"America's War on Syria: They can start it but who can stop it?" was the headline of Huffington Post in late August. And really - America can start a war, no doubt. Barack Obama was keen of starting a war, there is also no doubt. But, who will really profit from a war in Syria? A war to stop a war?
… Bullshit.
We’ve got several points to consider:
- Arabic Countries are a ticking time bomb - Power Struggle of the World’s major powers and change of opinions - Democracy (or so)
1. Arabic Countries are a ticking time bomb
Afghanistan, late 1980s. The country is in the end of a war that lasted for 9 years and Osama Bin Laden founds Al-Qaeda to fight the Soviets, who, for some mystical reason, thought it would be a great idea to invade Afghanistan. However, barely anyone sees the connection between Cold War and Al-Qaeda and wrongly so. A small militant group is just suddenly there, building camps and gaining more and more power within the years? Al-Qaeda today is the evil of the world, the reason for 2001, 2004 and 2005. The US started a war in Iraq to fight terrorism, almost casually forgetting that they were the country financing Al-Qaeda in the 1980s to fight the Soviets and push them out of the territory. This is only a small excurse into the history of terrorism. It existed before of course, but Al-Qaeda made it international. Something that before was only in the local area now became really global. Syria and not only is full of little terrorist groups that eventually would create something big, becoming a threat to the rest of the world. It may sound harsh and it is, but right now only a strong leader can hold back this rising power. This will be also later explained more in detail for point 3. The intervention of any western country will help to some extent, but I believe do in the end more damage than good. The countries have own problems and arguments, there’s no need for foreign countries to walk in. From all the protests in the past few years we saw how little it actually takes to set a country on fire, it happened in Tunisia, in Egypt, in Libya, in Syria and it doesn’t look like the turmoil will just stop like that. Give them even more reason to explode; they will. People die every day, but who’s the blame for it? In the end, one may say, “the government”. But at the same time remember – every soldier has a family, someone who is waiting for him to come home. Removing all dictators would mean the break free of so many different political groups and religious groups, which can be considered as even worse. The world is still not over the terror attacks and they won’t stop. Every government may spend millions and billions on the fight against terrorism, but wouldn’t it be more effective to try to keep it in the local area and fight it there? It is naïve to think that provoking the terror groups within the countries will stay without any consequences. To quote from a post Vladimir Putin wrote for the New York Times on September 11 2013: „But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government.“ How can we give freedom to something we fear the most?
Of course, there must be change in politics. But changes take time. One can’t just walk in the country and expect everything to change and people be happy. As the latest cases of Tunisia and Egypt showed, not everything is suddenly good again. People are glad they now have more power, but at the same time I know from talking to people from the countries that many of the people who wanted change can’t understand what is happening and how something so good turned into something so ugly and almost hopeless. Of course there will never be times when everyone is happy, but at the same time when a country is just divided, there won’t be peace.
2. Power Struggle of the World’s major powers and change of opinions
Cold War is over. Or as someone from my history class said, “it never happened”. Which sounds funny is somewhat true, because technically seen; the US and the Soviet Union never fought each other. When they did have war, they supported little countries to fight against each other. And even though the Cold War is over and the Soviet Union no longer exists, the relationship between the powers is still not the best and over the last months it has gradually cooled down, with Obama quitting his visit to Russia. Nothing surprising, the countries don’t really have anything to say to each other. Syria only pointed that out once again. But Syria is relevant to both of them. Both of them want to prove that they still have the power to influence other countries and they do.
Syria, what was one a peaceful country and an example of a successful reign in the Middle East is now on fire and if things will go on like they did for the past months, there's little hope that it's going to be peace again soon. And no matter what the countries say, no smaller country can fight for that long without external influence from countries that have the weapons and money to have a war. It is no secret that Russia delivers weapons to the Syria government and they never stopped to do so, but at the same we should ask ourselves the question: “Where do the rebels get their ammunition from?” From the Afghanistan example above we know that the US doesn’t have a problem with supplying rebels with money and ammunitions. Rebels in Syria stand for peace and desire for freedom, but could a civil war be possible with peaceful rebels? A war always has two sides. One thing that people also tend to forget and ignore is that Bashar Al Assad still does have major support in his country. Which of course doesn't make him a better person or less of a dictator, but, and here's the BUT, there must be reason. Al Assad was seen as the liberal leader, he wasn’t even supposed to be the leader. It happened and in that time he managed to gain support. We saw from example in other Arabic countries how easy it is to get rid of dictators when they don’t have support. Al Assad is still in power.
