Acceptance With Exceptions

Recently, President al-Bassad's regime has accepted Kofi Annan's six point plan to cease hostilities the nation of Syria between the government and the Free Syrian Army (al Jeezera). So far, according to the U.N. over 9,000 people have died as a result of the uprising; while the Syrian rebels claim the death toll to be at least a thousand more (al Jeezera).

Kofi Annan's plan sets out specific points which include "... demands for ceasefire, the immediate withdrawal of tanks and artillery from the residential areas, and access for humanitarian aid" (The Telegraph). Al Jeezera reports that Syria, as of the third of April, has accepted the plan; and will fully implement it by the tenth of April.

However, since then Syria has increased the intensity of attacks upon the civilians and rebels of Anadan and other cities around the country (NY Times). According to this article, Anadan has seen at least 100 people killed as of April 7th, with at shelling occuring for at least 72 hours already.

Unfortunately, this type of increase is definitely not something new. This type of incident was seen in March 1999 during the Serbian War, where the Serbians stepped up the intensity of their ethnic cleansing before they were forced to cease their actions (Justice Yugoslavia).

With horrendous as the situation is in Syria, there is still not a doubt in my mind that the U.S. should not intervene in Syria: It should be an intervention sanctioned by the U.N. that the U.S. takes part in along with the rest of the U.N.'s members. Intervening alone or even as a NATO force, still disregards the Russian Federation's and China's massive impact upon the nation of Syria. Without their support, and tensions already extremely high, Syria could turn into a flash point of a major war; which would not be helpful for attaining peace or protecting the civilians of the nation. Yes, something must be done to end the atrocities that the Syrian government is acting out upon it's population; however, I am an adamant supporter of the Just War Pacifism. And in my opinion, it would definitely be much too costly for the U.S. to go into Syria alone, or even with help from NATO; and the cost wouldn't be toward the U.S. troops alone, but also to the countless number of civilian causalities that will be a result of both the "allies" and "enemies."

Car Bombs and Conspiracy Theories.

Today was the second day in which a car bomb explode outside of a government building in Syria. The blast occurred in the city of Aleppo, Syria's second-largest city according to Voice of America News. The current statistics on this blast, list only two dead with thirty-plus injured. It's a large decline from yesterday's twin bombings in the city of Damascus that killed twenty-seven while injuring more than 100 people (VOA News). Al Jeezera has reported that a firefight has since broken out between rebel forces and pro-opposition forces in the city of Damascus, following the suicide bombing in Aleppo (Link).

While the government is blaming the Free Syrian Army "terrorists," the rebels deny the responsibility for the bombings saying that they do not have the means to carry out such sophisticated bombings. Even Bassma Kodmani, a member of a "Paris-based member of the opposition Syrian National Council" doubts that the rebels would have the "capacity to do such an operation to target these buildings because they are fortresses." According to Kodmani, "They are very well guarded. There is no way anyone can penetrate them without having strong support and complicity from inside the security apparatus" (Link). Thus, if Kodmani's statements are true, and these are fortresses; it would seem that the most feasible reason to this is that it was the government itself carrying out these attacks in order to gain support.

A third possibility has been thrown onto the table by the United States: According to the Voice of America article, al-Qaida may be to blame (Link). In my opinion, this possibility is definitely one that is very much "out there," when seen at face value. First, why would al-Qaida want to get involved, especially on the side of the rebels? I highly doubt that they would be able to take power, should the current regime should fall, especially given that the population is calling for a democratic society with demands for more individual freedoms; albeit the majority of the population is Sunni Muslim, which are more inclined to support al-Qaida with its extremist Sunni agenda, according to the Huffington Post (Link). Secondly, it would just add another member (in this case, at least the current government of Syria, and possibly the rebel one too) to the growing list of countries that would like to see al-Qaida elminiated. Third, and in my opinion the most important aspect of this is what proof does the U.S. have to back up this claim? Simply claiming that a third-party has entered the arena could be a very dangerous claim to make; especially since it has the possibility to just be propaganda to garner support of the American people for a Syrian intervention.

Intervening in Syria

Oliver Knox, on Yahoo! News, wrote an article today entitled "McCain Calls for U.S. -led airstrikes in Syria."In it, Knox quotes McCain in saying "the time has come for a new policy. . . The United States should lead an international efforct to protect key population centers in Syria, especially in the north, through airstrikes on Assad's forces."

