In recent weeks, the world has turned to some key countries and actors in the Syrian conflict, namely the United States and Russia. One important actor's perspective seems to be pushed on the back burner in the midst of this tense power struggle: al-Assads. The conflict began over two years ago and has taken 100,000 lives since then. I believe al-Assad understands how to perform the bargaining game, thus has brought chemical weapons into play. With bold undertones, he has made statements asserting the United States' self-inflicted harm in this conflict.
"The first question they should ask themselves, is what do wars give America? Till now, nothing. No political gain, no economic gain, no good reputation... If you strike somewhere, you have to expect the repercussions somewhere else."
The United States have always been an international police force and felt pressure to keep the peace in many countries worldwide. It was over two years after the start of the conflict that al-Assad introduced chemical weapons taunting the United States and other international actors to take attention. It was in al-Assads best interest to play this game, as he can now have leverage and presumably fulfil some items on his agenda, such as furthering his interest in getting Israel to agree to themselves of chemical weapons and requiring the United States to stop supplying weapons to the Syrian opposition forces. He has paradoxically turned the crisis to his advantage by holding his bargaining power and threatening to delay the signing of a peaceful relinquishment of his chemical weapons arsenal until his demands are met. In a satirical piece that brings levity to the situation also brings up the observable notion that the United States has a "moral high ground" and a reputation for being the gold standard for democracy, peace, and upholding the Geneva Conventions, thus inevitably this deliberately dangerous threat from al-Assad would garner swift and full attention from the United States.
Thomas Schelling argued in An Essay on Bargaining about bargaining and contractual commitments asserting that contractual commitments are not as effective a they may seem, nor are they to establish. In this scenario it is not easy to see clearly how strong the commitment of al-Assad is to rid the country of the chemical weapons based on the volatility and history of al-Assad as a leader. He disassociates himself from the current affairs of his state when he says, “it doesn’t mean that Syria will sign the documents, fulfill the obligations, and that’s it,” hinting at his disobedient and smug behavior. The amount of trust we have in the bargaining situation is low, but the Xinhua News reported Syrians Information Minister al-Zoboui stating, "his government has started preparing the weapons' count list," which could be an empty statement or an actualizing reality. Al-Assad has made the threat of a chemical warfare credible enough to get the attention of international actors to further his own adgenda and assert his power and force in the world.
I question wether chemical weapons really give Assad leverage in the current situation. Assad clearly does not want the United States to use a military strike against his regime, and his saving grace up to this point has been the actions of Russia negotiating a deal. Without the Russian intervention the Syrian regime has little way to stop a missile strike from the US. If Russian negotiation fall through Obama may have a stronger argument to use force and to get Congressional approval. After that a list of demands by the Syrian regime might not be so realistic.
ReplyDeleteI think it was, in Assad's own interests, a smart move bringing chemical weapons to the table. He is putting the threats of the United States to the test, and with Russia backing the regime, it seems like cooperation rather than a US attack is more likely. If the US doesn't attack, we seem to dovish, if we do attack, people will be upset that more American resources are being devoted to a battle that is not ours. By using chemical weapons, Assad has forced the United States to make a decision in which both outcomes can look bad.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this blog, I'm really starting to wonder if the use of peaceful negotiation in resolving the use of chemical weapons in Syria will effectively display to Assad and other state leaders that the use of WMD's is not tolerable. It seems as if Assad is getting off easy with little punishment for the murder of innocent civilians by sarin gas. The UN taking control of Assad's chemical arsenal doesn't really seem to do a great job in terms of punishment. War is by no means desirable, but it may be the only way to establish a credible deterrent to would be WMD proliferates. I'm concerned as to what kind of message the Russian solution to chemical weapons in Syria displays to other states. Additionally, the US's decision to back down from military intervention may reveal a weakness in the US's determination to uphold international law and punish those who violate it. Assad's behavior displayed in this blog is alarming and causes one to wonder if he has really learned his lesson or if he can be expected to violate international law more in the future. The question that remains: are there effective alternatives to war as punishment for WMD use or is war the only threat that can deter violations of international law?
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the statement that chemical weapons or the possibility of chemical warfare gives Assad leverage in negotiations, especially against the United States. Practically, an invasion or attack by the US could cripple Assad's forces and turn the outcome of the war. More importantly, an invasion from the US would guarantee an end to the Assad regime. Therefore, I think Assad has actually lost leverage within the international community and has a greater risk of losing power. Assad's violation of international policies in the result of chemical warfare potentially infers that the use of chemical weapons spurred will allow international intervention. Even more importantly, the use of these weapons places Assad in an even lower bargaining place since they cannot directly respond to physical threats by the US.
ReplyDeleteAssad's use of chemical weapons and breaching the terms within the international community has caused to be in a greater position of losing power. The question is Will anyone actually intervene? Logically speaking, outside of Syria I don't think Assad possesses any threat or for that matter has the technology or the army to invade any other country. The fear lies with the unknown, who are his allies and what is his agenda?
ReplyDelete