Over
the last week, The Global Atlas’s metaphorical lights have been off as the
three lead contributors were either out of town, dealing with Allston
Christmas, and starting the new school year and the flood of students and work
that comes with it. In that week, Pres. Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry
have raised the decibel level on the rhetoric surrounding the Syria crisis.
Both have confirmed their belief that a chemical attack took place in late
August, possibly followed by another; both have pointed the finger at Syrian
President Bashar al-Asad; and both have hinted that military strikes will begin
soon, but only with congressional approval. The likelihood of a strike increased
this morning with the State Dept. ordering all of its non-emergency personnel
out of Beirut, and issuing travel warnings for Turkey and Lebanon.
I’ve
been pretty vocal in my criticism of the handling of the Syrian crisis, and I’m
not about to change now: bombing Asad’s forces would be a huge mistake. It
could have the allegedly unintended effect of toppling Asad; it could also very
well prevent the use of chemical weapons by either side or others in the
future, which of course is a desirable outcome. Yet its other effects would be
so negative and detrimental to finding a sustainable peace in Syria that they
would vastly outweigh any positives that could result from such a strike. As I
have written
before, the time for a military intervention has long passed, and toppling Asad
without a negotiated settlement in place leaves us with unsavory choices for
his replacement.
The sprawling Zaatri refugee camp in Jordan. AP. |
First
of all, many observers remain unconvinced that the sarin attacks were in fact
at the hands of the Asad government, even if the Secretary of State and
President seem convinced. While the evidence that an attack took place seems
solid, there are some serious questions about why Asad would choose to launch a
chemical attack given not only that he has been winning with his conventional
forces, but also that UN inspectors are n the country, stationed just a few
miles away from the strike zone.
In a Labor Day article,
former State Dept. Policy Planning staff William R. Polk points out that it is
the rebels, not Asad, that would gain most from a chemical weapons attack:
first, the area that was hit is “disputed,” not under complete rebel control;
second, Asad knew he would risk massive retaliation and lose the support of his
allies; third, it would make sense as a last-ditch effort, but Asad’s been
winning the war; fourth, he targeted a civilian, suburban area, which has not
been his tactic thus far – he generally relies on small paramilitaries to go
into such areas to avoid alienating even more of the population. The rebels,
for their part, might have hoped launching an attack would garner external
support and intervention on their behalf, as well as further terrorize the
population, weaken the economy and support for Asad, and result in the regime’s
collapse. As Polk puts it, “Assad had much to lose and his enemies had much to
gain.”
Regardless
of the origins of the attack, the lack of international consensus on
intervention would only hurt the United States’ reputation and ability to find
partners in future endeavors. Pres. Bush rode the US reputation as a benevolent
hegemon (if we ever had one, but I digress) into the gutter with the invasion
of Iraq, and even he managed to build an international coalition of partners
and receive a UN resolution kind of/sort of sanctioning it. In Syria, America
has lost its main ally Britain following the Parliament’s vote last week
dismissing the possibility of military action. Even with the French and some Arab
countries on our side, China, Russia, Iran, Lebanon… a huge portion of the
international community will be against us and will use this as yet another
example of US arrogance and bullying on the world stage. The support of both
our allies and not-so-friendly nations will be crucial in post-Asad Syria, and
striking alone significantly lessens the possibility that we will find willing
partners in reconstruction when the dust clears.
A dummy bearing Asad's face in what was once Aleppo. AP. |
Speaking
of reconstruction, striking in Syria is essentially paying back Asad for
bombing Syrians… by bombing Syrians. The lesson
of not only Iraq but also post-civil warLebanon
teaches us that bombing is easy, but reconstruction is hard, if not impossible
in the short-term. In a country like Syria that has been in the grips of a
civil war since 2011, and was experiencing extreme economic hardship due to drought
for years before that, the infrastructure has already been decimated and entire
cities like Aleppo have essentially been wiped off the map. Reconstruction of
power grids, roads, the internet, hospitals, homes, etc. is already going to be
an incredibly expensive, difficult task. If we add in US bombing of key urban
areas that Asad happens to hold and store his chemical weapons in, then the
task is made that much more insurmountable, not to mention the unavoidable
civilian deaths that will occur. Simply put, “helping” the Syrian people by
further destroying their towns and infrastructure as well as their lives is not
really helping anyone at all.
