kohenari:

I published this piece back at the beginning of February. I think the questions still stand:

In vetoing a Security Council resolution calling for Bashar al-Assad to step down in Syria, Russia and China have provided cover for the regime’s on-going brutal crackdown and, as such, criticism from the U.S., France, and a host of other countries and organizations was immediate and forceful.

So now what?

If the Security Council can’t even call for Assad to step down, it’s pretty clear that some more meaningful action isn’t forthcoming. Unless it comes from, for example, NATO. And some of the language we’re hearing today from Obama, Clinton, and Rice makes the possibility seem pretty realistic.

But the point of this post isn’t really to ask whether or not the U.S. — with NATO and the Arab Leagues as allies — will intervene militarily in Syria. Nor is the point to ask whether or not it ought to do so. If you want to know what I think, you can read some of my posts on Libya from last year (here and here, for example). Clinton has said, “military intervention has been absolutely ruled out and we have made that clear from the very beginning.”

But as I watched the social networking reactions to the Security Council proceedings, I started wondering about the reactions of progressives and (some) libertarians. From what I’ve seen from these groups, there’s condemnation of the Syrian crackdown and of the Russian and Chinese vetoes. But that condemnation doesn’t extend to a call for anyone to actually do anything. And that’s to be expected because these are groups who worry about what happens when people start thinking about acting rather than simply condemning. Indeed, I’m fairly confident that these strange bedfellows will resume their complaints about intervention as soon as planes are in the air; they’ll point out that the U.S. keeps targeting Muslims, they’ll insist that the U.S. has ulterior motives for its involvement, and they’ll point to all of the other places in the world in which the U.S. doesn’t intervene as proof for the first two arguments even as they demand that the U.S. stop dropping bombs on people entirely.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with those arguments, though it’s easy enough to disagree with them. The trouble is that it’s tough to want things you can’t have. In this case, it’s tough to want people to be able to choose their leaders and not to be murdered by their government while at the same not wanting to get too deeply involved when they can’t choose and when they’re being killed.

But let me be clear about this last point. I am well aware that, in the process of using force to help people in Syria, some of the people we intend to help will be harmed. This is the point on which my critics will hang their hats, as they did the last time we had this conversation. And so I’ll say again what I think is a pretty important point when it comes time to consider the costs and benefits of military intervention on behalf of people who are suffering under a murderous regime:

The choice we face is between people being killed and people being killed. I don’t want to sugar-coat that at all. In both instances, people die and it’s violent and bloody and awful. But in one instance — when we eschew intervention — the people who generally die violently are those who are attempting (and failing, due to inferior military capabilities) to throw off a tyrant. In those instances, it’s my position that to fall back on pacifism or isolationism because all warfare is awful or imperalistic or costly amounts to something of a moral failing insofar as it amounts to siding with the tyrant.

Choosing not to involve ourselves in what happens overseas doesn’t mean that people in Syria will suddenly be safe and happy and alive; it means that we can fool ourselves into thinking that we don’t have any blood on our hands because we didn’t directly harm anyone.

We can all be outraged with the choice that the Russians and the Chinese made today. And we surely ought to be outraged about what the Assad regime has been doing for months and months now. But if that outrage just means that we wag our fingers at Assad, the Russians, and the Chinese, rather than actually doing something about the terrible crimes being committed in Syria, then how outraged are we, really?

Most of the people who didn’t want the U.S. to get involved in Syria have gotten pretty quiet in the past six months because the U.S. hasn’t really gotten involved … at least not in the way that the U.S. got involved in Libya, to the endless breast-beating of these same people. In fact, there’s very little discussion of Syria from the non-interventionists these days, though the violence there continues apace.

Honestly, I’m curious: Do people think the Libyans are better off now than they were? And how do people think the Syrians would answer that question?

Personally I’ve always leaned towards intervention. I know it’s not in America’s interest to get involved in any quagmire again, but if you do look at the Libyan example… 

What they did was fly over and minimize the damage that Qaddafi’s forces could inflict on the rebels, and then washed their hands of it. Libya is a bit of a mess now but I’m pretty sure Libyans can’t claim any hand of imperialism to be involved in the choices they are making now. Indeed, Libya seems to get less disapproval than the drone flights in Pakistan. 

It might suggest that, if such a thing were possible in Syria, that such a low level intervention were implemented, and then the interveners would wipe their hands of any further military involvement… And therefore avoid further political fallout…

Maybe that would work. Just thinking out loud. 

You know how we’re all annoyed at how nothing seems possible to do in Syria for end the violence?

I think sometimes we should be glad we’re talking at all. During the Prague Spring, Tiananmen Square, and other brutally crushed popular protests, all we could do was sit and watch.

At least this time, there’s a chance.

The French journalist who was wounded in an attack on the Syrian city of Homs on Wednesday has asked to be evacuated from Syria quickly.

Edith Bouvier was injured in the attack that killed journalists Marie Colvin and Remi Ochlik in the Baba Amr suburb.

In a video posted online by opposition activists, Ms Bouvier says she has a broken femur and needs an operation.

