Thursday 12 September 2013

No Intervention?

It all seemed set, the US was going to bomb Syria with French help and without the British. Although Obama decided to ask Congress, he refused to say whether or not he would bomb Syria if Congress said no.  Then Secretary of State, John Kerry, made some off the cuff remarks whilst in London that changed everything. In response to a reporter's question Kerry said that the only way Syria could prevent the bombings would be to hand over all its chemical weapons.

Now all of a sudden 'peace' seems to be an option. The Russians and Assad jumped at the opportunity to prevent the strikes. If Assad does hand all his chemical weapons to the international community then this saga will have been a success (in a way). It was the credible threat of force that made Assad agree to this and could save Obama a lot of face. Intervention in Syria is unpopular and Obama's reputation was on the line. Now he may have removed chemical weapons from Syria without a single bomb dropped.

Yet we have to be careful, as the old Russian proverb says; trust, but verify. As we do not know how many chemical weapons Assad has, it will be difficult to confirm that he has gotten rid of all of his them. We must not get overexcited either, the situation in Syria is terrible at the moment; after all it is a Civil War. It won't be easy getting UN inspectors into Syria to remove the chemical weapons and even harder for them to prove that they have taken them all. Nonetheless this must be done to get rid of some of these horrifying weapons.

Don't get me wrong, I still favour intervention. But my will to intervene has very little to do with chemical weapons. I've been advocating for a no fly zone for a while now to even the fight between rebels and the Assad regime. Removing chemical weapons will not do this but it still a good move and I applaud it.

No comments:

Post a Comment