A Historical Approach to the Syrian Conflict

Shiran Zecharya

GVPT200

Response Paper 3

            As political turbulence and sectarian conflict continue to shackle the unitary Syrian Republic, the United States, the American public, and the international community remain in discord in terms of how to put an end to the humanitarian crisis and ensure geopolitical stability in a post-war Syria. Some tend to sympathize with the Syrians’ suffering but maintain that it is not the US’ duty to take on the role of a global policeman. This isolationist perspective, while popular, is not novice in foreign policy and has been employed and proven unsuccessful in the Rwandan Genocide when President at the time, Bill Clinton, was reluctant to respond to the massacre of the Tutsi minority because of the US’ failed intervention in Somalia the previous year. As the number of Syrian refugees and casualties continues to multiply, world leaders cannot afford to repeat their old mistakes; they must learn from their failures, hold on to strategies that have benefited them and discard ones that have not in order to improve their ability to respond to international crisis and maintain consistency in addressing issues of human rights.

            International Relations Scholars often draw historical parallels between the Syrian Civil War and the Rwandan Genocide in terms of US response. In both cases, the United States has rhetorically opposed the aggressors, Hutu Rwanda and Assad’s Syria, but has failed to definitively protect the victims of brutality. Most attribute US leadership’s lack of action in Rwanda to their failure to instill peace in a war-torn Somalia the year before; since intervention was unsuccessful in Somalia, the US did not want to invest their resources in ending a conflict that they believed would end the same way. Similarly, the American public is unwilling become involved in the Syrian conflict following unpopular interventions the decade before in both Iraq and Afghanistan. While there are key differences in the two situations, such as the sophistication of weaponry used, analysts often classify US foreign policy in addressing the Rwandan Genocide as a major failure for not only the Rwandan people, but for the promise of human rights as a whole. Furthermore, although it is not the United States’ job to directly intervene and protect human rights wherever violations exist, history does not tend to favorably portray powerful leaders who fail to act when dictators, such as President Assad, relentlessly massacre innocents and children by means of conventional and chemical weaponry for over two years and face little to no consequence.

            As the plea for democracy continues to resonate in the wake of a new century, it is the duty of society to apply pressure on their leaders to aid individuals who suffer at the hand of oppressors. The solution to peace in Syria is not black and white; there are many courses of action that could bring about unintended consequences such as arming the rebels and unilateral military intervention, and conversely, many policies that could facilitate progress in the region such as working in collaboration with other influential actors to exert smart power, supporting countries who take in refugees, ensuring that goods and services get to innocents in volatile regions of the war-torn country and maintaining a strong international presence in the region if and when Assad falls and political instability ensues. It is the hope of future global leaders to stand by human rights not only in rhetoric but also in meaningful action.

JJason Ye

10/24/2013

GVPT200

Chapter 10 of “The Nation-State and Global Order”

  In my opinion, why some states fail is a question for people who are studying international relation, one good thing about recognizing failed states is that we can send in help for them and sometimes establish a temporary government for them, like what the U.S did for Afghanistan, but doing this just for failed states is not good enough, we also need to figure out the cause of the failure in order to prevent it. I agree with the argument proposed by Walter C. Opello, Jr. and Srephen J. Rosow, which is that a states failure is related to colonialism, but I also think there are some other factors that cause some states to fail, like the states’ culture and natural resources.

  The reason I agree with Walter C. Opello, Jr. and Srephen J. Rosow is that throughout history, colonialism usually has a negative effect on states, for example, during the World War II, different parts of China were colonized by different western countries, they used the Chinese people to mine natural resources like coal and ship them back to Europe. They also signed inequity treaties with the corruptive Chinese government officers in order to gain full control of Hong Kong and Taiwan and in order to reduce the incentive of the Chinese people to fight back, opium was introduced in China. Another example that illustrates the negative effect of colonialism is when Belgium colonized Congo, the way Belgium colonized Congo is more inhumane, they used the Congolese people as slaves for mining, and if they don’t obey the order, the leader of Belgium would torture them to scare the others. Unlike the partial colonization in China, the colonization of Congo drained away most of the natural resources away from the Congolese. The biggest reason that colonialism causes states to fail is that after a country has been colonized, part of the natural resources or sometimes most of the natural resources are drained way form it, and after the country that colonized it left, people try to fight for the resources that are left in the country and with the lack of government stability, riot breaks out in the country and as time went on, it eventually leads the country to a failed state.

  The other factor that caused a state to fail is the lack of nature resources, even if the state has a stable government, lack of nature resources equals to lack to contribute in the international community, like we discussed in class, powerful states usually are not willing to help out states that do not contribute in the international community.           

