In a strongly worded editorial the Washington Post is suggesting sanctions be imposed upon Syria.
The Security Council has a good precedent to follow here. When Western investigators linked the Libyan government to the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am airliner over Scotland, the United Nations applied sanctions to the regime of Moammar Gaddafi and kept them in place until his government accepted responsibility for the crime and surrendered two of its authors for trial. The United Nations should demand no less in this case. The Syrian sponsors of Mr. Hariri’s murder must be identified and brought to justice; if that includes Mr. Assad and his relatives, so be it.
It is extremely frustrating and quite ironic that in the Arab world it is mostly the helpless citizens who pay the price for the actions of dictators and their cronies. The Iraqis paid the price for Saddam’s arrogance, enduring years of sanctions. Now it seems the Syrians will be next.
It is the weekend here and I can’t seem to relax. The repercussions of the Mehlis report could engulf the whole Middle East. If unrest starts in Syria, it might start a domino effect through neighboring countries. I’m worried. Anyway, I leave you with some more reactions from Syrian bloggers:
Yhe “UN” imposed the sanctions not the US/UK.
Thomas, everything you mentioned about Saddam’s brutality would have been credibale had you not forgot Israel’s brutality and your collective silence in the face of the it’s occupation and inhumanity to non-jews. fact is, you don’t give a dime’s worth about human rights of Arabs. You use that as an excuse to intervene. Had you cared, you would not have murdered thousands of innocent iraqi children while protecting Israel, nukes and all.
But for the record, your reply is frank. It’s not decent. It’s frank. Of course every country has to look out for it’s energy needs, but when you commit mass murder and you topple regimes and creat havoc in an already unstable reagion, you are not much better than Saddam. When you protect an occupation like Israel’s while pressuring Syria to end its occupation you are a hypocrite. But the difference between an Iraqi and an America/US is that Americans and Brits kill and loot weaker nations only when there is national concensus to do so. It’s a majority decision. But Iraqis live in a dictatorship where only Saddam and his family make the decisions.
“But your are more interested in actions post-Cold War. Let’s look at the Bosnia/Serbia/Kosovo situation. Here is one of a pure moral nature.”
That’s about the ONLY thing the US did since WWII that was not motivated by pure national interest. But then again, I am a fan of Clinton.
“But the actions in Sudan have had American presence.”
Why don’t you stop by AMnesty.org or HRW.org and see how many hotspots are there that are far more serious than Sudan. Why Sudan? WHy NOT Rawanda when it happened? Common dude, accept that the motives behind Sudan is similar to Iraq, Syria, Iran. To re-write the politial map in favor of US. US dragged its feet when South African was up to its ears in racism. It took the EUropeans over a decade to convince US to move. US was only viable market for South Africa when Europe was closed. Same with Israel. Please don’t post one of those holywood movie scripts where American fights for justice and peace and to save the poor and the oppressed. Go to the West Bank and Gaza is you want to do something you want to feel proud off. It’s your support for Israel that puts a crack in everything you say.
“The US was the forming partner of the United Nations. It continues to provide the largest amount of support to peoples the world over.”
the US has a corrupting influnce on the UN. Most of the devistating wars of post-WWII in Korea and Vietnam, where millions of innocents were killed NOT for attacking US but for having different values than yours. The UN was a stoog, blessing these wars.
“Now to your US-UK mass murder through sanctions. You think Saddam was a good man, a just man that should have remained? ”
Don’t forget that you have toppled enough democracies in Iran and South American that you considered hostile to you. You have supported far more evil dictators and regimes (Israel, Saudi Arabia). Please don’t play Bleeding LIberal. We know you all you care about is maintaining your standards of living, even if it kills others.
“But if you are so naive as to think that you can call the deaths of innocents that suffered under Saddam’s regime due to sanctions mass murder, I leave you to your own delusions.”
How sad to see you rationalize mass murder that has been committed in your name and for your benefit. This is very frightning.
“But don’t dare assume you know where I am coming from in any way or that you somehow comprehend my perspective.”
I don’t care about your motives, I see the final outcome. violence and theft of natural resources.
Your mistakes on this point, Sakhafaat, are legion. You chose to call the actions of the United States colonial in nature. But I think you recognized the error of your use of that term and so step off to hit at another point and point to the brutality. I challenged your use of a word in that instance not on your entire point because I was not entirely in disagreement with you. But since you digress so shall I.
