Arab Spring fever is contagious,
and Syria isn't immune. While the world focused on the revolutions and
political changes occurring in Middle Eastern countries—such as Tunisia, Libya,
and Egypt—Syria silently underwent the same transformations. Yet with
government prohibition of information sites like Facebook, Twitter and Youtube,
it has remained largely unnoticed—until now.
Former president of Syria: Hafez al-Assad |
Bashar al-Assad, president of Syria |
The revolt
After this, his son, Bashar al-Assad, took power, and
surprisingly, become adept at ruling fairly quickly. Syria has almost no oil or
economic power and derives its influence from playing a strategic position in
the Middle East that led Bashar to nurture alliances with Iraq, promote
terrorist activities against Israel and dominate Lebanon. In other words: Assad
wants power. Really, in many ways, the revolution that is underway in his
country is his own fault. Wary of the regional unrest, Bashar pounced on the
first sign of dissent in his country, arresting teenagers that had
spray-painted a common Arab Springs slogan on a wall: “The people want the fall
of the regime”. This incident—March 6—was the tipping point that led to
protests in Daraa. Instead of pacifying the people, Assad merely retaliated with
security forces, intensifying the revolt. Indeed, this level of brutality has
characterized Assad’s entire reaction to the revolution. Looking at other
Middle Eastern rulers like Ghadafi, Mubarak and Ben Ali, Assad doesn’t think
“Hmmm, I probably shouldn’t be as violent as them, because they were all ousted
from power”, his thought process is more like, “Those men were taken from power
because they weren’t violent enough, so
I’m going to kill more citizens”. So that’s what he did. Shutting down all sources
of outside communication, his security forces rained down missiles and bullets
upon protestors, raising the death toll to well above 7,500 so far. It had
precedent too: In 1982, his father, Hafez Assad put down a similar uprising in
the city of Hama, killing 10,000 people and restoring power to his regime. The
same might have happened, had not the afore-mentioned journalists come at the
opportune time. Stationed in the city of Homs, Bab Amr region, they were
consistently targeted by a government determined not to let the conflict be
spread to the world. Colvin and Ochlik gave their lives, but the others
returned, notifying the Western powers of the ongoing situation.
Why the U.S. shouldn’t step in
This is the part where historically, the U.S. rushes to the
aid of Syrian citizens like a man to a wounded puppy, and then weeks later,
pictures of aid workers with smiling locals are released and defaced statues
and portraits of Assad crumble to the dust in the streets of Damascus. Wrong.
Let me tell you why. 1. The U.S. can’t afford to. We’re already drawing troops
out of the Middle East and we’re broker than broke. Stationing more troops in a
different area of the same region would be counterproductive and dangerous. 2.
Assad can’t be removed. Despite his attacks on the people and against the
protestors, Bashar al-Assad remains one of the most popular leaders within the
Middle East. His relations with other countries that has allowed Syria to
remain relatively powerful despite their limited resources is something that
Syrian citizens do not hold lightly and therefore, removing him would harm the
people more than it could benefit them and cause anti-American sentiments
that—let’s face it--are already pretty thick around there. 3. It doesn’t
benefit us. Historically, the U.S. intervenes for political reasons,
establishing a government so that other powers cannot intervene and take
control. We can look at examples like the Taliban or historically, Communists,
all day but we should probably wrap this up. Either way, Russia and China
already have the most decisive say in Syria and so the U.S. wont be able to
step in, in a meaningful way anytime soon. Additionally, while the government
does support some terrorist measures, destroying an established regime would in
all likelihood only lead to more corruption and anti-Israel aid.
What happened, and why we should all be happy about it
As news of what was happening in Syria sunk in, the United
Nations moved quickly, asserting authority and demanding that Assad stop his brutal
control tactics. Assad refused all of these continuing demands, but finally on
March 27, he agreed to a peace plan proposed by Secretary-General Kofi Annan.
Urged on by Russia and China, Assad will agree to a cease-fire and political
solution. Yet in this plan, the Syrian people still get to choose whether to
allow him to remain in power. And its looking more and more likely that they
will. It may not be your typical happy ending: Tyrannical despot remains in
power despite brutal crackdown on revolution. But, the killings stop, the
Syrians get to keep a stable government, the U.S. doesn’t have to get involved,
and somehow, Assad remains.
No comments:
Post a Comment