The encumbrance on the international community to intervene has continued to be on the rise when it became clear that chemical weapons were being used by Syria on their own people. The August attack just outside of Damascus generated a strong reception from democratic countries including, Britain, America and France. There has been since long debates as to how the international community should react the the impending predicament. Inspectors of the United Nations recently verified that the Assad regime had been using chemical weapons against its civilians, but who to blame for the catastrophe had not yet been discovered. Syria, however, denied that the use of chemical weapons, which are forbidden under international law, were ever used. Syrian Foreign and Expatriates Minister Walid al-Muallem reiterated that "There is no country in the world that uses a weapon of ultimate destruction against its own people".
Action has finally been made when a group of 20 people were sent by the UN into Damascus obliterate Syria's chemical weapons collection. The group had to be shipped out from Beirut due to the fact that the area around Damascus' airfield was considered to be too perilous. As stated in an article from The Economist, the UN Security Council provided clear and thoroughly distinct commands to stipulate "the expeditious destruction of the Syria Arab Republic's chemical weapons program and stringent verification thereof".
So what changes can we expect to see which this intervention? The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons are alleged to exterminate the Assad regime's capability of creating such detrimental weapons and the constituents that are used in the production of the weapons which includes mustard gas and sarin. Even though the OPCW has much background in disassembling chemical weapons, can it be done considering the hazardous conditions? The Assad regime did in fact cooperate by giving the OPCW a complete record of their weapons collection, but judging how far they intend to cooperate is a difficult task.
If there is success in stripping away Syria's chemical weapons capabilities, it is no guarantee that the regime will stop.
http://news.yahoo.com/destruction-syrias-chemical-weapons-begins-163329036.html
ReplyDeleteThis article details the initial disarmament process, with many workers giving credit to the Assad regime for their actions. In fact, the US is quoted as giving credit to the Assad regime for their cooperation. While it is good to see a smooth disarmament process, I wonder how such comments will impact the Syrian conflict and the perception of the US within Syria.
The Assad Regime has increased their credibility by cooperating with the UN. The Regime believes they are fighting against "terrorism" in their state. The move to cooperate allows them to gain some support from the international community. I believe they are trying to shift the lens of a civil war to a war on terror. Without their chemical weapon deterrent, it will be interesting to see what new form of deterrent they will pursue to maintain their dominance and security.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that Syria has allowed for such swift movements from the UN to eradicate their chemical weapons. Based off recent lectures, the concept of the Selectorate and the Winning Coalition (WC) encourage a political leader to make choices that are advantageous for his or her reelection within their WC. Syria and the Assad Regime has a much smaller WC then in a democracy, however his compliance shows that there may be more people in his WC then previously thought. In May of 2012, Syria held its first elections in which parties outside the ruling coalition could take part. This is evidence towards the opening of government from a dictatorship to possibly a government with more openness.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sundaytimes.lk/110814/Timestwo/int10.html
Seeing Syria's cooperations with the UN has given Syria international credit. As we discussed in class, is that we see multiple encounters between countries. Currently Syria is cooperating with the UN, but there is always room for more negative encounters where we might see Syria not cooperate in the future with the UN. The encounter in Syria also disproves the democratic peace theory for the fact this current situation shows that peace was achieved between democratic nations and a non-demcratic nation. Just because Syria cooperated with the UN, I still don't see any government change or see Syria transitioning to a more democratic approach in their country.
ReplyDeleteSeeing Syria's cooperations with the UN has given Syria international credit. As we discussed in class, is that we see multiple encounters between countries. Currently Syria is cooperating with the UN, but there is always room for more negative encounters where we might see Syria not cooperate in the future with the UN. The encounter in Syria also disproves the democratic peace theory for the fact this current situation shows that peace was achieved between democratic nations and a non-demcratic nation. Just because Syria cooperated with the UN, I still don't see any government change or see Syria transitioning to a more democratic approach in their country.
ReplyDeleteSyria clearly used chemical weapons on its own people, but it is good to see such a smooth disarmament process. I still think Syria should be punished for using the weapons in the first place, but their cooperation in this process makes it difficult to do so. I also agree with Jerica that this has given the UN more international credit, but at the same time, if it wasn't for Russia, we might not be in this position. So do we have the UN to thank? Or Russia? It seems that if it wasn't for Russia, we would not be in this position. So the UN is only useful when the Security Council comes to agreements, which doesn't happen as often as we would like.
ReplyDelete