As the international community seeks a solution to the Syrian conflict, the war goes on. In evaluating the lengthy duration of this conflict we can remember the article by Fearon from earlier in the semester. One of the most plausible explanations for long civil conflict presented here entails the rebel’s ability to finance the war, whether through contraband goods, or in this case international actors. The fact that both sides of the conflict are being held up by other states not only complicates the situation, but has allowed it to last much longer. A final interesting point stems from Fearon’s conclusion that wars following coups are more likely to be shorter. For Syria, multiple coups led to the installment of al-Assad’s father, and eventually to the regime in power today. Yet this conflict has become lengthier.
Friday, December 13, 2013
Syrian Peace Conference and Nonlethal Aid
Despite the noninvasive role of the United States in the Syrian civil war, the government has played an outside part in the conflict. In the act of supplying nonlethal aid to civilians and to the rebels, the U.S. has shown support for one side. While the Obama administration has been focused recently on only a political resolution, military and financial support have been given to the al-Assad regime from Iran and Russia, as well as other countries. As Secretary of State John Kerry plays a prominent role in the argument for a political solution, a peace conference focused on Syria has been scheduled for January 22 in Montreux. A great deal of attention has been brought to the possibility of creating a transitional government body that could run the country in the absence of al-Assad. Furthermore, in the midst of such circumstances, the US government has decided to suspend the delivery of nonlethal aid to Syria, which was supplied by the State Department. However, an article yesterday in the New York Times, U.S. Suspends Nonlethal Aid to Syrian Rebels, quoted Syrian activists were stating that the suspension of aid will not affect the free Syrian army or the Islamic front alike.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I am not sure if this aid the US is giving is necessarily a choosing of side rather than a humanitarian effort. The US has seemed to develop a mission to help those in need around the world. As they seem people in this world starving and having their land torn apart from civil war, they cannot help but see the need to give some sort of aid. If the US were to have picked sides they would be providing a different type of aid, they would be providing arms and direct aid to one of the military forces. I do think it was wise however to stall the current aid being given because not every party would look at this as simply a humanitarian effort. By giving aid to one side and not the other, the US could find themselves making enemies and being unnecessarily drug into this war.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting post. Both sides, the rebels and the Assad regime are being supplied with equipment and money through various means. As you emphasized in your article, as long as the war in Syria is being financed, it will be difficult to reach an end, and the war will continue to prolong. So, does this mean it would be best for Russia and US to stop financing Syrian organizations, and let the war takes it course?
ReplyDeleteTo supplement John's comment, I believe that suspending the aid to the rebel opposition is a wise strategy at this point also. Although the current Assad regime has become extremely corrupt and harsh toward the Syrian people, and the United States clearly does not support Assad's regime, there could be much corruption happening within the rebel groups as well. Fighting has clearly become more violent on both sides of the conflict, with the rebel groups using more violent tactics as well. The US may not be arming these groups and our focus may be to help the thousands of refugees in the country, but withdrawing our influence may certainly speed this conflict to a more final outcome.
ReplyDelete