However, it does not seem surprising that this is what is happening in Syria. Bashar Assad stands to lose his reign over Syria, which has been under his family's power since the early 1970's (CNN). The Syrian National Coalition refuses to negotiate with Assad and are hard pressed when it comes to peace talks, possibly because much of the Syrian population disagrees with the Coalition's power (Economist). International actors such as the United States and Saudi Arabia (among many others) have also come to have serious interests in the Civil War.
According to prospect theory, if the prize of war is greater than cost of war, we should expect to see conflict. In this case, the prize of war for Assad, the rebels, and the civilians is immeasurable. When international actors initially enter the scene, the scenario may spins out of control. As an example, Barack Obama promised retaliation against Assad's regime for chemical weapons use, yet failed to follow through. This made Assad look more powerful and also angered Actors such as Saudi Arabia (Economist). Countless issues such as these will come out of the Syrian Civil War, and peace talks have not progressed much.
Is there any way to deter Assad's regime from continuing it's brutal crackdown? Because multilateral sanctions are difficult to coordinate and enact, what type of sanctions might work in Syria? Is the recent joint effort to chemically disarm Syria between Russia and the US a good sign?
Honestly I feel that in this case, all 3rd parties need to stay out. At least in my readings for the entirety of this civil war there is no "good guy with the white hat" so to speak. Any group that receives support has probably committed some atrocity. If the goal is simply to win the war as quickly as possible then it would be wise to simply support which group is closest to winning. If I was a leader of some organization capable of rendering support to any side I would be looking at world wide audience costs for my support. For example, if the United States supports Asad, then much of the middle east would disapprove.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Garett that there is no good guy, and that both, the Assad government and rebels have committed some atrocities. However, deciding what the goal of the revolution is, is a bit more complicated. From Assad's stand of point, the goal is definitely to win over the rebels and stay in power. Whether he is willing to admit his abuses, and change the regime once the war is over is questionable. On the other hand, the goal of the Syrian rebels is to defeat the regime and instill democracy (supposedly). The goal of the international community should be the protection of the civilians, however in order to stop human rights abuses one must end war. In order to end the war, one must pick a side, and the question is should the international community pick a side closest to winning and afterwards deal with instilling a more westernized and democratically oriented society? I believe that, since the international community is committed to "universalism" and to protecting human rights all over the world, it should make a choice, pick a side and intervene. In each case, it will have to deal with committing to a long term presence. Having a long term international presence and committed professionals in my opinion is very difficult to achieve and it is a greater problem than intervening itself.
DeleteThis civil war seems to be the negative case of intervention, because it seems to be the lesser of two evils when comparing the rebels and the Assad regime. If there were a side that seemed measurably worse than the other than there would be room to fully support a side, but this is not the case. There are also to many nations involved for everyone to come out happy with any sort of resolution that is liked by all. This war should be resolved by the inside actors, not the outside actors.
ReplyDeleteCivil wars need decisive endings, your point about multiple actors getting involved ensure that a decisive ending is far off. The number of actors and the countries involved only serve to expand the scale and damage of the war.
ReplyDeleteI don't see Syria complying with the US and Russia's plans to thwart their civil war. The cooperation between the US and Russia has caught my attention for the past few months. I believe their cooperation could convert into an alliance in the near future, that could positively effect both states economies. Although I like the idea of the US and Russia working together, I don't believe Syria is looking for help. Just because mom and dad are fighting doesn't mean they want the neighbors coming over to help settle the dispute.
ReplyDeleteThe ongoing crisis in Syria is of course a hot topic; it's always interesting to read op-eds pertaining to it. One interesting thing that comes to mind when reading a bit about what al-Assad stands to gain or lose is some background information. When Assad's father took power of Syria through military coup the regime had changed multiple times in recent years. It has been in political unrest for many decades. Also interesting, Assad was handed the reins only because his older brother died while serving in the military.
ReplyDeleteThe question as to whether Asaad's regime can be deterred is difficult to answer. On one side we have the issue of the chemical weapons norm and the ability of the international community to enforce it. On the other hand, we have to ask ourselves if it's worth arming a rebel force, or as Stuart said the lesser of two evils. Is there such thing? As far as chemically disarming Syria, there's no question that's for the better, however it may have further weakened President Obama's credibility. We'll just have to be patient, I guess. I always enjoy reading these posts, even if a lot of people talk about it, so thanks for posting!
ReplyDeleteEven with the help of the U.S and Russia discussing that they are willing to help and push Syria to get rid of chemical, I believe that Syria will not go down that easy. The current situation in Syria is based off a long going war amongst the individuals in the country. I believe that the rebel groups in Syria are getting out of control and it's becoming difficult to stop them. The only concern I have is that I feel bad for the citizens of Syria who are left helpless and feel the need to flee their country to avoid the turmoil and violence which is currently happening in Syria.
ReplyDeleteAssad is supported by Russian, Iranian and Chinese government. All three of these countries are not very fond of western regimes, especially the US. As long as Assad has the support of these countries, he will believe that the US is bluffing. Either Russia will stop supporting Assad, or the US will truly invade. The third possible solution might be to incentivize Syrian rebels to stop fighting.
ReplyDeleteSituations like these need to be handled by the state itself and 3rd parties are only going to make the conflict worse and create more external global problems. If these conflicts are handled "in-house," the resolutions will work better and last longer.
ReplyDelete