Lauren Wilhelm

Prof. Mark Shirk

October 22, 2013

GVPT 200

Chemical Weapons

           

            Since the end of World War 1, issues dealing with chemical weapons have wavered in and out of people’s minds, but they have been brought to the public’s attention once again this time with force due to the mass genocide occurring in Syria presently. Humanitarians have advocated the destruction of chemical weapons for many years because of the painful death they inflict upon those unfortunate enough to fall victim. When the public learned Bashir Assad was using them against his own people, murdering innocent civilians in the process they began to push policy makers to enforce the permanent ban and total destruction of chemical weapons, which had been put into effect in 1997. Chemical warfare is destructive, cruel and barbaric and should be put to an end. The situation in Syria is opening the current generations eyes and hopefully this time something will be done to completely end it.

The first chemical attacks recorded were between the French and the Germans during WW1, but these gases were not designed to kill, simply incapacitate. However this quickly escalated and a mere year later chlorine gas was used to kill. Since then, chemical warfare waged until a ban was placed on the use of it in 1925. This was due to the fact that aside from killing tens of thousands in the war, it permanently damaged those who were exposed but did not die and caused then to have to live the rest of their lives in suffering. Yet the ban did not prevent the manufacturing of chemical weapons and did not regulate possession and use. The ban did not hinder anyone from using chemical warfare again because less than fifteen years later it was being used once more in WW2. Countries at war have used chemical bombs in battle for decades, but when a malicious dictator is using it as a desperate attempt to stay in power or to push their own agenda, people pay attention.

              Sadly, the situation in Syria is not the first time something like this has happened. During the Iraq-Iran war in the 1980’s it was known that chemical weapons such as mustard gas were used. The public was not made as widely aware at the time, which is why the Syrian genocide has caused such an uproar. Hopefully the Syrian crisis will make the world conscientious of the need for chemical weapons to be destroyed, because of what they can be used for. The effects of these weapons are too cruel to use in the present especially when other WMD’s are manufactured that don’t induce suffering before death. War and killing of any kind is undesirable but it would be better to do it swiftly with bombs that cause death on impact as opposed to nerve agents and chemicals that shut down bodily functions resulting in death. Using these weapons outside of war is an even more heinous crime especially when they are used to take the lives of innocent civilians. This is why all chemical weapons must be destroyed so that situations such as the one occurring in Syria currently never happen again.

Since the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons went into effect, more than 70 percent of the world’s chemical weapons, nerve agents and biological weapons have been destroyed. This accomplishment appears to be something to celebrate until one remembers that there are still situations where chemical weaponry is being used, like in Syria today. While many countries such as Russia, Japan, India and Iraq have joined the OPCW, they have also mass-produced chemical weapons in the past and until it is confirmed that they are wiped out, they remain a threat to international relations. The organization is a large first step in helping to assure situations like Syria and chemical warfare in the first Persian Gulf War don’t happen again, but it can only be certain once they are totally gone.

             International laws against chemical weapons may make it illegal to synthesize and maintain these arms, however it cannot completely stop use of them. This is why the only solution is to completely destroy all chemical weaponry and anyone who attempts to produce more must be held accountable with the U.N. The OPCW is attempting to make sure this happens but can’t without the cooperation of other countries. This is why it is so important that the public be made aware of what can occur when a corrupt leader is in power and that the situation in Syria can happen anywhere as long as chemical weapons are still in existence. The knowledge on how to construct these weapons can’t be wiped from people’s minds however the longer they are eradicated and it is overseen that they aren't made, the less likely this information will pass on and eventually they will no longer be an imminent threat to states.  

Mutually Assured Destruction and the Cold War

Estefania Velez

GVPT200 FC

October 24, 2013

Mutually Assured Destruction

            When hearing terms such as nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction, most usually think of war and instability but it can be argued that during the Cold War the Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine and the possession of nuclear weapons by both the United States and the Soviet Union is what caused both countries not to launch them and potentially blow the world up. It is rational to say that nuclear weapons are unstable in the hands of states that want to use them for the wrong reasons; however, Thomas Shelling asserts that if all nuclear weapons are taken away there is a possibility that one country will have just one weapon of mass destruction and cause the world to be highly unstable. This comes across as a realist claim but in reality, it is better for countries that are going to use them rationally to have weapons of mass destruction than to have one country secretly make them and use them irrationally. In other words, we know that these weapons exist; they will continue to exist, so instead of working towards an unrealistic movement of having them banned, why not try to keep the world stable and have them, but not use them?

