Russia In Relation To Libya/ Arab Spring

Article- http://www.mei.edu/content/russia-and-arab-spring

Russia and the Arab Spring discusses Russia’s response to each of the Arab Spring risings spurring revolutions across the Middle East (Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Bahrain, Yemen and Syria), how it “has sought to protect its interests in the region” and it’s relations with the West.

In regards to Libya’s uprising in particular, Medvedev stated that, ‘“foreign elements’ were fermenting these uprisings and that their ultimate intention was to bring about political change to Russia”. What caught my attention is that to the contrary Russia, although having strong interest in Syria (whose ally is Iran), is still very concerned with preserving favorable relations with American, the West and the Arab League, according to this article.

Russia is playing whichever side of the fence provides the most favorable opportunity- one minute aligning itself with the west and another moment, with Assad for Syria and Iran- and I think that instead of the standstills that continue take place on decisive actions against regimes in Syria, Libya, and other Arab Countries, the outside countries and organizations should settle on solution of what to do or just stay out of the conflict. I do understand keeping a low profile, but waiting for someone to act isn’t a proper solution. If those countries truly wanted to help the situation regarding the uprising in the Middle East, they would stop thinking principally of their own interest.

Libya: Cost of U.S. Participation

Article- http://www.mei.edu/content/libya-costly-victory

The United States was clearly not a hero in this article, having again made the offense of overreaching in intervention into foreign affairs. In this occasion, the Arab League, wanted to protect Libyan civilians, by requesting NATO for a “no-fly” zone over Libya, but instead “NATO starting its bombing of Qadhafi forces”, which they did not ask for. The nations comprising the Arab League had to agree in order to seek this assistance, and their agreement was unprecedented. However, the United States used this request to “justify a policy of regime change” through military action, under the guise of having approval from the U.N Security Council and not Congress. According to the author, Bannerman, not only did the United States provide assistance that was undesired, but also damaged future cooperation amongst the Arab League in the future and undermined U.S. democracy, by setting an regrettable precedent.

Although the author, makes a great reiteration for why the United States should not overstate itself in foreign affairs, which I wholeheartedly agree with especially after reading about the damage done by that course of action, I don’t agree with the idea that “victory” could even be in the title. I believe that Libya, the country whom should be the principal decision maker in this problem, should have had the first say in deciding course of action taken. The damage the U.S. has created will take some time to fix. This just makes me think of Orientalism and how civilized West wants to fix the uncivilized East. In my opinion, this article points out again that we should just let the host country try to handle their own internal issues before we  try to control and dictate solutions (that make things worse). As the title of Jay’s article stated (in relation to this example)- Libya: It’s not our Fight.

Syria's Relationship with Neighboring Countries

Article: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00396338.2012.672699

This article grabbed my attention on the International Institute for Strategic Studies’ website.  

Syria and its Neighbors breaks down Syria’s relationship to its other neighboring Arab countries- Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Israel- and outlines their positions as the revolution within Syria unfolds. The reoccurring theme in this piece is that, in contrast to the air of “resilience and surprising longevity of the Bashar al-Assad regime” that its neighboring countries have become accustomed to over time, Syria presently finds itself in a vulnerable position, “exposed to external predatory ambitions, sectarian-fuelled intervention and attempts to change its strategic orientation” due to the budding revolution happening within its borders, and developing course toward civil war (Hokayem 7). 

What I found most interesting is the author’s highlighting of Turkey’s position, as an important player in relation to Syria, because I hadn’t thought of its geographical and political influence in the Middle East. Turkey has already taken action toward international diplomacy to get Assad to cooperate (by imposing sanctions, which is not something the United States has the sole power to do, and accepting Syrian refugees). Apparently Turkey’s location is advantageous in regards to military action, which would be essential if Gulf States were to take to arming and supporting Syrian opposition (10). I am all for peaceful solutions, but geographically this maneuver does make sense, especially considering Turkey’s proximity and consequential involvement in the situation in Syria. This is just one to the possibilities given, and just for Turkey.

The events occurring in Syria, which in itself is a product of the Arab Spring, not only effects its own government. All neighboring countries have potential to benefit and/ or withstand injury from the Syrian governmental regime’s weakened state. Yet, Syria has the potential to survive the conflict. I agree with the author in that the outcome will depend on the maneuvers made by its neighbors.

I like that this article admitted the Syrian Assad regime as being vulnerable instead of being portrayed under its usual administration of control and order. I also like that it also doesn't talk about what the U.S. has to lose or gain for a change, but analyzes other Middle Eastern countries and their part in resolving this issue.

