Hi there - it's been quite some time since my last post, but I look forward to increased posts as we move into late 2013.
The Middle East has been a quagmire for the US and its Allies for the past 50 years or more. When Israel became an independent state in 1948, the region harshly condemned the Allies' determination to place a Jewish state in the area. Many believe that the Arab people were strongly united in their hatred for Israel and their desire to remove the Jewish state, and claim it as a Palestinian nation.
The Israeli-Arab conflict has been, but one of a number of issues that identifies the area. Arab nations have, for years, been torn among their own conflicts. Indeed, while democracy "rules the roost" in most civilized nations around the world, the Arab nations are conflicted between a sense of ancient culture and the modern technology and growing sense of releasing freedoms to their citizens. Libya, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar ... these countries have, for years, been ruled by one family and/or governmental figure. Iran, which has "elections" and a political system that is quite modern compared to the rest of the Middle East is, of course, controlled by a religious radicalism head and clerics, with staunch anti-West sentiments. The recent "Arab Spring has seen much violence, as the heads of state have battled for power, and the youth-driven freedom fighters are still not well-organized.
And now, as the world turns its attention to Syria, and its alleged use of chemical weapons, we find ourselves being pulled into military action which appears to be opposed both, by our Allies as well as by our own citizens. Even if chemical weapons were used, what gives the US the power to dictate to the world how best to respond? Does the US (or the rest of the world) have any legal obligation to respond to Syria's use of chemical weapons against its own citizens? Is there any legal restriction placed on the US before moving against a country who has not attacked anyone outside of its own borders?
The United Nations Charter identifies the general rule that a nation cannot attack another nation, unless (1) such attack is first approved by the members of the UN Security Council, or (2) the nation has come under attack by the other nation (self-defense / response). That's it. However, there are other "informal" reasons, with the primary rationale presently being discussed as a humanitarian rationale to save helpless lives.
I have several concerns about the US decision to unilaterally attack Syria, purportedly over Syria's use of chemical weapons that killed nearly 1,500 of its own citizens. First, why have we waited, when more than 100,000 Syrians have already lost their lives due to non-chemical weapon attacks? Second, why Syria - in other words, if the US attacks Syria for killing 1,500 of its own people, what about all of the other countries where dictators have authorized the killing of their own citizens ... how do we draw the line or, when do we decide to attack, and when do we decide not to? Third, if the US acts (whether with Congressional approval or not), how do we stop another country from using the same arguments down the line - ie, Russia, China, or Iran - to attack a nation without a UN resolution supporting such conduct?
And, doesn't the US decision to circumvent the UN Security Council, not to mention its own Allies' decision not to participate in any such attack, defeat the notion of a United Nations?
Those are my points today. What are your thoughts?
Abe