Military
strikes by the US also could lead to a violent escalation of the conflict
beyond Syria’s borders. There is genuine fear in Lebanon in particular that if
the US bombs Syria, someone (terrorists or others) will retaliate by bombing
Israel, and then Israel will bomb Lebanon. The escalating conflict could also set
off a sectarian conflagration in Lebanon, still reeling from its own civil war
and already seeing frightening amounts of violence. Even if the Asad regime
fell without civil war spreading outside of Syria, there is no system in place
to make sure that the same chemical weapons the US would be aiming for do not
fall into hands that would seek to use them, and Lebanon is a close target. One
Beirut resident marveled
this weekend that “it’s 6 pm in Beirut and nobody is in the streets.” For the
Lebanese, at least, the regional dangers rather than benefits of a US strike
are all too clear.
So
if, for all of the compelling reasons above, we do not bomb Syria, what do we
do? As critical as I have been of the US government’s response thus far, one of
my main critiques has been the sheer lack of response. I think it’s clear that
we have a moral responsibility to protect in the international community, and
protection is what I suggest we provide. The largest threat to regional
stability is not the ongoing Syrian conflict, but rather the displaced Syrians
who have fled their homes over the last two years. This week the official UN
High Commissioner for Refugees reported 2 million Syrians outside the country,
and at least 4.25 million Internally Displaced Persons within it. They
represent one of the fastest growing refugee populations in history, and they
have been chronically underserved in terms of their basic needs throughout the
conflict.
The flood of refugees at a border crossing in Iraq. AP. |
A
crucial first step for the US to ensure that post-Asad Syria has a smoother
transition would be to fund the entire humanitarian appeal by pressuring its
allies to chip in. Not some of it, not half of it: all of it, and then some. Given that the relatively easier
intervention in Libya cost us more than a billion
dollars, I suggest that the money for a much more expensive strike in Syria
would be better put to use ensuring the physical and human security of the
refugees. Currently the UN’s emergency
appeal, by far the largest in its history, is about $3 billion. That’s a huge
chunk of change, and it’s only 40% funded. This means that 60% of the Syrian
refugees most basic needs are not being met, and this is going to create a
generation of Syrians who are extremely antagonistic towards the outside world,
which they rightly believe has abandoned them. This is particularly worrisome
given that more than half of the refugees are under 18, making them the perfect
age for radicalization, especially in the absence of basic education.
If
the US could muster the $1.8 billion needed to close the funding gap, and
entice its allies to do the same, it would not only increase actual US
prestige, but it would shame those who are supporting the Asad regime without
assisting with the regional humanitarian crisis, like Russia and China. It
would also offer a pressure valve for tiny countries like Lebanon and Jordan,
and unstable ones like Iraq, that have opened their borders to the refugees and
thus far picked up the international community’s slack as best they can when it
comes to housing, feeding, educating, and especially providing water for the
refugees.
People stand in a bombed out building in Aleppo. AP. |
Funding
the UNHCR’s appeal only helps ameliorate one problem, and of course the looming
issue of the Syrian civil war itself needs to be dealt with. To do so, the US
should enlist its supposed “enemies” in the conflict to find a negotiated settlement that both the opposition and the regime can agree to. Russia and
Iran may seem implacable when it comes to long-time ally Asad, but
conversations between Lebanese and Iranian officials point to their weariness
with propping up his regime while their own governments are by no means secure.
Russia and the US have been experiencing a low point in relations that has
observers on both sides worried. If Iran, Russia, and the US can bring all
sides to the negotiating table and find a workable settlement, Syria would
likely be more stable in a post-Asad world (he does, after all, have a large
amount of Syrians on his side), and
the relations between the three nations would get a much needed infusion of
goodwill. A negotiated settlement would of course need to include the departure
of Asad; I don’t think even he imagines he will retain his grip on power
following the conflict. It also needs to enshrine respect for minority and
women’s rights as well as a reconciliation framework to prevent massive human
rights abuses in the power vacuum that the former regime will leave behind.
Only the US, Iran, and Russia have the political clout necessary to force their
respective constituents in the conflict to sit down at the negotiating table,
if only they could see their own political interest in doing so.
What
I have proposed above is not likely to happen. It goes against every false
instinct American policymakers have developed in the wake of the Cold War: we
are the world’s policeman, we can fix the Middle East, we do not negotiate with
our enemies, and bombs are better than bread in solving conflicts. Yet if the
US was able to engage in a massive shift in how we manage external
interventions, the benefits to our country in the international community would
be undeniable. Working with countries and people we find unpalatable kills two
diplomatic birds with one stone: while helping to put an end to the Syrian
conflict and build a stable regional future, we would also be improving our
relations with longtime adversaries. We could learn from this in 2014 as we
face withdrawal from Afghanistan, where the only sustainable solution may be to
negotiate with the Taliban. Hegemons throughout history have made the mistake
of thinking they can police the world and fix its problems; the US should learn
from their errors and start to develop the crucial consensus-building and
negotiating policies we will need if we want to remain a superpower for much
longer.
No comments:
Post a Comment