Syria or Libya

http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-the-us-intervene-in-syria-with-military-action/case-for-intervention-in-syria-stronger-than-in-libya


This article makes a case that Syria is in stronger need of military intervention than Libya. The author explains how Syria is on the brink of a civil war, and although the Obama administration has preached and talked how Assad's days are numbered..... But we have been all bark and no bite. Despite Syria's cries for help, we have not demonstrated any direct assistance to their likings. America is labeled as sitting on the sideline not acknowledging the Syrian people seeking their freedom.

Once again, an American author makes a comparison that is influenced by "weapons of Mass destruction." He uses Syrias ties with Iran and terroristic activities as a case to further increase our awarness to intervene. But what this all boils down to is politics and in my opinion; oil.

Obama Cartoons

http://cartoonsbyhenry.com/?tag=libya

Check out these political cartoons. I'm not considering this a blog, but I thoroughly enjoyed this authors opinions on Obama's military decisions!

military assistance

http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-the-us-intervene-in-syria-with-military-action/a-syrian-intervention-need-not-be-military-focused

I found this article to be very interesting. The author of the article states his claim on how the United States should continue to influence Syria, and it's surrounding countries to help stop the violence there. I found his one quote very appealing, "a made in America military intervention would......remake the mistakes the Bush Administration made in Iraq." The article quietly takes jabs and both the Obama and Bush administration questioning their decisions during the interventions.

His opinion is for the United States to work with Syria's allie countries, specifically Turkey, to seek further assistance from them. He insist that the United States to try and use its leverage with Turkey, and Iraq to get their higher powers to provide assistance in getting Syria assistance and to isolate the Assad regime.

We should remain active in this issue, but he questions our military assistance. I'm curious to what kind of influence we can provide without military powers. Would our influence be as strong or as affective with just verbal actions? Obviously war and violence is not the best option for situations, but certain instances it is needed.

Syria: Tough Love

This article is actually the transcript of a National Public Radio broadcast.  The broadcast starts off with the host interviewing a Professor from Gerogetown University who wrote an Op-Ed for the Washington Post arguing that the US "should train the rebels and use tough love to cajole and reward the opposition."  A few topics discussed on the radio show really stood out to me.  One was a call made by a woman who compared US involvement in foreign revolutions to the French involvement in the US revolution.  Whenever I think about US involvement, I never relate it to our own revolution and how we would never have been able to complete it without foreign help.


Another part of the article I found interesting was  a women named Minette who called in.  She said that her husband and much of her neighborhood have family in Syria.  She said that they are unable to go outside for food, and are afraid to talk on the phone because they are afraid of being murdered for saying something the government does not like.  I can't imagine what it must be like to constantly live in fear like that.  It makes me really want to support the US involvement and end the mistreatment.

Libya: It's not our Fight

In this op-ed, the author argues against any US involvement in Libya claiming that "it's not our fight."  Personally, I disagree with most of the arguments he uses.  His first argument is we shouldn't intervene because the country has oil and other countries will claim we are there for oil.  I disagree with this argument because (hopefully) oil has nothing to do with our involvement  besides inspiring Gaddafi's stranglehold on the country.  No matter what the reason for our involvement, countries such as Russia will find a way to spin the situation against the US.

The most interesting part of the article came at the end. The author says that in Kosovo,  the government enacted a headscarf ban in schools, and "Although local Muslim leaders imposed the ban, with no U.S. involvement, the imams say otherwise, while also condemning U.S.-led invasions of Muslim lands."  It is crazy to me that the government would ban a part of their religion that they so stringently follow and support just to turn the population of its country against Americans.

The Struggle for Peace and Involvement of Other Nations

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/664a4b4e-8c8c-11e1-9758-00144feab49a.html#axzz1soUMJex9

In this piece, it is said that, since March over 9,000 people have been killed in the fighting between anti-Government forces and Assad's army. This number is staggering considering this is only through a month of fighting. What is more troubling is that the Tunisian government has identified at least nine slain combatants that were from Tunisia - all of whom were fighting against Assad. This is after Libya identified three fallen combatants as their own earlier in the year. That brings about the question of what does the international community do in response to these other nations sending guerrillas into Syria?

Assad has claimed earlier in the year that Libya was training men to fight against the Assad government, and with Tunisian insurgents now entering the fray, one has to wonder how this will reflect on the international community. Both Tunisia and Libya have experienced change through the Arab Spring, and now some of them are attempting to do the same in other nations. Does the international community condemn these actions? Already some newspapers have called the fallen Tunisians and Libyans "martyrs" for the cause, but could this become a problem for the new governments in Libya and Tunisia when it comes to international aid, or will this help their international profile by fighting against a murderous dictator, even if it is not their own. Regardless, I believe this shows a sense of community and unity among the Arab people, as they are willing to fight and die for another country so long as it means freedom for fellow Arabs.

