Regardless of who is responsible for the attacks, the search and destroy of Assad’s stoke pile of chemical weapons is imperative to the United States. According to the article, “Removing Syria’s chemical weapons easier said than done,” from Aljazeera America, it would be a political and logistical struggle. The article also references how long it took to track down and destroy Saddam’s chemical weapons in Iraq, and claims that it would far more difficult to do so in Syria due to the ongoing civil war. For more reading on this reference Aljazeera.
Obama is in support of a more diplomatic removal of the chemical weapons, and would prefer to find alternative solutions. In light of that, John Kerry met with Sergi Lavrov, the foreign minister of Russia, to discuss how to avoid military intervention. That being said, Kerry has claimed that, “a U.S. military strike could occur if Assad doesn't agree to dismantle his chemical arsenal properly.”
More recently, Russia, Syria, and the US have agreed to place the chemical weapons in Syria under international control. The agreement stipulates that Assad must disclose their locations by next week (9/23-9/30) and have them destroyed by June-July of 2014, but neither the US, nor Russia plan on disposing of the weapons in their own country. For more reading on this go to Aljazeera.
To follow the very brief summary of what is going on with chemical weapons in Syria, I would like to delve into, and discuss, the principle theories of international relations and logical incentives with respect to the Russia.
Russia has several incentives to be less harsh on the Assad Government. I would like to bring our attention to a specific economic incentive: Syria’s purchase of military supplies from Russia that contribute to a notable portion of Russia’s income. For further reading go to question #4 on Washington Post.
Another incentive Russia has to be less harsh on Syria is their naval base. It is their last one outside of the former Soviet Union. To relate this to a theory in international relations, I think we could say Russia is acting with the realist mentality. As we know, realists value survival, above all, and believe that building up a sufficient military is imperative to that survival.
First I must say that Obama's stance going from an imminent US attack on Syria, to using it more as a threat if they don't comply with dismantling their chemical weapons stores is interesting. I honestly think that it makes the threat more credible..but I agree with the articles and this blog post that dismantling the chemical weapons stores is possible, but will be a complete nightmare. Something that I am curious about is, in a hypothetical situation, if the United States were to conduct a military strike on Syria, how Russia would respond. Would they take that as a strike against them? Especially if there is a naval base in Syria. If anyone has an article or an idea, i'd love to hear it.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that President Obama deciding to take a more diplomatic approach to the current chemical crisis in Syria was the right alternative compared to striking Syria, was a more logical and cost effective decision. As we discussed in class, war is always costly and I believe it's the best decision to avoid war as much as possible. The real concern now is to ensure that Russia holds up to their promise and join efforts with the U.S to destroy chemical weapons in Syria. My question right now is how Russia and the U.S will actually plan to join forces to destroy the chemical weapons in Syria, and the time frame this will happen? Also, if Syria is reluctant and refuses to turn over chemical weapons will Russia support the U.S on striking Syria?
ReplyDeleteI agree that president Obama's decision to use the threat of an attack instead of an actual attack on Syria is smart and interesting. Although he found himself backed into a kind of corner after stating that the use of chemical weapons anywhere would warrant extreme action from the US, switching his stance to more of a diplomatic one is ultimately in his, and the United States', favor. Between the expenses that an attack would lead to, as well as a possible full-fledged war, and disapproval by the American public, I would say he made the right decision. I agree with both people who commented above: the real question now is are all of the chemical weapons able to be collected and dismantled and will Russia keep their part of the bargain and work in accordance with the United States? While I hope they will, and everything will work out, I also think it was a bit conniving of Russia to wait until the last minute to chime in. Are there possible other motives? Maybe. I guess we will just have to patiently await what is to come, and continue to hope for the most civil of approaches, and continued cooperation.
ReplyDelete