In the one of the most recent developments in the Syria crisis, the US and Russia have made a cooperative deal with the goal of forcing Syria to make an full and accurate declaration of the chemical weapons in its possession. The deal, made on Saturday, made on 14 September, allows the Syrian government one week (until Friday, 20 September) to announce its inventory. If the deadline is not met, the UN Security Council will take further action based on its charter's authorization for the use of force.
Despite his seeming indecisiveness in this situation, President Obama is confident and seems to be placing a great deal of faith in Russia's cooperation. However, Russia's motivation to work with the US in this situation is still unclear. In "The Syria Deal", published on Saturday, the Economist explains its perception of Russia's actions. According to the article, it is unlikely that Russia is acting to dismantle the Assad regime, which was largely developed with Russian support. The US-Russian agreement, which is effectively delaying a military strike on Syria, will serve as a period of recovery and regrouping for Assad's forces.
This is a valid argument; on the surface Russia is a emerging as a cooperative international player, trying to rid Syria of chemical weapons alongside the US. The upcoming week will be crucial for Assad to regroup his military. When the week comes to an end, he can continue disposing of his opposition and Russia maintains its presence in Syria and also derives power from the continued Syrian threat to the US.
Assad is inevitably aware that Western countries are growing more hesitant engage in military action and now that Russia is involved, the Syrian government will feel more audacious in hiding or not fully exposing its weapons caches.
The Economist argues that to make this deal work the UN must ensure that Syria knows authorized force will be used if Assad fails to comply with the agreement. If this fails, Obama will surely seek again congressional authorization for a strike, further delaying the destruction of weapons and allowing Syria more to kill and evade punishment.
One question in the scenario is whether Obama should even seek congressional approval to strike Syria? The threat to strike could be more realistic if he didn't bother with the politics on Capitol Hill. With a more imminent punishment Assad might give up his chemical weapons more readily.
ReplyDeleteSeeking congressional approval seems to be a means to somehow garner some sort of approval for action. Obama is stuck between a rock and a hard place: try and defend the ideals that a nation preserve the integrity, safety and property of its citizens, or make an effort to create violence in order to punish past violence. As one man, one leader, it's maybe the wiser to placate the American public by involving a full government body versus seeming to "irrationally" make decisions. Approval rating likewise yields the amount of cooperation (as spoken in class) or the preservation of dignity and leverage our President could garner in future situations.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteThe agreement of the Syria Deal is both strategically important for both the US and Russia. On US’ part, we do not need another armed war and on Russia’s part, they cannot have Syria’s weapons showing up on the land that was once their Islamic Soviet Republics. US and Russia have come to agreement that Syria is indeed a strong but limited threat to the global balance of power. But who is going to become the world’s next threat once Syria is diminished? The military strike that has been deliberated by the US had one not so simple plan of action – to scourge Syria and repress the use of chemical weapons. But the whole debate behind the supposed strike is if we would even manage that goal, or if Syria would strike back harder. Now the Russians have emerged willing to help and put the weapons under international control. Yet, Putin does not have much background with democracy so it would be interesting to see how all this would play out. If Russia does indeed intend to comply, it is to be seen, but definitely worth following and would accomplish more than any strike ever would have.
This was a great post! I certainly agree with the premise that force must be the ultimate token backing this deal, should it fall through. This certainly harks back to the discussion regarding threats in the bargaining process. The US has no incentive to attack Syria other than to enforce international norms, however it does have to show that any action it takes would inflict unacceptable levels of damage to the Syrian regime, and thus coerce Assad into accepting some grand bargain to avoid such damage. Russia clearly has a stake in this process as well; it doesn't simply support the regime for the sake of it. Syria houses some of a few Russian Mediterranean naval bases, and Russia has no intention of relinquishing them.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that the best scenario for the US, Russia, and Syria is the willing removal of Syria's chemical weapons. It maintains Russia's foothold in Syria and keeps the United States out of Syria militarily. It seems that this is the best scenario for Assad as well. He still has support of Russia, who has large chemical weapon stores and power, and is keeping the the United States out of his civil war. The United States not intervening militarily seems to increase his chances in staying in power. For Assad, staying in power is most likely his primary objective.
ReplyDeleteThe removal of chemical weapons in Syria I feel is the best bet, but the way we go about it could and is having a large effect on our government as well as the general public. People don't know what will happen, but I feel that Obama took the right approach by leaving it up to congress to decide. Obama's decision was well thought out and the constitution states, that an act of war must be decided by Congress, by giving congress this decision, it shows that Obama does care about our political institutions and the fact that there is a correct way of going out and executing a procedure or some sort.
ReplyDelete