Posting Coming to an End--What's Next?

This is a post to remind you that the END of the posting period is quickly coming! So get your posts in!!! 3 original posts and 3 comments. That's the basics- do them well, contribute to the conversation, and be willing to go outside your comfort zone (in the media or your analysis of them) and the points will rack up. There IS one more piece to this however, THE WRITE UP!

So what to do?

The write up is intended to be a place where you can reflect on the blog as a whole (not just your piece of it) in an essay 3-5 pages long (double spaced)and consists of:

1.  an intro,
2.  a discussion of 2-3 'themes' you identified across the posts (use examples from the blog!)
   
3. a summary/conclusion. 

see you in class!

WRAPUP 6-Syria-UN agree on terms of monitoring mission

This Reuter's op-ed http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/19/syria-idUSL6E8FJED420120419 is trying to give the most up to date news on Syria. Syria and UN signed an agreement for hundreds of observers to monitor a ceasefire. The 15 member UN Security Council, which is divided between Western countries that want to "topple" Syrian president and Russia and China 'which support Assad", must agree to the proposal to send a larger observer force.  Senior officials from Western countries including Brit & US met in Paris with officials from Middle Eastern officials from Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, feeling the truce was the "last hope" of avoiding civil war in Syria. Russia and China will approve a mission only under a part of the UN charter that gives Assad's government a veto over the observers mandate. The Arab League sent in monitors but didn't last an entire month feeling that they could do little as long as it's movements were controlled by Assad's forces. However, Chinese foreign Minister said Beijing was "seriously studying" participating.
Russia wants no parts of it, claiming that the West and Arab powers are failing to give due weight to Assad's argument that he is fighting Islamist militants.
Ok Russia, Assad has killed thousands of people because their Islamist Militants? I don't think that's the case...

Syria 'failing to keep truce'

In the article found on the following link http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17765654 states that the UN Security General Ban Ki-moon says Syria has failed to comply with it's obligation under a peace plan. The peace plan was negotiated by UN-Arab League 'envoy' Kofi Annan. Syria, apparently, is under obligation to pull troops and heavy weapons outs of urban areas- I'm assuming Homs would fall under that plan. Since Syrian's President hasn't done such, Ki-moon asked for 300 observers to be sent into 10 different areas around the country.
It is hard, in my opinion, to not be biased in a situation such as this. The article states that an estimated 9,000 people have been killed during the uprisings- It is difficult to watch innocent people being slaughtered by it's own government and be able to point the finger elsewhere.

NATO after Libya

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/19/opinion/nato-after-libya.html

This article is about how NATO - in particular the European nations - failed to have any impact on the ousting of Muammar Gaddafi, which is beginning to wear thin on the Americans. With European NATO members failing to live up to their end of the bargain, the Pentagon is beginning to rethink its relation with their partners across the Atlantic. These failures, coupled with a rise in aggression from nations like Russia and China have made the United States a little tense. If the European NATO members were able to carry their part of the burden, then the United States would not see them as much as a liability as they do now.

The problem with NATO's failures on the Libyan front show that NATO is not as strong as many believe it to be. The United States is strong enough to call in the proper airstrikes and naval strikes to help the rebels, but by leaving it in he hands of European NATO members, they run out of ammunition too quickly and rely on dated technology. With the escalation of tensions in areas like Iran and North Korea, as well as enigmas in China and Russia, a weak NATO is exactly what the United States cannot afford in this tug of war between nations, and may lead to devastating should the United States engage in a region like Syria, or even declare war on Iran.

Geostrategic location

In this short article and four minute video James Corbett, who is an independent journalist discusses Syria’s fate to RT. He discusses that if Syria falls under imperialist intervention then the ultimate goal is to overthrow the regime in Iran as well. Intervention in Syria is to isolate Iran and providing that land link and a geostrategic location. Then he later says to encircle upon China and Russia. Do you think this is the way the dominos are falling? http://rt.com/news/libya-syria-geopolitical-chessboard/

Syrian Dictator

This is a short four minute clip from the daily show that was quite funny and gives interesting insight on Syrian dictator Bashar al Assad. For someone like me who doesn’t have much background knowledge on the Syrian dictator, this was a comprehendible way for me to pick up on important events and traits. The British newspaper named “The Guardian” got their hands on thousands of emails to and from Bashar al Assad. I think you will all enjoy watching this!  http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-march-15-2012/march-15--2012---pt--1