I can see where McCain is coming from on this one: He's trying to act as a police force against President Assad and his forces in Syria; however, it's directly undermining a U.N. veto against such actions. Personally, I do think something more should be done to pressure President Assad into not only allowing aid into all parts of the country to aid the victims of the violent crackdown on the rebellious populous; but also ending his crackdown on the rebellion.

However, I oppose Senator McCain's views on how to go about forcing President Assad to stand down. Not only does it violate a U.N. resolution, as I said before; but it further escalates the conflict in Syria. Airstrikes, even in today's technologically advanced era, are still all not that precise: In the initial invasion of Iraq, airstrikes were responsible for 31% of civilian deaths, according to a Washington Post article entitled "Study Claims Iraq's 'Excess' Death Toll Has Reached 655,000" (Link). Plus, not to mention the possibly causalities that we could receive as a result of such operations.

Also, starting a militaristic intervention on behalf of the rebels could have drastic, unintended consequences: If it doesn't lead to an all-out war, or cold war as I wrote about in a previous article; the rules of engagement could change for the Syrian army. What if they were to occupy the cities and civilian buildings instead of surrounding the city? Would we still deem it safe to continue bombing? What if the Syrian Army decides to completely level the cities via their own airstrikes?

Escalating the situation to a military intervention is definitely not the answer to ending the crisis in Syria. Nations must work together to come to a resolution on the issue and not act independently to advance their own agenda (E.g. the U.S. airstriking the Syrian Army). This is a very delicate situation that should be the of the utmost importance on the world stage to find a resolution to end this conflict, so that further bloodshed of non-combats is ceased.

Indiscriminate Shelling In Syria

It's been all over the news: "Journalist Marie Colvin died trying to get her shoes, her paper reports" (CNN), "Marie Colvin's killing piles pressure on Assad as civilian death toll rises" (Guardian), "American war reporter Marie Colvin killed in Syria" (Fox News), and "Journalists Marie Colvin, Remi Ochlik killed in Syria, activists and French official say" (MSNBC). While this is a tragedy, this post will focus more on the indiscriminate shelling, specifically in the city of Homs by the Syrian Army.

This video (courtesy of youtube) is probably thebest video that gives an example of the type of shelling that is occurring in the rebel-held, Syrian city of Homs; which, from the reports, is occurring daily, especially in the Baba Amr district of the city.

In reaction to the video, I was shocked to see how different my mental image was from reality: In my mind I picture a nearly destroyed city, say about the size of La Crosse being flattened via indirect fire from mortars, rockets, and artillery. However, I was quite surprised in seeing a glimpse at how large the city is, given that a majority of buildings still standing albeit it has been under constant shelling. I'm also quite appalled at the actions of the Syrian military and their backing from President Assad, which are slaughtering countless numbers of civilians. A video on Huffington Post that describes Marie Colvin's time there references the shelling; but also the fact that if one to be lucky enough to be spared that cause of death, they would most likely be sniped by a Syrian army sniper team as they are positioned throughout the city and shoot anyone on the streets.

It's quite sickening to think about how Russian and China could be so blatantly ignorant on such human rights violations, by not wanting to impede on Syria's sovereignty in order to end the violent,murderous actions by the Syrian government.

Syria: The Stage For The Next Cold War?

Syria is definitely the center of attention on the global stage. With it's violent oppression of the uprising of it's citizens calling for a massive change to the government; it definitely has garnered attention from every country in the world (for better, or worse), most definitely it has recieved attention by those countries that are members of the United Nations. Not surprisingly, the U.N. is split on how it should handle the situation in Syria. Albeit it's a major human-rights violation; Russia and China, who are key members of the United Nation's Security Council have both vetoed a resolution that would call for the resignation of President al-Bassad as well as trade sanctions against the country (SFGate).

The U.N.'s security council is comprised of fifteen countries, five are permanent position, while ten are temporary. China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States comprise of the permanent members whose single veto will prevent a resolution from passing. The remaining ten seats are composed of nations who serve terms on the council: Azerbaijan, India, South Africa, Columbia, Morocco, Togo, Germany, Pakistan, Guatemala, and Portugal (UN). The resolution failed was double vetoed by Russia and China, albeit it had the remaining thirteen countries in support of it (SFGate).