You think that the US or any other nation pursuing resources necessary for its stability is ignoble? Do you suspect that the US or the UK — or better, the West for that matter — is alone in this pursuit? This type of behavior, historically, is not only common it is not even regarded as evil but rather necessary. Let’s examine a case in point quite relevant here: Jordan.
The first Gulf War, King Hussein decides to ally himself with Iraq. Was this because he was friends with Saddam, found him to be a decent and sensible man? Of course not. He knew the political ramifications from not only the world at large but from his closest Arab allies. But he had not choice. The oil that was being provided to him for free could not be replaced. To go against Saddam was to cut Jordan’s lifeline to cut it’s throat. It would have killed the kingdom. He found himself in between the proverbial rock and a hard place that Jordan so often finds itself. Hussein took the wise choice, knowing that it was only political capital lost to ally with Iraq. To cut off the oil would have killed the burgeoning kingdom; it was economic suicide. So he went against the morality of the action and embraced the reality of the decision. It was the right thing to do even though for most everyone else involved it was wrong.
King Abdullah was put in a similar predicament. This time around this knowledge of such a step was much more plain and recognized. Many efforts were made to help Jordan maintain itself economically despite the cutoff from stepping away from Saddam’s freebie pipeline. Abdullah recognized the deal with the devil that was in place and with 20/20 hindsight he knew what must be done and he had the political capital to make it work better than it could have before. He cut the flow. That decision’s ramifications are still reverberating. But it was the right decision as well.
So let’s face facts here that A) The US is not following some colonial mindset. B) It might be acting to protect assets or stabilize the region from which such assets flow but that is not a colonial decision. That is a SMART decision that has been made by many the world over including those within the region — it’s been made by leaders within the region for decades. The decision may be ugly to many, as was King Hussein’s, but it is a smart decision for those making the choice.
Then let’s examine this business that the “US could care less about the array of troubled regions around the world.” That, dear sir, is again just crap. One of the most humiliating defeats in US history was Vietnam. The US interests there were moral. They didn’t want to see the ascendancy of communism. Unfortunately the Vietnamese thought the US was again in that colonial mindset as were the French before them. Nothing played out in that well for the US. The war was lost and thousands and thousands of Americans died in that action.
But your are more interested in actions post-Cold War. Let’s look at the Bosnia/Serbia/Kosovo situation. Here is one of a pure moral nature. There was no “communist” angle. It was a pure human rights issue. The US stepped in and acted. There are others. Too many, in fact. Many suggest that American help sometimes goes awry, is misinterpreted — called colonialist for instance — and so blows up in the Americans face. So why should America go stick its nose in there when it often gets whacked right on it. Many within the US administration prior to 9/11 were leaning this way. 9/11 changed that. It made global stability a national interest.
There have been American missteps. What happens in Africa seems to go under the radar of most every developed nation. Former US president Clinton has said as much as sorry for his inaction there. But the actions in Sudan have had American presence. And those were issues of an entirely moral caliber, sans energy component.
So, you sir are mistaken here.
The US was the forming partner of the United Nations. It continues to provide the largest amount of support to peoples the world over. Look to the earthquake in Pakistan most recently. It is American Marines flying in to save those people, much to their surprise I might add. While the rest of the world seems fatigued by the state of human/global affairs the US continues to push on through on these issues. Perhaps many have problems with the man at the helm, but the “American” ideal remains one of the most noble in recent history.
Yes, US President George W. Bush fumbled away an amazing opportunity when he had the whole world on his side after 9/11. The war in Iraq is not going as he had hoped, of that you can be sure. But to suggest that the US only operates in its own interests is both ignorant and naive. The US does protect its interests as any country in its position damn well should. But it is not a country based upon colonialism or without a moral compass. Look around. Examine the meat of most any major humanitarian issue. The majority of funding is American.
You can hate America, Sakhafaat, but just make sure you do it for the right reasons.
Now to your US-UK mass murder through sanctions. You think Saddam was a good man, a just man that should have remained? You think if sanctions were not put in place things would have gotten better? Is that your suggestion … leaving Saddam alone after his invasion into Kuwait would have been a good idea? It was the decision of those then in power to leave him alone lest people such as yourself might call the actions colonialist and misinterpret the action. Those that rose up hoping for US support were promptly crushed. The US is at fault for that. But it was a rock and a hard place position. Its easy to sit from afar and judge these things. I’d hope you never have to make such decisions you’ll find you cannot please everyone. Sanctions worked against Libya. They didn’t work with Saddam. Hindsight is 20/20.
