Listening to the Syrian Resistance -Clifford D. May
Recent upheavals in the Middle East, mislabeled “the Arab Spring,” have so far brought change only to countries where those in power had been cooperating with the U.S.: Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Yemen.
By contrast, the 2009 uprising against Iran’s anti-American theocrats was brutally suppressed, while Western leaders lifted not a finger and said hardly a word. If Assad manages to remain in power, the lesson will be that it has become less dangerous to be America’s enemy than to be America’s friend.
This formulation, I suspect, goes a long way toward explaining Russia’s staunch backing of Assad. Putin is sending a message to his fellow autocrats everywhere: Moscow, unlike Washington, can be counted on when the chips are down.
[T]he “international community” is highly selective about which massacres require action and which may be regretted and dismissed. If Americans won’t provide leadership — protecting civilians while advancing the West’s security interests — no one will.
[Jewish World Review]
*
6 comments:
The beginning starts to make an interesting point but loses it besides the fact that Libya was hardly getting along with the US despite a few concessions. Putin is not sending any message besides that Russia ill back anyone,as will China, as long as their oil flows free more for China) and the US and Western Europe are not allowed to think they can do whatever they want (more for Russia). If there were no oil in the MidEast China would not be making any noise about Iran nor stopping more action in Syria. Russia would not be fighting to appear relevant if Putin were out of power and real democracy had continued there. That Russia is ignoring the opinions of the rest of the Arab League that are calling for an end to the civilian bloodshed in Syria could likely prove a problem for it down the road.
The article is critical of the lack of US enthusiasm for the uprisings in Syria & Iran. And also critical of the perception that we threw our allies under the bus.
This article contrasts America's supposed lack of enthusiasm with Russia's steadfast support. America has chosen a different course than the failures of the past. It will not throw itself in for regimes that abuse their people as it did for much of the 20th century that helped give rise to much of the worse governments of today--including Iran. Russia and China on the other hand do not worry about human rights, they have had their own abuses, so they only worry about economic issues. When allies are only strategic allies and not ideological allies it is tough to support them when their people finally get tired of the oppression. Even when the outcome is not what we want, when we have supported abusive regimes it has proven to be even worse.
Okay, but why is it that our current president only supports uprisings that are against our allies?
Wouldn't a consistent policy see the same support [or more] for those protesting our enemies?
Because our allies don't usually come with the same support as our enemies, which have the support of Russia and China which can turn local situations into global debacles.
So it's too risky for Pres. Obama...? Perhaps some risks are worth taking.
Particularly if it hurts Iran.
Post a Comment