One
of the largest critiques of American foreign policy is its rampant
hypocrisy. We intervene to save some,
stand idle while others perish. Sometimes
our national security interests are all too apparent, sometimes they are all
but invisible. The good news is that we
might be learning. The palpable pause
the Administration is taking in responding to Syria might just mean that events
like arming the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980’s, the War in Iraq, and
the Arab Spring are causing us to consider the long term effects of our short
term decisions. Yet, as I soaked up
various perspectives on Syria this week, I found myself looking for consistency
in our justifications as much as principles.
The
conflict in Syria presents us with questions that echo to the very core of how
we see the world. Do we intervene? Should we intervene? What are our
reasons? And perhaps most importantly,
are those reasons good enough?
Realists, Humanitarians, or Both?
It
is possible to arrive at the same conclusion using different reasoning, as this
week’s crop of op-eds has so aptly proven.
There seem to be two parallel tracks of arguments occurring simultaneously. Either our course of action (inaction is
included in this) in Syria is guided by humanitarian imperatives or it is
guided by our own national interests. The
problem is that either line of reasoning can be used to justify either course
of action. If we are motivated to stop
the slaughter of innocent civilians by their government then we must intervene
if only to stop the killing.
Alternatively, since we value civilian life above all else, we simply
cannot intervene to stop the current violence for fear of making it worse. If our own national security interests top
our priority list, then we must intervene to stabilize the situation, hasten
the demise of Assad, and guide the new leadership. Alternatively, for the sake of our own
interests, we cannot intervene in the current fight for fear of arming future
terrorists or be seen as meddling in Middle Eastern affairs. Which is it and why? If we embrace our realist calculations and
decide not to intervene, can we ignore the humanitarian impact? If we decide to say a crime is a crime and
intervene to stop the violence, can we continue to stretch ourselves thin after
an era of optional intervention? Whatever
the powers that be decide, I hope they ask themselves two questions: does our
course of action make sense strategically and can we sleep at night standing by
this decision? In this way, US foreign
policy can begin down the path of consistency.
Nation Building
Syria
also asks us to consider our role in foreign revolutions more broadly. Syria’s sectarian divides are no secret, and
allegiance to rebel groups is made all the more complicated by certain ties to
Al-Qaeda. Once again we are faced with
an identity crisis. Are we a proactive
role model keen to influence and guide nascent leaders in the way of nation
building? Or are we a nation of
realists, libertarians, or at the very least broke and tired citizens weary of
telling anyone else what they should do with their own state? The questions posed here are black and white
to be sure, and grey options do exist.
We can do more in the way of foreign aid, assisting civilians still in
Syria and refugees overwhelming neighboring countries such as Jordan, but this
would be skirting the issue. If we
cannot clearly articulate what happens next and why, then we are destined to
continue to amble through these defining moments which can only lead to tragedy
in the short term and weakened security in the long term.
Israel
Many
have lamented the fact that Israel’s unilateral actions in Syria have made
calculations more complicated for the US.
However, Israel’s actions are largely outside the scope of the
conflict. Yes, the recent Israeli
attacks are seen as benefiting the rebels, but this is a side effect. Israel saw the transfer of “advanced weapons”
from Iran via Syria to Hezbollah as unacceptable, so they prevented it. Some have decried this decision as
unnecessary at best and hypocritically entitled at worst. As of now however, Israel’s actions do not
affect the calculations the US must make as the conflict in Syria
progresses. Israel made a decision based
on clearly defined national security interests.
Our motives should be equally transparent, be they humanitarian or
state-centered. With any luck, increased transparency will force us to consider the future repercussions of our actions.
On
a personal note, I have a hard time thinking that there is something the
international community could do to stop useless slaughter and it either can’t
or won’t. This would constitute a
structural failure of the international system and should be cause for
reflection and amendment. Some die,
others don’t, is not a good enough policy.
That said, what the Administration decides to do next will have a
lasting effect on the world’s impression of American foreign policy. The decision needs to be an honest reflection
of our values or interests, whatever they may be.
No comments:
Post a Comment