She says she needs a ceasefire and a medically equipped vehicle to take her to the Lebanese border.

In a separate video, British photographer Paul Conroy, who was also injured in the attack, says he is being looked after by the medical staff of the Free Syrian Army.

He stresses that he is with them as a guest and that despite three large wounds to his leg he is “absolutely OK”.

Remembering Remi Ochlik

The award-winning photography of the photojournalist killed in Syria.

prettayprettaygood:

Everyone seems to agree that the uprising/civil war in Syria is a crisis that will only get much worse before it gets better. This week’s Economist describes the dire situation:

With up to several hundred projectiles raining into Homs every hour, the nationwide casualty toll has surged from around 20 a day to more than 50. Transport and telephone links, along with power, water and fuel supplies have been severed to many of the stricken areas, which were poor to begin with and have seen their incomes shrivel during the long months of unrest. With thousands of civilians choosing to abandon their homes despite cold winter weather, Syria is likely soon to confront a grave internal refugee crisis within its sealed borders. “We ask for nothing from the world, except for coffins, since there are not enough of them here for our bodies,” declares a sarcastic tweet from Homs.

Although the UN has called for the ouster of President Assad, the forces behind the dictator’s bloody regime are relentless in their support. Russia has been supplying the mass murderers in Syria with weapons. Just recently, the Russian government made $550 million by selling Assad combat jets. The bombs dropping onto the houses of innocent Syrians might as well have “Made in Russia” stamps printed on them.

So what can we do this about this? Bombing operations in Syria are not predicted to have the same effectiveness as the bombing campaign that helped topple Gaddafi. The disorganization of the rebel forces also calls into question the effectiveness of supplying weapons to the opposition (although some European countries have said they’ll arm anti-Assad forces anyway). Russia has both financial and strategic interests in propping up Assad and thus is unlikely to stop supporting him.

The answer may lie with Turkey and Jordan. Safe havens could be set up along the Syrian border. These havens would not just be a place for fleeing Syrians to escape to. It could also be the headquarters of a more organized and inclusive rebel force. It will take some Western allies to support this plan and some financial commitment as well. Once the forces grow stronger, they could be trained and supplied with weapons. In this scenario, we could protect Syrians from being murdered and build a stronger army to take down Assad. 

If we are the champions of democracy, we must not let Assad brutally destroy his own people as Saddam Hussein did. Nonintervention could mean years of brutal oppression and mass murder. If we avoid the problem now, we risk much graver consequences in the future. 

The problem I have with this argument is that it is an almost strictly military one. 

For all intents and purposes, there is no Syrian opposition. They were protesters and are still mostly civilian protesters, with some defected army personnel but not really enough to make an army. 

Technically in the past, guerilla wars have been fought with less, but most of those were products of the Cold War, with strong ideologies to bind them together. Where they didn’t, they tended to fight against each other. Besides, they were typically funded by the US or the USSR whose interest was really only to make trouble for the other side, not to minimize casualties. 

We don’t want a protracted, bloody and divisive civil war in any case. That kind of chaos isn’t necessary, especially in how it’s likely to send huge waves of refugees over to neighbouring countries, which none of them want or, for that matter, can afford. 

The West and the UN have called for Assad to step down. This is the tricky part, because on the one hand his legitimacy is gone in the eyes of the dissenting population and the world which has been watching. On the other hand, he does still have huge numbers of supporters who will not take being dictated to by foreign powers lightly while they still feel like they’re winning. 

China, among others, has called for a referendum. It’s not a terrible idea, but the prerequisite is a stop to the fighting. Since it’s really a one-sided battle going on, there’s really only one side to convince. I understand that the Syrian military sees “ending the violence” in one particular way: when the protesters have been suppressed beyond further uprising, the violence will be over. 

Which isn’t really an acceptable option. 

One has to take into account diplomatic pressure. Russia may have interests in Syria that have been guaranteed by Assad, but one should bear in mind that those contracts need not end with Assad’s reign. The man may, for the moment, be the state, but the state is not quite the man.

Diplomatic pressure doesn’t sound like much, like a slap on the wrists, but it does make a difference. There’s usually a lot going on which doesn’t get on the news. There is such a thing as quiet pressure. The West have exhausted their position and can have little more diplomatic options than what they’re doing already, but Russia and China, technically behind Assad, now have the ball in their court. 

I guess you can call it “Good cop, bad cop” negotiation. China has already adjusted its position. Maybe Assad will be more open to listening to China. 

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is “completely committed” to stopping fighting in the country, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Tuesday after discussions on the mounting violence.

Lavrov’s meeting with Assad came as the Syrian military continued its bombardment of the restive city of Homs for a fifth day. France and Italy recalled their ambassadors for consultations over the worsening situation.

-

In Damascus, Lavrov was greeted by cheering crowds as he was driven from the airport into the city, Syrian television showed.

“Every leader of every country must be aware of his share of responsibility. You are aware of yours,” Russian state media quoted Lavrov as saying to Assad. (via WashPo)

The choice of words struck me as interesting. 

I’m sure he’s committed to ending the violence. There really isn’t any other alternative, and it’s not like he just enjoys bathing in blood or something. 

