What should we be doing about Syria?

[Grace62]

I see no reason that the US should negotiate from a position that we "fear" Russia, or China. Both have already been embarrassed by the security council vote which they first negotiated in bad faith, then vetoed. That speaks for itself.
Russia opposed our Libyan involvement, how did that turn out for them?
Yes they want to protect their economic ties to Syria, but after what has happened this week they cannot honestly expect anyone in the world to believe that Assad is serious about negotiating a peaceful end to this bloodshed.

The US, working with Europe and the Arab nations, can apply pressure to stop arms sales to the Assad regime, and should do so.
We can support the Syrians fighting for freedom without direct military involvement.
Assad is mostly isolated now, with most of its former friends having turned away.
If we had no evidence of what is happening there, then Russia could probably get away with their position. But that's not the case.

[rjmacs]

Grace62 wrote:
I see no reason that the US should negotiate from a position that we "fear" Russia, or China. Both have already been embarrassed by the security council vote which they first negotiated in bad faith, then vetoed. That speaks for itself.

Who suggested that we negotiate from a position of fear? I merely suggested that attempting to shame Russia (or China, for that matter) into changing their positions has no effectual basis in history. Can you think of times that it has worked?

Grace62 wrote:
Russia opposed our Libyan involvement, how did that turn out for them?
Yes they want to protect their economic ties to Syria, but after what has happened this week they cannot honestly expect anyone in the world to believe that Assad is serious about negotiating a peaceful end to this bloodshed.

It's our Libyan involvement (and overreach of UNSC 1973's mandate, which was not regime change but civilian protection) that has led the Russians to veto the present Syria resolution. Russia permitted resolution 1973 to pass, and reasonably anticipates that the Syrian resolution means regime change and nothing less. The UN has no authority to overthrow the regime of a sovereign nation, or endorse action intended to do so. It just doesn't.

Grace62 wrote:
The US, working with Europe and the Arab nations, can apply pressure to stop arms sales to the Assad regime, and should do so.
We can support the Syrians fighting for freedom without direct military involvement.
Assad is mostly isolated now, with most of its former friends having turned away.
If we had no evidence of what is happening there, then Russia could probably get away with their position. But that's not the case.

I completely agree. We can provide humanitarian assistance. We can produce economic pressure and enforce travel restrictions. We can refer matters to the ICC. We can move to stop or intercept arms shipments.

[freeradical]

We are living in a post Security Council world. Nation states do what they want, regardless of what the world or the Security Council thinks.

We ignored the Russians, and backed the KLA. They ignored the rest of the world and invaded Georgia after we set the precedent in Serbia that it's okay for a third party to break up a sovereign state.

The only fly in the ointment is the question of how important the Syrians are to the Russians. If they really do care, even economic sanctions might anger them.

[Grace62]

What I'm hearing now is that the Russians are conceding that they lack the influence over Assad to bring about a peaceful resolution and they want others to do what they can to help. The Syrian Nat'l Council does not trust the Russians to act in the best interest of all Syrians. Not unlike what happened in Libya, the US is working on top officials inside the Assad government and in the military, hoping they will abandon Assad and leave him isolated. I'm sure the US has covert operatives involved with the SNC.

This thing has been going on for almost a year with 6,000 casualties and no signs of ebbing violence. I welcome a stepped up approach by all parties interested in peace and democracy for the people of Syria.

We are living in a post Security Council world. Nation states do what they want, regardless of what the world or the Security Council thinks.

I don't agree. The role of the UN is always evolving, but there is an unprecedented amount of international cooperation on all levels now. Whether it is the advancement of peace, prosperity, and democracy, or simply trade, science, and social media communication, people are open to working together and learning from one another. It can be hard work, but it benefits everyone.

[max]

rjmacs wrote:
It's our Libyan involvement (and overreach of UNSC 1973's mandate, which was not regime change but civilian protection) that has led the Russians to veto the present Syria resolution. Russia permitted resolution 1973 to pass, and reasonably anticipates that the Syrian resolution means regime change and nothing less. The UN has no authority to overthrow the regime of a sovereign nation, or endorse action intended to do so. It just doesn't.

Bingo.
Then top it off with tribal/sectarian warfare.
There is no movement for democracy, but the usual tribal need for revenge and dominance. Sunnis getting back at Alawites, then the Christians. Everybody there knows the score.
The end result will be exactly the same as it is now.

Stay out of there. Let them slaughter each other to their heart's content.
They will bloody their hands with, or without our help....

[max]

Grace62 wrote:
The role of the UN is always evolving, but there is an unprecedented amount of international cooperation on all levels now. Whether it is the advancement of peace, prosperity, and democracy, or simply trade, science, and social media communication, people are open to working together and learning from one another. It can be hard work, but it benefits everyone.

Sure, here is one example of UN's and Obama's last great intervention achievement.....

"There's torture, extrajudicial executions, rape of both men and women," ...
Armed militia groups in Libya that formed along tribal lines after the ouster of the Moammar Gadhafi regime have turned on one another and now rule most of the country, torturing their opponents with impunity, Amnesty International says.
It's not just the revenge attacks or tribe-on-tribe feuding, but the gross human rights abuses that go unchallenged by Libya's new government, CBC's David Common reports from New York.
When Amnesty International investigators visited detention facilities, inmates told of rape by guards and beatings for hours with whips, cables, metal chains, wooden sticks and electric shocks with live wires, Common reported.
Militia members didn't bother stopping one beating even when Amnesty's team arrived, saying inmates who had been ordered released would not be.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/...nesty.html