It sounds like a kindergarten fight, but the sad truth is that the US and Russia never stopped proving something to the other party. No one has the right to carry out this power demonstration in other countries and let people die, there’s no explanation and no sorry for that. Every country has its personal interests in the Syria conflict and it’s a joke to say that the only thing you want to do is to save Syrian people. Joke in the means that it is a pure lie, although this would be the only humble cause and reason. But people and countries are egoistic. Some countries admit that, some others don’t. In the Middle East this interest has mainly to do with trade and of course oil. It is interesting to see how in Tunisia or Egypt no power was really interested in intervening, while Libya, that holds large oil resources, became an international interest, just as Iraq before. The logic is pretty obvious actually – support the local people, make the leader who’s having power over the oil fall and the country is in chaos. Syria is an important trading point and holds many natural resources. Would there be as much international interest as there is now if not for that?
No country can intervene without the approval of the United Nations, even though it seems like Obama wants to ignore that rule. The war to end all wars, 1914. The First World War was seen as this war. Now the US wants to do the same. Intervene, stop wars with a war. And we all know that the First World War didn’t bring any good and the Second World War broke out shortly after to end the mess the FWW left behind in Europe. Do we want the same fate for the Middle East? Do we now want to stop wars to cause an even bigger chaos and anarchy? In the World Wars we fought for ourselves, now we want someone else’s wars in our interests.
This power struggle has effects on the population. While in 2001/2002 people were under shock and supported the Iraq invasion, now most of the people are against an active intervention of the US Army in the conflict. 60% of people were against; only 9% supported Barack Obama. Not even the assumption that the government used chemical weapons against the population could change their opinions. In Russia the opinion about an intervention is split, 35% are against; 32% are for an intervention. Currently, Russia is not involved in any active conflicts or wars. The UK, who has been known as a supporter of almost all US politics now refused, the government blocked David Cameron in his desire to intervene. Not only population, but also governmental opinions change. Germany, who also has been an eager supporter of the US, also starts to doubt the need of going to war. When the chemical weapon scandal came out Germany was in the middle of an election campaign. No one wants to vote for a party that promises war. Europe has good reasons in their desire to prevent a war. First of all the lives of the local population. But at the same time Europe still fights with the consequences of the financial crisis of 2008, with the labile economic system there’s no time and no money to fight wars. People now suddenly start to drift away from the US and to believe even in Putin, although he is known as the evil of Europe and Russia. Yet, no matter how governments and people want to prevent a war – if a country wants to go to war, they will find arguments, they will find reasons. Now we know that back then the US made up evidence of use of chemical weapons in Iraq to justify the intervention and at some point, even the most loyal people stop believing in lying presidents.
3. Democracy (or so)
Now, after talking and talking about the egoistic aims of each country, maybe we should talk about the one reason why we all want to fight the Syrian government. We want … democracy. This one great word that seems to be present everywhere. Russia needs democracy! Syria needs democracy! Each and every single country in the Middle East needs democracy! Every single bloody country on this planet needs democracy! … Bullshit.
No, not every country needs democracy. Would any of the modern politicians care enough to read Charles de Montesquieu’s ‘The Spirit of the Laws’, which was published in 1748 and already back then he argued that every country needs a political system that suits the country, there’s no universal ideal system. So, instead of living from an utopian idea of having a democracy all over the world the politicians should think about the question if a country like Syria really needs democracy. More freedom for the people? Yes, most certainly. But freedom and democracy just isn’t the same. Libya didn’t need democracy. Or as Putin said, “Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.“ No country has really managed it to rehabilitate. The economies crushed, trade stopped, cultural places are destroyed, which may sound as not important considering the amount of people killed, but the countries in chaos are largely countries who don’t work without tourism. If the tourism collapses, the country eventually does also. With the collapse of the leader anarchy will take over and all the different political and religious groups will take over, as discussed before. No glory and no democracy, to be quite honest. Of course people should have more rights. No one should be killed for expressing an opinion and similar. But am I right to say that people can live with that knowing the political instability in their country? Sometimes you have to make sacrifices. But people are people, give them a chance and they’ll set things on fire. So, the main aim of all this action, democracy, is not really achievable. Is the aim of liberation to set women back to the past with restrictions as it almost happened in Egypt? The chaos as it happens in Libya? War as it is still present in Iraq? Do the Western countries want that? Why don’t we listen to the local people of whom many asked to leave their countries alone? Why?
The Conclusion
You made it. You made it through pages of rants and history. But that was only a very long way to argue for a very simple point – no other country should intervene in the Syria conflict. Russia should stop weapon delivery; the US should stop supporting the rebels (even though they would say they don’t do that anyway). But at the same time the killings have to stop, there’s no way that the use of chemical weapons can be tolerated, no matter which side is using them. Every day people get killed and all we can do is to watch. Which is a sad truth, but are killings really a way to stop killings? A war to stop a war? They say children learn from burning themselves. It’s time that the powers from all around the world understand and learn that too. We should learn from experience, from history and use a little bit of reasoning. Think of the consequences. Think of the killed people now and the expected killings in the future when everything gets out of control. Then think again, and again.
Natalia
Zugerberg
Switzerland
No comments:
Post a Comment