Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
GET UPDATES FROM Josh D. Scheinert
 

Are Syrians Worth Less Than Libyans?

Posted: 01/23/2012 2:44 am

It took one month and one day for the UN Security Council to authorize a no-fly zone over Libya, which NATO then enforced. That was all. With little, if any, real debate at home, Canada dispatched 600 Canadian personnel, the HMCS Vancouver and seven CF-18s to Libya, flying 10 per cent of NATO's strike missions. In the end, our ideals and policy were vindicated. The dictator fell and Libyans were freed.

This was humanitarian intervention par excellence. The famed Responsibility to Protect (R2P) had proven relevant and effective. Gareth Evans, one of R2P's architects referred to Libya as a "textbook case for the application of the R2P."

By contrast, it has been 10 months since the uprising in Syria began. More than 5,000 Syrians have been killed and President Bashar al-Assad shows no signs of relinquishing power. The UN Human Rights Council has accused the Syrian government of committing crimes against humanity against its own people. To date, 25,000 Syrians have fled, most to Turkey, others to Lebanon.

And our response? The UN might tighten sanctions that have thus far accomplished little, and the Arab League has extended its monitoring mission that has done nothing but buy Assad more time and cover. One member said the Arab League does not feel this is the right time for "escalation" in the global response to Assad's murderous campaign.

They are right. Now is not the time for escalation; it was yesterday.

In plain sight and in open defiance of humanity, Bashar al-Assad is calling our bluff. He feels secure at the UN thanks to Chinese and Russian protection (Syria is a purchaser of Russian arms) and has learned how to circumvent sanctions (by reportedly shipping oil to Iran, which sells it on Syria's behalf on the open market). Assad even survived a Barbara Walters interview.

Is this really all we've got? In 10 months no one has come up with a better plan than evadable sanctions, toothless Arab League monitors, and a Barbara Walters special? How much longer will we wait before moved to action by the humanitarian ideals that brought liberation to Libya? Before intervention in Libya, estimates of those killed ranged between 1,000 and 10,000. Has humanity's threshold been pegged at 10,000, making Syria only halfway there?

The response, as with most in international relations, is that it's complicated. Libya was a one off; Gaddafi's reach was severely limited and intervention in that country did not affect many other geopolitical interests. By contrast, there are numerous geopolitical considerations in Syria and each one is reason enough for caution:

• Iran is a major supporter of Syria. Not only is it assisting Syria evade oil sanctions, it has also been accused of selling arms to Syria. There is also Hamas, currently headquartered in Syria, largely supported by Iran (though reports suggest this might be changing). Thus, any attempts at strong intervention in Syria risk stirring the pot with Iran, something the West and Sunni-Arab states would rather avoid right now.

• Intervention in Syria could unsettle its border with Israel. Violent clashes in June 2011 between Syrians and Palestinians and the Israeli military left 20 demonstrators dead according to Syrian television. Syrian human rights activist Radwan Ziadeh said, "There is no question the regime organized this to say it's us or chaos."

• Approximately 4 million Kurds live in Syria. Their place in a post-Assad Syria has yet to be determined. Growing tension between Syrian Kurds and the opposition can have an undesired destabilizing effect in neighbouring Turkey and Iraq, both of which have sizeable Kurdish communities.

Furthermore, given the success of Islamist parties in Egyptian and Tunisian elections, the West is surely skeptical of deposing another Arab autocracy without assurances of pro-Western forces filling the void. So much for free and fair. And then there are the logistical challenges of a more forceful intervention in Syria, especially when contrasted to Libya.

But these are not reasons enough to continue down the current path of doing "what we can" in a complicated situation. They are barely enough to placate our conscience, let alone save Syrian lives.

Right now we're all wearing a Syrian straightjacket. How and if we emerge from it will say more about our humanitarian ideals and R2P than the intervention in Libya ever will. Libya was simple to figure out and required little ingenuity. It quickly reaffirmed the foundations of our common humanity. But day-by-day, body-by-body that progress, and the ideal of humanitarian intervention, is being undone in Syria.

The playbook needs to change. Syria's opposition has called for an escalation in the global response. What that means remains to be seen. But thus far, we -- Canada, the West, the Arab League, the UN and NATO, are failing the people of Syria. They are not worth any less than the people of Libya and deserve to know that.