But I do wonder if his idea of “ending the violence soon” means “putting down the revolt brutally as soon as possible, so these people will stop running into my bullets.” 

People want to do something to stop the killing. It’s ironic that the massacre that the West intervened to stop in Libya is happening already in Syria. 

But of course, it’s not the same situation. Qaddafi was diplomatically isolated, his military was relatively outdated, and the opposition was soon armed and willing to fight back. 

Assad is not in the same situation. If anything, the man has thus far exuded confidence. And confident dictators rarely get toppled by revolt. Of course, it’s a new age and the world is watching keenly. 

There are other differences too. Syria has a better infrastructure, more organized military, and rather close ties to Iran. 

On the other hand, it’s also diplomatically isolated, even among other Arab countries. 

The interesting thing is that when Qaddafi made his wild claims about how the protesters were criminals, we saw it as consistent in his trend of wild rhetoric. When Assad shoots and bombards his people, and claims that they’re armed gangs and foreign agents, the international media tip toes around it. They’re forced to at least treat that statement like it might be possible, even when it plainly isn’t. I do wonder why. 

It’s been expressed to me that in ways, Assad did alright by his people until recently. A friend of mine who lived there as an expatriate told me that he appreciated that life in Damascus was safe, clean and organized. People seemed pretty content. He does still have many genuine supporters, too. 

That sort of thing reminds me of phenomena like Ostalgie or similar: a sort of nostalgia for a past before Western capitalism. East Germans sometimes remember their old state fondly as simpler times. Indonesians sometimes recall that Suharto wasn’t all that bad. And remember that Belarus initially voted to return to Communist government. 

Sometimes people actually do prefer to have politics sorted out for them. And this can work, so long as the bureaucracy isn’t too corrupt and the dictator is benign. Unfortunately it’s a lot to rely on, and people are, if anything, fallible. 

What’s the solution? Well, it’s to be hoped that there won’t be civil war. There are too many people on both sides for it to possibly be a short or relatively clean war. The opposition also doesn’t, at present, have any organized military on its side. It’s not a war when one side is unarmed.* 

A fair and monitored plebiscite could be in order, though it’s hard to imagine Assad consenting to this. 

Foreign military intervention would be a horrible idea. One way or another, Syrians did live under a dictatorship, whose constant scapegoat was that foreign agents and interests were constantly seeking to undermine their way of life. Even Syrians who don’t like Assad would be distrustful of the motives of any foreign military presence. 

* This brings up an interesting train of thought. Traditional civil wars are fought between armed factions of one state. But with organized armies of today, it’s hard to really find two evenly armed factions. Even the civil wars of the 20th century were balanced out by guerrillas fighting long wars, but it’s hard to imagine the same thing happening in a more developed country, because the military is centralized and extremely well armed beyond what civilians could possibly balance against. 

In Libya, when Qaddafi was marching on Bengazi and the people there cried out for help? 

It sounds a lot like what everyone was afraid was going to happen there, is already happening in Homs in Syria. 

But I don’t see Sarkozy gallivanting away. 

mohandasgandhi:

WARNING: EXTREMELY GRAPHIC: Syrian boy with his jaw blown off

Few videos could highlight the tenuous situation in Syria as one published Sunday afternoon showing a boy with his jaw completely blown off.

The video also contains other children with their limbs removed during Syrian President Bashar Assad’s violent crackdown on dissent.

The condition of the boy is unclear at the time of this post.

H/T: bbcity

This is what Russia and China vetoed. This is what the world is staying silent over.

One must be fair. 

What Russia and China vetoed were in self-interest to their states. How could they vote against repression, when they repress their own freedoms? 

Though I can understand Russia these days, because they very much parade a farce of democracy in front of increasing authoritarianism, China has never pretended to be other than what it is. Chinese citizens are long accustomed to a lack of political power. 

It’s been over 20 years since China last brutally repressed a democratic movement. Russia hasn’t done it for some time either. 

Both don’t really have that much to lose, other than face, by vetoing resolutions.  You can see why they do it, but it doesn’t make it a good reason. 

The Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) will dominate the news in the coming days.  The PKK, a group known for its violent attacks against Turkey, is fast becoming part of the new trilateral power game between Turkey, Iran and Syria as Bashar al Assad crackdowns on demonstrators in his country.

You really can’t possibly believe the official government line: which is that the police are firing on foreign agents, thugs, criminals and bandits. Where would 3000 such people come from? Where where they before? 3000 is a lot of people. 

You know what’s horrible? That people still do believe it. 

Finally those hackers do something productive. 

From a Lebanese friend of mine. 

This is exactly why news reports from Syria are so hard to be accurate about. Most of the sources we have are Western, and they say these are demonstrators for more political freedom and for Assad to step down, and they get shot up by tanks. 

The official Syrian line is that there are foreign agents and armed gangs shooting at police officers and soldiers and thereby provoking an armed response. 

Where’s the truth? It’s hard to tell, but most importantly in terms of the Arab street, it’s very divided. The important thing isn’t empirical truth, but what people actually believe.