            The Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine created in the mid-1960s is what caused both the USSR and the United States to refrain from launching any weapons of mass destruction during the cold war. Not only did having the power to blow the world up prevent either of them from making the first move, but the second strike capability theory also influenced their decisions because both states knew that whichever attacked first should expect a nuclear bomb to automatically be launched in their direction. The MAD also created deterrence during the Cold War because it prevented both parties from undertaking any action due to the threat that each state was to the other. For example, during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, President Kennedy was prepared to take action by forming a blockade around Cuba and using military force to stop the Soviet Union from placing missiles in Cuba that could serve as a potential threat to the United States. They came to the agreement that Soviet Union would remove its missiles from Cuba if the United States would remove its missiles from Turkey because the United States threatened the Soviet Union with military action if it continued.

The existence of nuclear weapons has been around for quite some time now and although the world would be a much better place without them, in today’s world it is impossible to live without the knowledge of the mutually assured destruction doctrine or weapons of mass destruction. As proven above, there are some instances where having nuclear weapons is not unstable for the world because it forces countries to stop and think before they act. This is not just firing a machine gun or a tank, nuclear weapons can blow up the world and they can be used as a method of deterrence to prevent other countries from causing threats and starting wars. There are those who claim that in order to be one step closer to world peace, the world must rid itself of nuclear weapons and the idea of MAD as a whole. While this claim is true, it is not realistic because knowing that these weapons exist and knowing the power that they hold is too tempting for every single nation in the world to just give them up therefore it is best to deal with them with intelligence and rationalism instead of trying to have them gone for good a risk an unstable world of international relations.

Yasemin Unal: Humanitarian Intervention

Yasemin Unal

Professor Mark Shirk

GVPT200FC

24 October 2013

            Humanitarian intervention is a unique topic that can have its opponents or  supporters. This diversity is due to the differing objectives and priorities of states and citizens. One would oppose humanitarian intervention based on the realist theory, the issue of sovereignty of states, and to avoid war. However, it is my argument that humanitarian intervention should occur when human rights of citizens in any state are being violated. In my opinion this intervention can occur in any form that positively impacts the citizens within "mass atrocities". Of course, there are unique situations that could need different approaches in humanitarian intervention.

            To begin, if a sovereign state is not successfully implementing any aid to end acts against  humanity within their territory, then intervention by other states is necessary. Thus, humanitarian intervention should be a fundamental priority, especially when it is the government that is violating the human rights of its citizens. Since the institution that is supposed to be acting in the best interest of its citizens is causing the unsettlement, then those citizens need aid from countries to help represent and support them. It is my argument that as the human race we need to support, represent, and sometimes act in the best interests of those who are experiencing brutality. Not applying any type of humanitarian intervention to help people suffering and dying from a lack of protection is a catalyst for mass atrocities.

            Furthermore, humanitarian intervention can occur in a myriad of different forms. Thus, intervention does not need to be substantial to have a positive impact on those who are experiencing brutality. I feel as if when the topic of intervention is presented, the opponents are being restricted in thinking in only terms of war and military assistance. However, intervention could mean providing the essential supplies needed for survival. In most incidences humanitarian intervention is needed in developing countries of former colonies, because there is unsettlement and power struggles within the government. The most prominent examples would be "Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor, Iraq, Darfur, Libya, Syria". If a state does not want to directly provide military assistance to end mass atrocity, then they could still offer intervention by providing human security to citizens.

            Lastly, there are different circumstances that could require unique forms of intervention. A prime example would be how the United States could have provided humanitarian intervention to the Syrian refugees, while still avoiding war. Since the United States did not want  another costly war right after the end of the prolonged Iraq war, we decided not to directly interfere with the mass atrocities within Syria. However, we could have provided some type of aid, in the form of human security, to Syrian refugees that fled to neighboring states.

            In the final analysis, whether or not implementing humanitarian intervention is a topic that can be debated. Yet, it is my argument that as the human race we need to provide any type of aid we can to stop mass atrocities. This intervention does not need to be linked with war to have a positive impact on citizens experiencing brutality. Therefore, even states facing unique circumstances can still provide some type of intervention in the form of human security.

Jason Ye

October 7, 2013

GVPT 200

Alexandre Debs and Nuno P. Monteiro

   In the blog post “What Caused the Iraq War? A Debate.” By Alexander Debs and Nuno P. Monterio. I disagree with the authors’ argument that the motivations for invading Iraq on March 20, 2003, were to prevent suspected Iraqi nuclearization and to minimize the shift in balance of power between the U.S and Iraq. Also, I disagree with what they argue about “the cost of a preventive counter-proliferation war against Iraq was expected to be orders of magnitude smaller than the expected cost of deterring.”

  In the blog post, Debs and Monteiro mentioned that Saddam’s strategy was considered not to be irrational, which comes off as questionable. The first Gulf war (1991), when he had his military at full strength, he should have seen the result from the first Gulf war that even with his full strength, he could only causes little damage to the U.S military and how could he to expect to cause tremendous amount of damage to the U.S military a decade later when he only has half the force and military power as compared to a decade ago.

