Red and Starry Eyed | Issue 7
Intervention in Syria
Intervention could easily lead to another Somalia, or a Libyan faux pas. Assad currently holds on to power with the support of minority Islam sect the Allawites, Syrian Christians and Shi’a. If the West supports the rebels, it’s likely the minority groups will suffer a backlash that has been on the books for 40 years.
Moreover we should ask what the real reasons are. First off, why haven’t we intervened before? Assad was once seen as a reformist ruler with a British education, and heralded as an example for the Middle East. His government has never had wide support from other Arab states, other than Lebanon and at times Egypt. Assad’s real support comes from Iran, the US’s latest pet peeve. Getting rid of Assad would weaken Iran, and thus strengthen Israel.
However the political chessboard must be played correctly. If the UN goes in, and by UN I mean the US, there is the danger that Syria will become another Vietnam, or that Syrians will unite against the US. The Middle East has always been able to see through the US’s imperialist policies.
A real alternative to intervention would be boycotts and economic sanctions against the ruling elite, or any government that supports them. Russia and China – known for their human rights abuses – have supported Assad in the past, with reports that Assad’s forces have received an $80million boost from oil sales to China.
If the UN actually wanted to stop the bloodshed, it would prohibit trade. It would also do all it can to give aid to those most in need, amongst them many Palestinian refugees.
The UN does not see the Middle East as a worthwhile region. If it wasn’t for its oil it wouldn’t be on the map, much like Africa isn’t. Instead of worsening the situation by intervening, we should make sure Assad is actually sanctioned by the international community.
Red and Starry Eyed