I’d love to finish this Middle East
Political series by discussing the countries of Egypt and Syria. It just seems
appropriate to end with the two countries continually making the news on an
international scale.
Egypt has
made sure to stay true to their “cease-fire” agreement from 1978 (Yes, I’m
referring to the Camp David Accords) regarding Israel. At the same time, they
have been very stagnant regarding accountability for their government’s
administration. While the country is rich in culture and vast knowledge of
history, it is also abundant in chaos and turmoil. With the Arab Spring
happening, Egypt decided to go a different direction and elected a leader that
was part of the Muslim Brotherhood – Mohammed Morsi.
Due to the nature of changing
administrations and ideology, this new government didn’t last that long enough
to get many things accomplished. In fact, Morsi was in power a little over year
before he was ousted in a military coup.
This captured the attention of the world because it presented the
challenge of how to asset and handle the situation. It is interesting because
while the coup was of a military origin, it is close to the uprising that is
going on in Syria at the current time.
Even before
2010, the Syrian government and the rest of the world didn’t know how to deal
with each other. The fact that I can’t
really speak to things previous to 2010 is, in a way, sad because even if I did
follow such events it would be confusing. Since 2010, the Syrian government has
undergone major obstacles such as dealing with the United Nations regarding
their reactor program – which the alleged reactor was in fact destroyed by air
raids conducted by the Israelis. Even the Arab League voted to suspend Syria
and impose sanctions on them due to their lack of adhering to the Arab peace
plan (this was in November of 2011 by the way). Since that time, the Syrian
Government has removed governors of the northern areas, endured suicide
bombings, further sanctions by the United Nations Security Council, and the
decision to use heavy weaponry and other military tactics on its own citizens;
this, in turn, resulted in multiple deaths within the nation of Syria at the
hands of their own government.
Syria also
gets into a rift with Turkey that resulted both countries banning each other’s
plans from entering their respective air spaces. Israel also exchanged both war
or words and heavy artillery because of Syria’s occasional shelling of
bordering towns from the Golan Heights area (also the first time since the Yom
Kippur War of 1973 – same year the Camp David Accords were signed; and, the
exchange continues into this year). In fact, Syria was under the impression
that the growing opposition of its citizens were actually Israelis impostors
(again, it’s their speculation and wasn’t ever proven). It is because the citizens of Syria were so
fed up with their government; and, the government got fed up with its new found
opposition. The United States, Great Britain, France, Turkey, and other Gulf
states formally recognized this wave of “insurgency” as “the legitimate representative
of the Syrian people” as they were in formal opposition against their
government.
To fast
forward to the present moment, I think we have to consider the current state of
both countries and not just one over the other. Both situations propose
extremely sensitive challenges for United States foreign policy. As much as the United States is hesitant to
get re-involved in the Middle East, at this point it is the only thing that
makes sense politically. Let me be very
clear here: I am NOT advocating for the United States to get into another war.
I think when a President states that a line has been crossed and that the
United States will examine and deal with the issue, should it happen (and by
the way, it did), the United States will handle it with a proportional
response. The line being crossed is the continuing facts pointing to Syria
using chemical weapons against it’s own citizens.
Personally, there are a couple of questions and concerns I have regarding the potential scenarios facing the United States. Let’s discuss!
1) The United States is part of the United Nations. I firmly believe that the U.S. should wait until the Security Council is able to figure out how to deal with the human rights violation conducted by Syria. A lot of people think the U.N. is a joke, but I firmly believe we have to give the U.N. enough time to meet its obligation as an international body. The last thing I would want to see is the United States to undergo a unilateral response. It would just be the Iraq situation all over again and I don’t want the next decade to sending our troops in Syria;
2) Let’s say the worst possible scenario plays out and the United States does go into Syria. I think the United States wouldn’t be going into Syria alone. In fact, I think the U.S. would be able to rely on Saudi Arabia to assist within the region. The rationale behind Saudi Arabia getting involved to overthrow the current Syrian government would be to dissolve the Syrian-Iran alliance that has been in place for a long time. By minimizing that alliance, Saudi Arabia would be able to re-gain a conservative ally in the region; and for the United States, it would be able to greatly diminish any pressure Iran – and other countries that are anti-Semitic - places on Israel’s existence;
3) I will be the first one to stand up and fully support the United Nations; however, I also know that they are not always effective. There is only so much that can be done with sanctions. Some of these nations, such as Syria & Egypt, need to have a little more force given to make them sit up and pay attention. The fact that Russia is even saying, “whoa, we need to figure out how to deal with Syria regarding these human rights violations” was both amazing and comical at the same time (I will discuss why it is comical in a future blog piece…trust me Russia will be the topic of a whole new post). If the United Nations can continue to impose sanctions, have a positive review of the areas in Syria regarding chemical weapons, and the International Criminal Court bring Syria on crimes against humanity, then I think the United Nations would be able to more credible to the rest of the world...finally;
4) If the United States does decide to send in strikes
against Syria (in the form of Tomahawk missiles), would that be considered
an act of war? The reason I pose this question is because if Syria retaliates,
that would set of a potential chain reaction. Here is one potential scenario –
US fires on Syria, Iran attacks the US because they have an alliance with
Syria, Israel attacks Iran because they are an US ally, Iran decides nukes
should be used against Israel, etc. It may seem like a excerpt from a Tom
Clancy novel, but things can escalate just that fast and over the smallest of
things; and,
5) I only bring
this up because of the human rights violation brought on by Syria. The United
States has an obligation to intervene because we have
done so in other instances. It would not be ethical to “pick and choose” which
cases to intervene within the world. The
question becomes, “Why will the United States intervene in Libya but not Syria”
or “they will liberate the Afghanistan people and the Iraqis but not the
Syrians” or even the fact that they the United States wants human rights for
all people, except for those that do not present a special interest to their
way of life.
I do not envy President Obama for
the decisions he will have to make in the upcoming days or even weeks. This is
an area of the American Presidency that no President wants to engage in, but
yet it is a job description that often gets neglected except when presidential
candidates are in a political debate. I think the best option is for the United
States to wait until the outcome of the United Nations is made known; if things
are not ideal, then a coalition needs to be built so it can confront the issue
of Syria and the way they treat their citizens. I view Syria as a mild form of
totalitarianism and the United States should be greatly concerned regarding
this form of government since certain elements of this concept is running
rampant in American Politics.
To be a leader, one has to
recognize where they want to progress to and also where they ethically,
philosophically and ideological refuse to go. The United States needs to stand
by its statements and convictions while at the same time treading very
carefully to make clear that another road to invade the Middle East does not
remain the only option.
