Assad wants to continue to hold power through this civil war than he will do what Russia asks, making Russia the power that holds them accountable. Russia has too much to lose if they were to defect on a promise to the US and the UN. By telling the world that they will remove these weapons from Syria and then going back on that promise they would see serious repercussions from the UN and its allies. Russia would lose all credibility that their nation has in regards to resolve, ultimately affecting their future international relations. Since these two states have much to lose if they defect on their promises to the world, logically, the UN and the US should be able to trust that the weapons will be destroyed without the need for an imminent force.
ReplyDeleteGreat article and extremely valid points, however, I'm not sure if I agree with Putin's comments being correct under an international lens. It is true that getting approval from the UN Security Council would confirm that it was internationally approved, but not internationally just. On a more cynical interpretation, the UN is a bureaucratic system that attempts to satisfy their own country's wants and needs before promoting the international community. This inevitably creates a bias in the UN where a country, such as Russia, will vote in affirmation or negation for the policy or action that will be directly affect their national investments. Therefore, it is likely that Russia would vote against any international action because Russia has a series of vital resources that makes it beneficial to have Assad maintain power.
ReplyDeleteFirst, Syria contains the only remaining Russian Naval base within the Mediterranean Sea. This is a crucial military location with hundreds of Russian technicians refurbishing the location to make it a more powerful strategic location. Thus, losing this location because of a regime change could have major implications for the Russian Navy.
Second, Russia has a $5 billion dollar arms industry within Syria, which although small is significant for the Russian military technology traders, since they lost over 18 billion dollars of arms trade in the previous year with Iran and Libya exiting the market (by sanction/political turmoil).
Third, Russia has over 19.4 billion dollars invested in Syria's infrastructure, energy initiatives, and tourism sectors.
These three contributing factors make Syria and the Assad government significant factors in maintaining its offensive power, while simultaneously increasing return on international investments and business. Therefore, it seems Putin's article doesn't come out a hope to preserve international law. Instead, it seems he is attempting to use soft power or at least deter the U. S. from entering Syria because of its large investments within the country. As a result, even though Putin is describing an international law, it is unreliable because there is no clear right or wrong, since each countries have their own incentives or desires when involving war or peace and only need to report to the international community without punishment. Thus, it is unlikely that Russia would have supported intervention within Syria, mainly because the Russian government feels that disadvantaging Assad would force the Russians to lose a significant military strong point and also lose a major contributor to their weapons market.
http://today.ucla.edu/portal/ut/PRN-russia-s-support-for-assad-regime-228392.aspx
Russia's role in this affair is incredibly interesting. By operating as a mediator of sorts, it seems Russia wants to uphold its alliance with Assad while also gaining a level of trustworthiness in the international community by peacefully resolving the chemical weapons problem. As a result, I believe Assad has a strong incentive to cooperate. If he were to defect, he risks losing Russia's protection and the resulting intervention would not be welcome news for his regime. It would seem to be very difficult for Russia to continue supporting Assad after a defection because doing so would contradict Putin's statements on the sanctity of international law. Russia's intentions in the international community would then be questionable. Regarding international reputation, it seems that Russia has incentive to push Assad to cooperate. Assad, on the other hand, has incentive to cooperate because his alliance with Russia is the sole reason his regime in not under U.S. attack. It is because of this that I believe, in this situation, cooperation is likely to work. To draw on information we have learned in class, I believe Axelrod's theory on the development of cooperation serves as a decent explanation of these negotiations. Russia foresees future interactions with members of the UN to be imperative. In order to set the stage for future occurrences of cooperation with UN members, Russia is working now to establish cooperation between itself, the UN, the US, and Syria in resolving Assad's breach of international law.
ReplyDeleteI found this post interesting and find the points you make to be quite valid. Like many I am on the fence about what course of action the international community should take. I don't realistically with the circumstances we are given and the reaction we can expect from within Syria, be it rebel or Assad's regime that any one course of action will yield a clear end to conflict and away from a messy end of a regime and the potential chaos that could be left behind with multiple groups vying for power of Syria. The actions observed from Russia and what seems to be a role of mediation is something I was surprised by and I am also very interested to see what sort of effects will ripple out of this for future negotiations regarding other aspects of the Syrian crisis.
ReplyDelete