On September 27th, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution regarding Syria's chemical weapons. The Economist noted that the resolution has "two legally binding demands: first, that Syria abandon its chemical arsenal; and second, that weapons inspectors be given free access to the country's military facilities". These UN-sanctioned commands essentially achieve what the US publicly desired: the removal of Syrian chemical weapons.
However, in return for Russia's promise to not veto the resolution, there were two glaring omissions: no punitive measures against Assad for failing to carry through with the disposal of the weapons and no assignment of blame for the August 21 attack. While this resolution will hopefully ensure the removal of chemical weapons (an expressed goal of the Obama administration), the omissions work to weaken the perception of Obama's resolve. To Assad and other potential adversaries, this creates the appearance that the audience costs, both domestic and international, are too high for Obama to pursue his preferred action. David Ignatius expresses this sentiment in the following quote:
"President Obama...needs to demonstrate that there are consequences for crossing a U.S. 'red line'... Otherwise, the coherence of the global system begins to dissolve."
Although the UN resolution doesn't include a sanctioned threat of force, it is important to note how the US has responded to this omission.
"...when... Susan Rice was asked on CNN whether the United States would take unilateral action if Syria did not comply, she replied, 'We reserve that action'."
This demonstrates the Obama administration's continued commitment to the possibility of military intervention. Despite the international audience costs, including American allies and the UN, Obama appears unwavering in his resolve. Hopefully the removal of chemical weapons from Syria doesn't necessitate US unilateral action, but if it does, the Obama administration will act. At the very least, this is the loud and clear signal being sent to Assad that Obama will act despite the significant audience costs at home and abroad. The significant audience costs demonstrate to Assad that Obama's threats are credible, and in the instance of a UN-led failure to remove the chemical weapons, that he will act against the Syrian regime.
I would disagree with the point that the US seems weak to other countries because of the omissions, it should be looked at as nothing more that the cost of doing business in the International system.
ReplyDeleteWe talked about this a little in class and the cause and affect of Obama not acting when that red line was crossed. Another student remarked that it was because the public at home did not want to engage in another conflict, however we did not look at it from a global perspective and that it might encourage other nations to act similarly to Syria, because if Syria could get away with maybe they could too. I think that it could ignite more conflict in the future by not acting.
ReplyDeleteSomeone ordered the use of those weapons. Someone is responsible for killing innocent civilians. But punishing and controlling another country's executive office is not the responsibility of one country alone. That's why NATO, the International Criminal Court and Citizens for Global solutions exist in part. Despite the desire for retribution I personally doubt there'd be a big domestic audience cost dispute because many United States citizens opposed oversea interactions- on many levels. Protecting civil liberties is one thing, policing another country is another. With the removal of said weapons, is it necessary to establish some sort of significant military watch on Syria, for an innumerable amount of time? Yes, trust is broken, but can change or revolt or protest come from within the country. I won't claim to have any foreign military expertise (though I try and make the best of what I see), considering our interventions with Saddam, our dispute with Cuba and North Korea, (Korean War and Vietnam War were likewise incredibly heavy in United States interference and support if I am not mistaken?). I just hope the United States isn't biting off more than it can chew.
ReplyDeleteI think the American public is clearly very tired of conflict, and this was expressed to the Obama administration. Unfortunately, Obama put himself in a difficult situation where he threatened certain action if Syria crossed this line. It is possible he made this threat because he was not sure that Syria would actually go through with the use of chemical weapons. The domestic consequence of him going against the public's wishes would be substantial, butthe future international repercussions could be significant in a different way.
ReplyDeleteIt will be interesting to see the audience costs if Syria ends up not complying with the UN resolution. While currently the US population has been overwhelmingly opposed to a military strike this may change if Syria refuses to get rid of it's chemical weapons. If congress could agree to a military strike after Assad's unwillingness to remove the weapons was exposed it would pose a more credible threat from the US that they would be willing to use a military strike. If popular opinion turns more positive about limited intervention in Syria then the audience costs could be higher and the threat more credible for the Assad regime.
ReplyDeleteAlthough its his last term as a president it is obvious that Obama cares very much of the impression he leaves on public. I believe that the American public played a big role in deterring Obama from acting in Syria, and most importantly it does not matter if Obama seems weak (which I don't think is the case) since the public is fed up with going to war, and it only cares about peace and prosperity at home.
ReplyDeleteIn the end it will come down to domestic rallying for Syrian intervention and unfortunately at this time it seems very unlikely for such a thing to happen. President Obama's premature stance put himself in a very awkward situation that will make it very hard for him to back down. The use of chemical weapon is a clear violation of the red line put forth by the Obama administration but with all that said is the US really interested in joining another war?
ReplyDelete