Waarom reageert het Westen zo lauw op het brute geweld dat het Syrische regime gebruikt tegen zijn eigen burgers? Barry Rubin heeft het antwoord blijkbaar ook niet, want hij komt niet verder dan dit te veroordelen. Rubin bekritiseert Obama graag, en hekelt de rol die Amerika nu in het Midden-Oosten speelt. Te kritisch naar Israel, te mild naar de Arabische staten en met te weinig oog voor de islamisten en hun invloed. Allemaal goed en wel, maar de vraag blijft: waarom treedt het Westen wel op tegen Gadhaffi en niet tegen Assad? Het antwoord dat daarop meestal wordt gegeven is dat men Syrië ondanks haar steun voor Hezbollah, Hamas en haar bondgenootschap met Iran toch als een soort strategische partner ziet, een land dat voor stabiliteit zorgt en waar je afspraken mee kan maken. Zelfs Israel zou liever Assad aan de macht zien dan een revolutie en het risico dat extremisten aan de macht komen. Maar wat hebben we precies te vrezen en wat bood Assad ons allemaal? Assad heeft geprobeerd een kernwapen te maken (dit werd in september 2007 door Israel verijdeld), hij steunt zoals gezegd diverse terroristische groeperingen, Syrië heeft een bijzonder negatieve invloed in Libanon en zit hoogstwaarschijnlijk achter de moord op Hariri in 2005, dissidenten en iedereen die zijn mond open durft te doen lopen het risico te worden opgepakt en gemarteld, etc. etc. Hoeveel erger kan het? Waar is Israel of het Westen bang voor? Dat een nieuwe leider gaat aanvallen? Assad is inderdaad verstandig genoeg om Israel niet aan te vallen, maar ik zie niet hoe hij verder voor stabiliteit zorgt, eerder het tegendeel.
Maar waarom valt het Westen Gadhaffi wel aan, en Assad niet? Wellicht omdat Libië toch wat dichterbij is, en de Libische vluchtelingen via Lampedusa op onze deur kloppen. Er zit in Libië ook meer olie in de grond. En het Westen had met Gadhaffi ook nog een appeltje te schillen, al werden hem eerder zijn zonden wel makkelijk vergeven. Overigens greep men pas in toen Gadhaffi met bombarderen begon en de opstandelingen om een no-fly zone smeekten.
RP
---------
The Big Historic Event Today: Syria's Biggest Crisis in 40 Years
http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2011/04/big-historic-event-today.html
Posted: 23 Apr 2011 03:50 AM PDT
By Barry Rubin
Today Syria has entered its biggest internal crisis since 1970. The regime has come out to crush the insurrection. Either it will succeed by killing many people or the insurrection will build into a real potential revolution.
And the Western states are doing...precisely zero.
One Syrian expert friend responded: "Less than zero."
Here's White House press secretary Jay Carney on Air Force 1, April 22:
"As we have consistently throughout this period, we deplore the use of violence and we're very concerned about what we've -- the reports we've seen from Syria. We are monitoring it very closely; call on the Syrian government to cease and desist from the use of violence against peaceful protestors; call on all sides to cease and desist from the use of violence; and also call on the Syrian government to follow through on its promises and take action towards the kind of concrete reform that they promised."
That's fair and evenhanded: They are monitoring closely; both sides must cease their violence; and Syria's dictatorship must end the state of emergency. Sort of sounds like insisting the revolution stop without changing anything.
What happened to: Mubarak must go now! Yesterday! Qadhafi must go or else! Or even condemning Israel at every opportunity that involves even the claim of the mistreatment of one Palestinian?
Oh, right, Bashar al-Assad is just an anti-American dictator who is even now a leading sponsor of terrorism; ally of Iran; host and facilitator for terrorists killing Americans in Iraq; just caught trying to get nuclear weapons secretly; aggressor against Lebanon; torturer of political prisoners; and so on. It isn't as if he were a real problem for U.S. interests!
Note: After this article was written President Obama issued a tougher statement.
It begins:
"The United States condemns in the strongest possible terms the use of force by the Syrian government against demonstrators. This outrageous use of violence to quell protests must come to an end now. We regret the loss of life and our thoughts are with the families and loved ones of the victims, and with the Syrian people in this challenging time."
It continues saying that Assad has not fulfilled his promises of reform and that the Syrian people are rightfully demanding human rights and ends: "We call on President Assad to change course now, and heed the calls of his own people."
But once again: Or what are you going to do about it?
Now compare today with what Obama said about Iran two years ago when it was arresting thousands of demonstrators and shooting unarmed protesters:
June 2009: "I would suggest Mr. Ahmadinejad think carefully about the obligations he owes to his own people."
April 2011: "We call on President Assad to change course now, and heed the calls of his own people."
Ahmadinejad didn't think then; Assad won't change or heed now; Obama didn't do anything then and won't do anything now.
And the Western states are doing...precisely zero.
One Syrian expert friend responded: "Less than zero."
Here's White House press secretary Jay Carney on Air Force 1, April 22:
"As we have consistently throughout this period, we deplore the use of violence and we're very concerned about what we've -- the reports we've seen from Syria. We are monitoring it very closely; call on the Syrian government to cease and desist from the use of violence against peaceful protestors; call on all sides to cease and desist from the use of violence; and also call on the Syrian government to follow through on its promises and take action towards the kind of concrete reform that they promised."
That's fair and evenhanded: They are monitoring closely; both sides must cease their violence; and Syria's dictatorship must end the state of emergency. Sort of sounds like insisting the revolution stop without changing anything.
What happened to: Mubarak must go now! Yesterday! Qadhafi must go or else! Or even condemning Israel at every opportunity that involves even the claim of the mistreatment of one Palestinian?
Oh, right, Bashar al-Assad is just an anti-American dictator who is even now a leading sponsor of terrorism; ally of Iran; host and facilitator for terrorists killing Americans in Iraq; just caught trying to get nuclear weapons secretly; aggressor against Lebanon; torturer of political prisoners; and so on. It isn't as if he were a real problem for U.S. interests!
Note: After this article was written President Obama issued a tougher statement.
It begins:
"The United States condemns in the strongest possible terms the use of force by the Syrian government against demonstrators. This outrageous use of violence to quell protests must come to an end now. We regret the loss of life and our thoughts are with the families and loved ones of the victims, and with the Syrian people in this challenging time."
It continues saying that Assad has not fulfilled his promises of reform and that the Syrian people are rightfully demanding human rights and ends: "We call on President Assad to change course now, and heed the calls of his own people."
But once again: Or what are you going to do about it?
Now compare today with what Obama said about Iran two years ago when it was arresting thousands of demonstrators and shooting unarmed protesters:
June 2009: "I would suggest Mr. Ahmadinejad think carefully about the obligations he owes to his own people."
April 2011: "We call on President Assad to change course now, and heed the calls of his own people."
Ahmadinejad didn't think then; Assad won't change or heed now; Obama didn't do anything then and won't do anything now.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten