Over the last couple of weeks, there have been articles and analysis on the waning of the Arab Spring. The feeling among the writers is that those who succeeded are disenchanted with the results or the results have been hijacked by other elements. Of those who have not succeeded, the feeling, according to the writers, is that without outside help, their particular dictators will not acquiesce. I believe that history has shown that revolutions have ebbs and flows like any movement or campaign. However, there is one place where the Arab Spring is as turbulent and contentious as ever – in the country of Syria.
Over the last couple of months, the Syrian government, under the leadership (?) of President Bashar Assad, has been picking off its own citizens while declaring them at various times as either Israeli insurgents, Israeli-supported insurgents, gangsters or Muslim extremists. The Syrian government has tried all of these labels in hopes that something would resonate with those yet to protest to support the government. The Israeli story was concocted in hopes of diverting its population’s attention from the actions of their government. To date, not only has the uprising not abated but it has intensified, even into the formerly sacrosanct Damascus, the capital. In response, the Syrian government has initiated a near all-out assault on these “gangsters” or “extremists,” particularly in the city of Hama. An Economist article quoted one diplomat, upon seeing the chaos and the drummed up, government-mandated support for the regime, muttering about, “the last days of the Raj” (www.economist.com/node/21524855 - “Syria’s Turmoil: Reaching the Capital”). The Syrian people are not aware of a wane in the Arab Spring. They have ascended, has Henry V said, “once more into the breach.”
President Obama has not commented on the uprising or the uptick in violence perpetrated by the Syrian government on its own people. Granted, the president has been knee-deep in talks about the debt ceiling but he also needs to focus on the rest of his multifarious job. It is not easy being the president and President Obama has his hands full but it seems, he does not understand one component of his job. As the sole world power and the most powerful democracy in the world, it seems peculiar that the U.S. would be silent as people struggle and die for the right to have a say in their government.
Compounding the odd silence from the White House is likely the idea that many Syrians are not depending upon the U.S. While some may see that as a positive sign, in fact, it is quite troubling. Throughout our history, we have sided with the underdogs. We’ve not always come out on the right side of things or done the right thing. On balance, however, the U.S. has sought the greater good for others. It no longer appears to be true. In the last two years, we have seemed reluctant to enter the fray, even diplomatically. The administration was nearly silent as Iran gunned down its own citizens, remained on the sidelines for far too long in Egypt, “lead from behind” in Libya and outside the occasional remarks from Secretary Clinton, Washington has been quite taciturn on the situation in Syria.
The U.S. is fearful of a Syria allied with Iran and so, they take a hands off approach. Yet, we could have a helpful and guiding hand in the situation in Syria. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the U.S. and other European democracies flooded Eastern Europe with consultants and experts on democratic elections and governance. The more we are out of touch and out of tune with the ordinary Syrians, the less role we will play in its reconstruction. If we don’t help, more nefarious powers might.
No comments:
Post a Comment