But if you are so naive as to think that you can call the deaths of innocents that suffered under Saddam’s regime due to sanctions mass murder, I leave you to your own delusions. What happened was a true tragedy. But to equate it somehow to the direct malicious actions perpetrated under Saddam is simply ridiculous. Try to be reasonable and logical. And lest you forget, it wasn’t as if that situation fell off the American radar. Iraq remained stuck in their throat. GW Bush was eager to finish what he thought they should have done the first time. Time will tell if that decision was truly the right one for the region.
We may never see eye to eye on this issue. But don’t dare assume you know where I am coming from in any way or that you somehow comprehend my perspective. I find fault in your logic, your history and your use of definitions you clearly do not understand. No, I am not the one that pushes red buttons. Because you are simply wrong, I only push yours.
Besides Thomas, You totally ignnored the most important point of my post: the mass murder of innocent children by US and UK. Call it colonialim or call it plain brutality, it’s those who impose the sanctions and those who launch missles and drop bombs who kill, not those who don’t. Saddam’s crimes pale my comparision to US and UK crimes in Iraq. We will never see eye to eye on this issue, because we are on the receiving end and you push the red buttons.
Thomas, US may not want land but it wants oil. Colonialism is no longer a terretorial issue, it’s a natural resources issue. The fact is the US could care less about the array of troubled regions around the world. At any given moment in time, there are a dozen or so hot spots around the globe. since the fall of the soviet union, the US has one focus: energy.
Unfortunately, Natasha, things are very worrying in our neck of the woods. It looks like Washington and its newest allies in Lebanon are out to draw blood. Now, I was just as happy as the next Lebanese to see the Syrians out of here but we never, ever wanted sanctions on them. Even Walid Junblatt, a leading opposition figure, todat stressed that sanctions should not be placed on the Syrian population. If Syria falls apart-if it’s anything like Iraq-the entire region will explode and Lebanon will be the first to go up in flames. Just this afternoon clashes eruptes and died down just as quickly on the gates of Ein al-Helwah, Lebanon’s biggest (and most armed) refugee camp…
If you are reading the history of colonialism, you should be able to see clearly that the US is not a colonial power. You have confused it with the UK. The Americans are not interested in aquiring more territory. They’ve had a myriad of opportunities. That is NOT their modus operandi.
The Americans were colonized at one point, for those reading their colonial history. It is not in their blood to do what they hated so very much. Try a different theory Sakhafaat, that one doesn’t fly.
This reminds how during the iraq sanctions, when babies and children were dying by the thousands due to lack of basic medications and water sanitation material, former US Secretary of State Madelen Albright was asked if the murder of over half a million Iraqi children was acceptable, she said it’s worth it. And of course blamed Saddam for it. Amazing how the Americans and the Brits can rationalize their mass murder of innocents by blaming their political enemies. Way I see it, it was not Saddam who was denying Iraqi babies medicin. It’s not Bashar Asad who is planning to starve his people. NO, neither the Syrians nor the Iraqis are paying the price of the arrogance of their regiems. That’s hot air. Syrians and Iraqis are paying the price of US quest to change the political map in the Arab world to protect it’s interests and that of Israel. Anyone who read the history of colonialism understnds this.
Regardless of who is ruling Syria, whether a dictator or not, as long as the government policy opposes the US and it’s ally, Israel, the people of the country will have to suffer from sanctions and hash time, until the country submits! Of course, if the country has oil, then it’s a different story! But for Syria, compliance and submission are all what is needed!
Natasha: I discovered you when I did a Google for the new Jordanian tv channel, Al-Mamnou. Are you in Jordan? If so, I am going to paste here a news article I picked up from a French (in English) web site, Guysen News.
During the month of Ramadan, Jordan’s new TV channel Al-Mamnou is airing the Syrian series ”al-Shatat” (the Diaspora), aired during Ramadan 2003 by al-Manar, Hizbullah’s TV channel, and during Ramadan 2004 by two Iranian TV channels. (Guysen.Israel.News)
Its chairman, Walid al-Hadidi, said that the series would be aired from several Arab countries and from Italy. The anti-Jewish series features the “Jewish conspiration theory” designed for Jews to dominate the world as well as the blood libel accusation that Jews ritually kill Christian children. Source: MEMRI
I don’t understand how this can happen, seeing that Israel and Jordan have diplomatic relations. It is sickening to think that these lies are alive and well in the Arab world. Do you know how I can contact the tv station itself?