Arms against Assad
Published in El Pais
(Spain) on 2 March 2013
by (link to original)
(Spain) on 2 March 2013
by (link to original)
Translated from
by Reva Dhingra.
Edited by Keturah Hetrick.
The meeting in Rome between new U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and the Syrian opposition resulted in little more than pretty words. The Syrian National Coalition, which is seeking arms to fight Bashar al-Assad, did not hide its disappointment concerning the $60 million and humanitarian aid promised by Washington.
Obama wishes to disengage from Syria, but the Arab country will inexorably become a matter of concern to the United States and the indifferent democratic powers. The U.S. president, who last year rejected the recommendation of his advisors to arm the rebels, stated on one occasion that “preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States of America,” but later suggested that saving lives (of the Syrians) is not sufficient reason for military intervention.
Nearly 80,000 people have died in Syria, hundreds of thousands are imprisoned, about one million have fled and twice that amount have been displaced. The figures and atrocities of Assad are of such magnitude — there are few methods of killing more indiscriminate than aerial bombings and Scud missiles — that U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay affirmed, “We will be judged against the tragedy that has unfolded before our eyes.” The destruction of the country continues without external witnesses, in a sectarian war that began two years ago as a peaceful protest against a hereditary tyranny.
In decisive moments, an excess of caution could be as bad as recklessness. Obama is wrong to expect that the conflict will resolve itself on its own. Its deterioration has made irrelevant the arguments of the superpower against intervention: essentially that the U.S. would be dragged into a new regional chaos. Syria is heading for a reign of factions and armed groups, some of which are jihadists. If this scenario crystallizes, Washington will have many more difficulties in combating terrorism, energy supply or controlling chemical weapons arsenals in Damascus. The collapse of Syria affects Israel, Jordan, Libya or Iraq.
The United States and Europe could take the first step in selectively arming the rebels. There is also a moral imperative. Syria can only be reconstructed through compromise, but this could become impossible if those who are striving lack the military means to force it.
Obama wishes to disengage from Syria, but the Arab country will inexorably become a matter of concern to the United States and the indifferent democratic powers. The U.S. president, who last year rejected the recommendation of his advisors to arm the rebels, stated on one occasion that “preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States of America,” but later suggested that saving lives (of the Syrians) is not sufficient reason for military intervention.
Nearly 80,000 people have died in Syria, hundreds of thousands are imprisoned, about one million have fled and twice that amount have been displaced. The figures and atrocities of Assad are of such magnitude — there are few methods of killing more indiscriminate than aerial bombings and Scud missiles — that U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay affirmed, “We will be judged against the tragedy that has unfolded before our eyes.” The destruction of the country continues without external witnesses, in a sectarian war that began two years ago as a peaceful protest against a hereditary tyranny.
In decisive moments, an excess of caution could be as bad as recklessness. Obama is wrong to expect that the conflict will resolve itself on its own. Its deterioration has made irrelevant the arguments of the superpower against intervention: essentially that the U.S. would be dragged into a new regional chaos. Syria is heading for a reign of factions and armed groups, some of which are jihadists. If this scenario crystallizes, Washington will have many more difficulties in combating terrorism, energy supply or controlling chemical weapons arsenals in Damascus. The collapse of Syria affects Israel, Jordan, Libya or Iraq.
The United States and Europe could take the first step in selectively arming the rebels. There is also a moral imperative. Syria can only be reconstructed through compromise, but this could become impossible if those who are striving lack the military means to force it.
Previous article![]( "The American Suspense")
