The Syrian implications
The United States is immensely concerned over the Syrian army’s reported movements on the border with Turkey. The US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, while commenting on the deployment of tanks and forces on the border — in a bid to deter refugees from crossing over into Turkey — has warned against any steps that could escalate tensions and possibly lead to border clashes.
Turkey’s palpable concern about the developments reflects the seriousness of the situation. Apparently, the Syrian ambassador in Ankara was called by the Foreign Ministry and apprised of the concerns the
situation merits.
At the same time, fresh protests on Friday have been called for thus raising the possibility of further violence and bloodshed. This is disturbing. Three months down the lane when the protests first started, the violence and instability continues unabated. Already more than 1,300 people have been killed and thousands displaced. Refusing to cow down, the protesters have vehemently rejected what they call President Bashar Al Assad’s “cosmetic” reforms and amnesty measures. They continue to demand the ouster of the regime. A long shot from how the protests first started. Because of the mismanagement by the government and the reliance on brute force and violence to quell the uprising, things have now rapidly deteriorated. As part of the growing international condemnation for the Syrian regime’s use of force against civilians, the European Union has upped the ante by imposing new sanctions and extending earlier ones. The new sanctions also include some members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard that are allegedly supporting Damascus’ suppression movement. How Damascus and Teheran react to this development is
anybody’s guess.
Thanks to the government’s loss of credibility, Assad’s recent proposal to hold a National Dialogue has been met with derision. More unfortunate is the complete lack of confidence in a regime even when it proposes change and wants to initiate a dialogue to address people’s grievances.
Even if Assad manages to cling to power, the fact remains that his rule has suffered a lasting blow, one whose repercussions cannot be simply forced away. More worrisome is the prospect of a bigger conflict erupting on the scene. Regional tensions remain high with Lebanon and Israel and now even Turkey facing a grim scenario. The situation in Syria warrants immediate redressing without losing anymore time. Maybe the EU, the US and other regional states should offer mediation and a peaceful end to the crisis.
GOP’s Libya stunt
The Republicans are honing on President Obama. Their considerate move to deny the president enough leverage space to exercise his foreign policy options is symbolic, though. Nonetheless, they do carry a political message — intended more for the forthcoming presidential duel than being bothered in essence for Libya. This is why the two votes that refused authority to continue in the NATO-led operation and, subsequently, rejected a bid to cut off money for the conflict are contradictory.
The GOP, perhaps, wants to make it a point that this pacific-ideologue president is more into war-making business than making peace with itself, and in doing so he hasn’t bothered to go by the book for taking the Congress on board. But the White House still finds itself in a comfortable territory, as it has volumes to argue that what the president has done is well within in the limits of his executive powers, especially the ‘twilight zone’, wherein in he doesn’t need the stamp of approval of the legislatures on issues of world peace and security.
Had the Republicans been alone in castigating the president, the point would have been well-taken, but what spoiled the show was the nod of several Democrats who wanted to vent their anger on Obama for taking a solo flight when it comes to foreign expeditions. This issue, however, won’t die down with the resolution, as it has squarely failed to address the realities that Washington would be made to face while dealing with an adamant leadership in Tripoli. And, secondly, the GOP that for ages had been in favour of a stronger foreign policy that drew its strength from overseas adventures is treading an illogical argument. Libya is neither Iraq nor Afghanistan where the predecessor president had launched himself on a personalised agenda.
The intervention in the North of Africa is one for principles for which the Americans had struggled vehemently. The Libyans who had risen against the corrupt dictator are in need of diplomatic and materialistic support, and that can’t be ignored by the United States as the rest of its allies and the world at large are out there in action.
Washington has already stalemated for long, and its backseat status has come as a maneuvering point for the Col Muammar Gaddafi, who has survived the European blitz for more than 100 days. The Congress should help Obama in, at least, ending this impasse.
0 comments:
Post a Comment