July 12th, 2011 by Curious
The hostile relations are being whipped into a frenzy in
Syria this week, following the dubious decisions by American and French
Governments to criticise Assad.
I don’t recall the environment in Libya being as febrile prior to NATO campaign. However, I don’t believe as much support rallied for Gadaffi in Libya either.
The damge to embassies in Damascus is indicative of a metaphorical threat more than anything. I have commented before on the bizarre comparisons between Libya and Syria, and yet the complete dichotomy of action taken by the UN, NATO and the EU.
I have also deliberated the risk of following action in Libya with action in Syria.
Syria have yet to divulge the extent of their nuclear weapons programme to the UN. Such an outstanding requirement poses a dangerous threat in a tempestuous and unstable country on the border of more tempestuous and unstable countries in the Middle East.
Even without the potential damage of nuclear weapon power-mongering, there is the danger that the West’s verbal criticisms alone will spark a collaboration between dictators.
With the assault on French and US Embassies, this threat seems to be even more realistic.
Syrians absconding to Turkey would not be followed by Assad’s forces, but Assad combined with Gadaffi, and even Bahrain, Yemen and others, would make a formidable foe.
We have already seen Gadaffi threaten Europeans. Now we see the breaking of diplomatic relations.
Given that Assad has been gesturing to make changes to the country, which is more than Gadaffi did, the heavy criticism and calls for Assad to stand down were an unnecessary blow to diplomatic relations. Rather like Libya, the anti-establishment groups are demanding the dictator must go, and to support them, is to ruin any potential for a diplomatic resolution. If you don’t believe me, look at Libya again.
The West is establishing a dangerous precedent that could mean even more tenuous relations in the Arab Spring.
I don’t recall the environment in Libya being as febrile prior to NATO campaign. However, I don’t believe as much support rallied for Gadaffi in Libya either.
The damge to embassies in Damascus is indicative of a metaphorical threat more than anything. I have commented before on the bizarre comparisons between Libya and Syria, and yet the complete dichotomy of action taken by the UN, NATO and the EU.
I have also deliberated the risk of following action in Libya with action in Syria.
Syria have yet to divulge the extent of their nuclear weapons programme to the UN. Such an outstanding requirement poses a dangerous threat in a tempestuous and unstable country on the border of more tempestuous and unstable countries in the Middle East.
Even without the potential damage of nuclear weapon power-mongering, there is the danger that the West’s verbal criticisms alone will spark a collaboration between dictators.
With the assault on French and US Embassies, this threat seems to be even more realistic.
Syrians absconding to Turkey would not be followed by Assad’s forces, but Assad combined with Gadaffi, and even Bahrain, Yemen and others, would make a formidable foe.
We have already seen Gadaffi threaten Europeans. Now we see the breaking of diplomatic relations.
Given that Assad has been gesturing to make changes to the country, which is more than Gadaffi did, the heavy criticism and calls for Assad to stand down were an unnecessary blow to diplomatic relations. Rather like Libya, the anti-establishment groups are demanding the dictator must go, and to support them, is to ruin any potential for a diplomatic resolution. If you don’t believe me, look at Libya again.
The West is establishing a dangerous precedent that could mean even more tenuous relations in the Arab Spring.
No comments:
Post a Comment