Russia and China both have key investments in the nation as a trade ally: They both are supplying the Syrian government with arms, which are currently are being used to put down the rebellion. However, they cite Syria's sovereignty and "future steps" as the reason to which they vetoed the resolution. It's interesting to also note that the Libyan resolution passed with the support of ten nations while China and the Russian federation along with Brazil, Germany, and India abstained from the vote (UN).

Tensions are definitely rising as nations are now forming a "Friends of Syria" collective to support the Syrian Rebellion as the U.N. failed to act. With the world's super powers on each side of the issue, in an already turmoil-ridden area of the world, plus nuclear arms thrown into the mix; it definitely sets the stage for something that could resemble a second Cold War.

The Beginnings of the Civil Unrest: Pt.1 A General Overview

The civil unrest in Syria is not that uncommon when looking at the larger picture of the public in the Middle East. The citizens of the three countries of Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt have all managed to overthrow their own respective governments; while there have been large protests in Iraq and Algeria with "Sustained civil disorder and governmental changes" in Syria and Yemen- to draw attention to major instances of civil unrest from the populations of the states.

The map, courtesy of Wikipedia, details the countries that have been affected by the Arab Spring.

The uprising in Syria had similar origins to that of the other nations: A demand for more political freedoms, a change in the current regime to that of a more democratic one- meaning also that the current leader of the nation Bashar al-Assad step down, and finally that more civil rights are granted to the citizens. A specific point to the goals of the Syrian opposition was to have the 48-year long emergency law repealed. This law, according to Al Jeezera,"gave the government a free hand to arrest people without charge and extended the state's authority into virtually every aspect of citizens' lives" (Al Jazeera). This law was repealed back on the 21st of April, 2011, however the protests have continued. Interestingly seven officers deserted from the Surian Army to form the Free Syrian Army, led by Colonel Riyad al-Asad, to protect the protesters from the Syrian government's army (Asharq Alawsat). Currently, the opposition control several key towns throughout the country: Douma, a city that is northeast of the capital city of Damascus (Alarabiya); Homes, a city that has been the center of attention in the past weeks as pro-government forces have been shelling the opposition controlled city (NYTimes); and even suburbs of Damascus itself have fallen under the opposition's control (MSNBC).

Khawla Bent Azour: The Armed, Anti-Regime Brigade of Women

According to a Youtube video-that at the time of this posting has unfortunately been removed- an all-female armed brigade of Syrian protesters has formed together under the name "Khawla Bent Azour." Khawla Bent Azour was a poetess, warrior leader who "[fought] for what [she] believe[d] in, and never accept[ed] defeat" (siddiqi.org). According to the article I found on France24's website, the translation of what the spokeswoman for the brigade says that, "[we] will patrol the south of the country to defend citizens against the state's army and to make up for "the Arab League's inability to defend us and the world's cowardice in the face of the Syria's fascist regime." The article then goes on to say, "The young woman goes on to say that the brigade supports anti-regime protesters and promises to avenge all martyrs" (France24.com)

What's interesting is that I initially found this posted on tumblr, a social networking site. Given the fact that I had just picked the Syrian conflict as my topic, it perked my interest more than it would have otherwise. As a Women's and Gender Studies major and a Political Science minor, I find it interesting that an all-female brigade of women would form to "support anti-regime protesters and [promise] to avenge all the martyrs." It is definitely a change of pace from the typical male-only military and armed-militias that is mostly reported on.

However, there is an odd aspect to it. Upon google searching for the brigade's name, I only found one news-related website (excluding tumblr blogs) that mentioned it. And the one that did cover it was a French website. I would have expected to see at least MSNBC, CNN, or the BBC to mention this at least for a second; but those articles are nowhere to be found. According to one of the two comments on the article posted to the French news website, one comment writes that the video is a fake while the other comment refutes that allegation.

As there is only one website covering the story, it does lend itself to be taken as a fake; but even then wouldn't another news organization make a story on it at least for a filler? I must say, it's quite troubling to see and hear the lack of coverage on the Syrian conflict in the news. However, it definitely is a bit similar to the coverage of the Libyan crisis.