US Considers Arming Syrian Opposition
Published in El Pais
(Spain) on 6 February 2012
by Antonio Caño (link to original)
Unable to act under United Nations authorization, the United States administration is weighing different options in order to aid the Syrian opposition forces in bringing Bashar al-Assad’s regime to an end, including the possibility of arming the rebels, even at the risk of accelerating a budding civil war. In order to isolate the Syrian government, the United States has ordered that all diplomatic personnel in Damascus leave the country.
Barack Obama, who has mentioned that Assad’s removal from office is an essential step toward a solution to the Syrian crisis, talked yesterday with his principal security advisors about the different alternatives that are available in order to take Assad out of power. The American president must act with energy, but at the same time he must avoid the spread of a conflict that could have dangerous repercussions in a volatile region.
The grave deterioration of the humanitarian situation, with more than 6,000 fatalities to date, and Russia and China’s obstruction in the Security Council of the United Nations, obliges, without doubt, the United States to take a decided stance in order to not project a passive image that could end up being a test of Obama’s international leadership skills. After everything that members of the administration have said, including Obama, Assad remaining in power can only be interpreted as a failure on Obama’s part, and a victory for Russia and China, who currently are in a state of power.
The U.S. government is surely pressured to act but isn’t counting on many tricks to do it. The United States sees itself limited in the way of diplomatic action or direct support to the Syrian opposition, because a direct military intervention, like in Libya, is currently off the table.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced this weekend that the country would try to create an alliance of all those who still believe it is necessary to give hope to the Syrian people. In this case, the United States is counting on the support of the majority of the international community: Practically the entire world besides Russia, China and Iran.
For Washington, the Arab countries’ position is particularly favorable because they feel abandoned by Russia and China and seem ready to do their utmost to remove Assad from power. So little time has passed since the United States patronized the policies that created indignation between the Arabs that it seems incredible that Obama is now counting on those countries as principle allies in his strategy.
The United States administration, which prefers to avoid direct participation in the distribution of arms to rebels in Syria, seems to tolerate and even favor those who do, like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, which, though not an Arab country, is primarily Muslim and enjoys a strong, growing influence in the Middle East. “Many Syrians, under attack from their own government, are moving to defend themselves, which is to be expected,” Clinton said.
Arming insurgents would be morally justified to offset Russia’s support to Assad’s regime, but it represents an evident danger of turning into a popular uprising that could lead to a long and bloody civil war without a sure end. Furthermore, it is important to take into account the effect it could have on the permanent state of tension with Iran, because it could create an international pretext for breaking isolation.
For the United States, a guiding principle of action in Syria that comes in accordance with Obama’s doctrine is to not go it alone. Along these lines, there are many ways besides armaments to strengthen the role of the opposition. Among them, the U.S. seems to be considering raising economic sanctions against the regime, or just like they did in Libya, the convocation of an international conference about Syria.
The point, as Clinton has explained, would be just as much to undermine Assad’s position as to delegitimize Russia and China’s behavior. In actual circumstances, to do all of this through the Security Council doesn’t assume much detriment to the image of the United States.
Barack Obama, who has mentioned that Assad’s removal from office is an essential step toward a solution to the Syrian crisis, talked yesterday with his principal security advisors about the different alternatives that are available in order to take Assad out of power. The American president must act with energy, but at the same time he must avoid the spread of a conflict that could have dangerous repercussions in a volatile region.
The grave deterioration of the humanitarian situation, with more than 6,000 fatalities to date, and Russia and China’s obstruction in the Security Council of the United Nations, obliges, without doubt, the United States to take a decided stance in order to not project a passive image that could end up being a test of Obama’s international leadership skills. After everything that members of the administration have said, including Obama, Assad remaining in power can only be interpreted as a failure on Obama’s part, and a victory for Russia and China, who currently are in a state of power.
The U.S. government is surely pressured to act but isn’t counting on many tricks to do it. The United States sees itself limited in the way of diplomatic action or direct support to the Syrian opposition, because a direct military intervention, like in Libya, is currently off the table.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced this weekend that the country would try to create an alliance of all those who still believe it is necessary to give hope to the Syrian people. In this case, the United States is counting on the support of the majority of the international community: Practically the entire world besides Russia, China and Iran.
For Washington, the Arab countries’ position is particularly favorable because they feel abandoned by Russia and China and seem ready to do their utmost to remove Assad from power. So little time has passed since the United States patronized the policies that created indignation between the Arabs that it seems incredible that Obama is now counting on those countries as principle allies in his strategy.
The United States administration, which prefers to avoid direct participation in the distribution of arms to rebels in Syria, seems to tolerate and even favor those who do, like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, which, though not an Arab country, is primarily Muslim and enjoys a strong, growing influence in the Middle East. “Many Syrians, under attack from their own government, are moving to defend themselves, which is to be expected,” Clinton said.
Arming insurgents would be morally justified to offset Russia’s support to Assad’s regime, but it represents an evident danger of turning into a popular uprising that could lead to a long and bloody civil war without a sure end. Furthermore, it is important to take into account the effect it could have on the permanent state of tension with Iran, because it could create an international pretext for breaking isolation.
For the United States, a guiding principle of action in Syria that comes in accordance with Obama’s doctrine is to not go it alone. Along these lines, there are many ways besides armaments to strengthen the role of the opposition. Among them, the U.S. seems to be considering raising economic sanctions against the regime, or just like they did in Libya, the convocation of an international conference about Syria.
The point, as Clinton has explained, would be just as much to undermine Assad’s position as to delegitimize Russia and China’s behavior. In actual circumstances, to do all of this through the Security Council doesn’t assume much detriment to the image of the United States.