Posted: 02 September 2013 at 12:28pm | IP Logged
OH my Hadey, you do such a wonderful number, bring this fun on BA, na!
Contrary to the popular belief, US foreign policy has not been static. But that is irrelevant.
Some day do enlighten me about this. Ofcourse it has got the bouts of change, the simmering passive aggressiveness remains very much present, nothing wrong with that, but I firmly believe time for any single nation to lead the march has long gone.
I'm not a supporter of US foreign policy. I don't agree with most of US intervention. My problem is only when people criticize USA based on presumptions and falsities. Also international politics is a "gray" area. USA may not self serving and selfish in their foreign policy, but painting USA as completely "black", a villainous entity is not fair either. Also the truth of the matter is that any country that has the wealth and might to be a military might will act big brother. Most of Europe did it during the era of colonization. Soviet Russia did it when they had clout. US does it now when they have the power. Tomorrow, should India be an economic and military power, I doubt it would be the benevolent Gandhian pacifist.
Absolutely true, as I mentioned somewhere on this forum , I like grey , not the holier than thou avtaar or the villainous hood that people behest on US, what pricks me most is the disrespect of International consensus and the hypocrisy in its implementation.
My point exactly, the power axis has always been in the hands of the one with the max weight in his pocket and grenades in its armor, holds true for the Imperialistic GB, Soviet Union , US or now maybe China. Oh lovely, India did pull a Sri Lanka years back, but then that is totally irrelevant.
The point is none of these ever did well for the world, it never was the answer to any world problem. So to say that it happened before and it will happen in the future , we cannot give US an excuse pass ( I know you didn't meant it). Economically, politically and geographically world have undergone a big change, now you cannot have a single God Daddy dictating the orders, the voices of countries like Germany, India, Pakistan etc just cannot be submerged by the weight of the crown. There are multiple power blocks around the globe , so any singular step by US leadership is nothing but complete reckless.
Specifically focusing on the Syria situation.
1) There is a Catch-22 USA faces. There is a good amount people in the world who thinks USA is a big evil f**k up and should just keep their nose out of other's business. Very valid and wise considering the disasters of past interventions. But there is a good amount of people in the world including Syrian civilians who want US to intervene. The argument being if you intervened for selfish reasons in Iraq, you have the obligation to intervene on moral grounds for us.
Well this is more like opening the can of worms, today it's Syrians, tomorrow it can be Egyptians, Armenians or the horror Kashmiris in India, will US pick the gun and shoot. These scenarios actually question the moral fiber of US foreign policy. It has to draw the " white line" somewhere. You cannot attack a nation selfish reasons or not without International support , unless your sovereignty is threatened.
There is a significant push for US action within the Middle Eastern region itself http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/02/world/middleeast/overseas-concern-follows-obamas-new-approach-to-syria.html?_r=0
Ah, FInally you brought the main point out. This is what I eluded in my last post. There is tremendous pressure from Turkey (somewhat justified), Saudi Arabia (too political) for US intervention. These same groups were accused of funding the rebels as well and have way more vested interest than anybody else. There is a whole lot of re-drawing ME noises in that backyard, US is being baited by a "too friendly Saudi" by various backdoor deals. It is this alliance that what held UK to back -paddle, among several others and which has irked many others. The group countries in ME pushing for are are primarily accused for encouraging state actors in Syria. World doesnt want US to shake hand with this perceived evil.
So taking action means being labeled as an aggressive big bully who intervenes at the drop of a hat, Not taking action means being labeled as an aggressive big bully who intervenes only for selfish reasons.
I think the world will be happier if there was no bullying around in the 1st place. Quoting Peter Parker's uncle -"With great power, comes greater responsibilities" . Rather than citing a catch-22 to the world, why doesn't US strengthen the case in International Justice court, submit the evidences and let a UN lead, US supported Peace keeping force handle the charge. If you want to do the moral job, then atleast wear the right robe.
So you see damned if you do, damned if you don't.
2) The nerve gas situation is tricky. There is no proof on who called the attack. It was a year ago when Obama said chemical weaponry would be the red line causing US intervention. So the nerve gas could have been used by anyone who wants US to intervene. A recently revealed interesting fact is that a UK company maybe selling chemical weaponry to the Syrian government.
My money on countries within ME!
Personally, I think it is time for USA to just withdraw and let the Muslim League who are concerned about Syrian civilians come to their aid. In my view the consequences of intervening is far worse than not intervening .
Hadey, it took us this long to finally say- I do , too, agree ofcourse!
There is absolutely no US military intervention that has not made things worse in the region. However, can you say beyond a reasonable doubt that things actually could have been peaceful without US intervention. For nations like Russia and China where no one dare question the government we see human rights violations escalate each day and the coverage is muffled and muted. Unless we have a way to turn back time and prevent intervention, we don't have any conclusive evidence that the countries would actually be better off. Without intervention we could potentially have seen massive civil war and genocide, if not now but eventually in the distant future.
This is what i said, today its Syria demanding the moral action by US, what about the rebels in Russia, or even the LGBT groups, would US come to their aid as well. Or keep away as it's Russia's internal matter. Than why cannot it be Syrian internal matter?The common world perception right now is a US intervention can be bought by right proposition , right or wrong is up for anyone's perception. But this is a possibility which can never be ruled out. Hence like a broken record I say, the world needs an impartial power center, a much independent and stronger UN. An impartial or rational UN action should be taken as the last word. Still there will be murmuring but atleast it will keep things as clear as possible.
Also US foreign policy is not limited to military intervention. There are government run foreign policy arms like USAID and Peace Corps. While the percentage of military expenditure is shameful and the amount of military intervention shocking, the fact also is that no other nation has as many dedicated humanitarian branches as the USA.
And neutral viewer will always applaud and appreciate humanitarian acts by US and I sincerely hope it continues to do so. But that doesn't mean US foreign policy should actually tilt towards military intervention for any reason without without International support. It's like pardoning Salman for his crimes coz he also does Being Human 9 terrible Joke, but you catch the drift right).