 
It took one month and one day for the UN Security Council to authorize a no-fly zone over Libya, which NATO then enforced. That was all. With little, if any, real debate at home, Canada ...
It took one month and one day for the UN Security Council to authorize a no-fly zone over Libya, which NATO then enforced. That was all. With little, if any, real debate at home, Canada ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 21
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
09:50 AM on 01/24/2012
Syrian Christians generally support Assad not because they like the regime but rather they fear the ascendency of lslamist groups, for them only the Alawites can protect them.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
courtb
07:32 AM on 01/24/2012
I'd argue that one of the main differences is the Arab League's attitude and actions.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Frnkndad
12:29 AM on 01/24/2012
What a silly question. Morality aside (as often happens on the international stage). Libya has oil, Syria doesn`t.
Therefore, Syrians are on their own.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
courtb
07:28 AM on 01/24/2012
Except Syria does have oil and exports billions of dollars worth to Europe...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Frnkndad
01:10 AM on 01/27/2012
Let me clarify my comment. Syria doesn't have Oil that is exploitable by American companies the way Libya does. (It's expected by the end of 2012 that Syria will become a net importer of oil)
12:18 AM on 01/24/2012
"But these are not reasons enough to continue down the current path of doing "what we can" in a complicated situation"

Oh, yes they most certainly are.
photo
wom122
Primum non nocere
07:40 PM on 01/23/2012
The "humanitarian" intervention in Libya's civil war -for that''s what it really was about- was less disastrous than that in Iraq but that does not qualify it as a resounding success. There is no moral justification to kill Syrians (or Libyans or Iraqis) to save other Syrians.
07:21 PM on 01/23/2012
The green flag flies once again over Bani Walid. The Libyans apparently do not think much of their so-called liberation. Most Syrians are sensible enough to understand that only evil comes from Nato bombs.
03:30 PM on 01/23/2012
Actually the argument that people who supported the Libyan intervention but opposed intervention to Syria actually make is that there was a military action that could achieve a positive result in Libya, and there is nothing equivalent in Syria.

sgillhoolley makes that case below. And unfortunately it seems right. There is simply not the divide between the government troops and the rebels that made Libyan intervention successful.
01:41 PM on 01/23/2012
Americans have fought and died for freedom throughout our history. Let the Syrians do the same. If Iranians, Aghans or any Arabs truly want freedom from dictators and mullahs, let them unite and fight!
US stay out of it!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BigLittle
01:40 PM on 01/23/2012
Unless action will call turmoil and raise the price of Alberta crude, Harper's not interested.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sgillhoolley
Occupy the discussion.
09:25 AM on 01/23/2012
Libya and Syria are completely different countries, completely different situations. The Libyans rose up en masse, and had control of half of Libya before we decided to help them out. The Syrians rose up and were smashed, and have failed to take control of anything. In Libya we merely flew air sortees and took out targets that could not fight back. In order for us to free Syria we would need to send in ground troops (since the Syrians have no fighting force going against their government), which would cost us money and lives, neither of which we are in the mood to use up right now. Why is it our responsibility? Can't other nations do something if a need is seen? We are not the policemen of the world, thank goodness, and I see no reason to become one.
01:22 PM on 01/23/2012
We (the US) showed the Arabs how to do it in Libya... now let the Arabs take care of Syria.
02:31 PM on 01/23/2012
The leader of the push to topple the Syrian regime for their "undemocratic" policies is Saudi Arabia, the quintessential despotic regime. The call for military action is just a political move to weaken Iran by toppling their ally. Iran is a challenger to the Saudis and Sunni dominance over the region. Geopolitics, nothing more.
12:24 AM on 01/24/2012
"Can't other nations do something if a need is seen?"

I agree with the rest of your post, and think we should not get involved militarily. But the answer to the above is, no, other nations cannot. There are only a handful of nations that can fight major wars at a distance. And of these, we are by far the most capable. So no, no other nations could do it, if it was to be done.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sgillhoolley
Occupy the discussion.
09:04 AM on 01/24/2012
No, Europe lacks the capability to defend its interests? Because the oil that comes from the middle east goes to Europe, so if there is instability in the middle east, it is Europe that is affected. The US is not the most capable...not if you factor in all the missions they are already engaged in. The US military is already stretched too thin, their soldiers doing tour after tour in a warzone. What happens in Syria has little bearing on the USA, so why should Americans shed blood for Syrians?
05:00 AM on 01/23/2012
Is there any oil in Syria? Guess not...