  In the second major claim, when Debs and Monteiro talk about how the Bush administration was really sensitive to the low-probability risks because of the 9/11 tragedy. Which in my opinion, the base for this major claim appears to not be supported by a rationalist logic since the Bush administration addressed the same probability before and after the attacks was not the same. To me, it seems like that the Bush administration learned from one low-probability risk event that another low-probability risk event can be happening.

  “By the same token, the effect of North Korean nuclearization would be relatively small, given the limited range of policy options available to the United States even vis-à-vis a non-nuclear North Korea.” I disagree with Debs and Monteiro on this part because if one of the main motivation to have war in Iraq is to balance the power because the U.S suspect that Iraq has nuclear weapon. Then it’s more necessary to balance the power between North Korean and the U.S, since there are clear evidences on North Korean having nuclear weapon.

  The last thing I want to talk about is “the cost of a preventive counter-proliferation war against Iraq was expected to be orders of magnitude smaller than the expected cost of deterring.” Maybe the cost on capital to have a counter – proliferation war is lower than the cost of deterring, but the war costs tens of thousands people’s life, created million or more refugees and caused the Sunni radical group still actively setting bomb and killing people.

Lauren Wilhelm

October 3, 2013

GVPT 200

Debs and Monteiro

            While the United States is only a regional hegemon that does not mean it doesn't have a large power influence throughout the rest of the world. In Debs and Monteiro’s blog post “What Caused the Iraq War? A Debate.” they argue that the U.S. motivation for invading Iraq was fear of too large a shift in the balance of power between the U.S. and Iraq if they did in fact possess nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction. However, this is not the case because the U.S. possesses enough power that a power shift giving another country military power might deter the U.S. from going to war with them but is still not enough to threaten the United States’ power. This is illustrated in the U.S. government dealings with Syria currently. The U.S. government was actually more focused on engaging in a preventative war to keep Iraq from becoming untouchable like North Korea in the international scheme of things, and to make sure they weren't connected with Al Qaeda, it was not to keep Iraq under the U.S. government’s thumb.

            The first point Debs and Monteiro assert is that the U.S. invaded Iraq on suspicion to determine whether or not they were housing programs that developed weapons of mass destruction and the U.S. government was worried that potential acquisition of such weapons would drastically shift the balance of power. If this were the case then wouldn't the U.S. be worried about this same issue with Syria presently? The U.S. government is fully aware that the Syrian government possesses chemical weapons and was using them on their own people but they also suspect Syria to have 1,000 tons more of chemical agents that can be delivered anywhere by aircraft, missiles or rockets. If our government was that concerned with “potential” power fluctuations based on “suspicion” then we should be a lot more concerned with Syrian obtainment of chemical weapons because we have knowledge that they are willing and have used these weapons on innocent people. The U.S. has many reasons promoting and preventing war with Syria but none are to keep Syria under the U.S. control like D&M claim was the case with the Iraq war. Instead advocates for war with Syria want war to prevent Syria from causing too much damage in the international system and also want to stop further murder of innocent people.

 D&M further claim that the U.S. was so worried that increased Iraqi military power on such a large scale would make war with Iraq in the future more costly and harder to control because the U.S. would be viewed as less of a threat to them. This cannot be the case because if the U.S. government were that concerned with balance of power due to potential increased military threats then they wouldn't be so reluctant to go to war with Syria currently. If they stick with that argument then it would make sense to invade Syria now to prevent them from acquiring more chemical weapons rather than wait until they finally due, making war a non-option.

            Finally, there was also the eminent question that if Saddam Hussein was in fact proliferating WMD programs, would he allow terrorist groups like Al Qaeda access to these weapons. This issue was of concern because it was a huge international security quandary, not a factor in whether the U.S. would lose power to Iraq. The U.S. is at an impasse with Syria presently for similar reasons, which don’t involve a power shift. The U.S. is uncertain if the rebels are receiving assistance from terrorist groups and therefore don’t know what the international implications of going to war with them would be. It is not a matter of who would be on top of the power scale in the end.

            While Debs and Monteiro do make many excellent points, they are slightly misguided in their argument. The United States possesses enough power that military achievements of other countries are not going to threaten the United States’ power. However it may affect the international system enough that the U.S. engages in a preventative war to keep the consequences from being to grave worldwide. The U.S. did not go to war with Iraq to keep itself on top in that particular power balance but in order to prevent future devastation. If the U.S. were solely concerned with the distribution of power between itself and other countries, then Syria would be considered a much larger threat currently. It is not the individual power distribution between the U.S. and Iraq that they were concerned about because the U.S. is too large a power to be threatened easily, but it was the repercussions that could occur internationally if they didn't prevent Iraq from developing WMD’s.