Domino Effect

I found this political cartoon http://safia33.wordpress.com/category/media-writing/. It is an easy way to see the domino effect that is happening. First Egypt marched out and within two weeks the former president Mubarak was thrown out. Then Libya was the next country to crave democracy after witnessing Egypt getting what they yearned for. Oil free Syria was next to be bitten by the democratic bug. Mr. Kofi Annan is seen in the comic wanting to talk about this change because of his proposed peace plan that was backed by the UN. Do you think this domino effect would have occurred if the Egyptians didn’t gain democracy?

This is a test

Positive Photo Stream

Here in this flickr photo stream, it's clear in these pictures that the photographer sky dived during their experience in Libya. I like how in the pictures you can see the beauty in Libya, that the media never seems to portray. The photo stream also shows many Libyans and how they display their patriotism, like the littler girl with her face painted, and the man with the countries flag. It was just refreshing to see such positve images of a "middle eastern" country. 

Intervention?

This is just another interesting political cartoon I found.  It depicts America's role with the conflict in Libya. With President Obama representing the US. I just thought this was a simple and easy to understand. I just thought it was funny ( not the the situation) how the artist displays the US.
Also, I found this cartoon on Aljazeera's website.

Dictator Road Political Cartoon

I found this political cartoon while exploring for different links, and liked how it showed how either way Bashar Al Assad would have had a difficult dictatorship no matter what path he chose to go down. On the webpage that I found this cartoon it states, " President of Syria Bashar Al Assad is on a similar road as his Middle-Eastern peers. The protesting in Egypt and Libya both began in search of the same conclusion, but have each ended very differently. Al Assad is on the same road, it seems. Now he must choose which road to go down; Mubarak Way or the Gaddafi Route". In the bottom corner of the cartoon is where I found the cartoons location. 

Basics

            The article that I read/ the video that I watched, is produced by Aljazeera, which is the same new's station that we watched a video of in class. In the video the news caster is asking the question why. Why has there been intervention in Libya, but not Syria? A few things that I liked in this video was that the caster attempted to give all the background information that he could. He goes into detail about the histories, and different perspectives from very different people. Some of the people interviewed in this news clip are Mouin Rabbani, Richard Weintz, and Yusuf Kanli. 
         I'm not going to lie. I picked this video because I honestly had little to no idea what the issues in Syria and Libya were. This helped me get a grasp on what was actually happening, while gaining some knowledge of the history and current events. 
         The video talked about a lot of the western sanctions. I'm wondering if you guys feel that sanctions should or shouldn't be there and why?  
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2011/05/20115210305449944.html

Russian Involvement in Syria

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/04/us-syria-russia-idUSBRE8330E020120404

Nations like Russia continue to be a roadblock in the United Nations attempts at brokering peace in war-torn Syria. Considering Russia's warm relations with the Syrian government, it is not surprising to see them, as well as fellow ally China rejecting the UN's calls for Assad to step down and take responsibility for what has occurred. While Russia has stated that it supports a ceasefire on both sides, it continues to assert that arming the rebels, or even siding with them, will lead to long term consequences in the region, and more bloodshed in the region. In this post-Soviet world, Syria continues to be one of Russia's most strategic allies, placing it at the forefront of all dialogue between the Syrian government and the rebels. Russia seems determined to protect Assad while accepting Kofi Annan's plans for dialogue between the two parties in an attempt to save face in the global community. With nations like Russia strong-arming the other members of the UN, it becomes increasingly difficult to stop Assad from breaking the ceasefire and having troops fire across the border at fleeing refugees.

While Russia attempts to give off an image as fair and just, it is easy to see that their refusal to agree upon a joint resolution against Syria is simply an attempt at appeasing an ally. With another powerful nation like China joining Russia, the UN cannot do anything other than hope Assad will be open to a peaceful end to the fighting. Considering Assad has ordered his military to shoot at refugees across the border (thus angering neighbors like Turkey), the possibility of a working ceasefire seem out of the question, and with Russia's position on its Middle Eastern ally left unchanged, there will only be more inaction.

Intervention, or not?

The article I read, http://zenpundit.com/?p=5349 , is from a blog site dedicated to foreign and domestic policies.  This particular article takes a closer look at the risk of tactical geopolitics of potential interventions of Iran and Syria. The article compares the relationships of many Western Countries with those in the Middle East, and the potential dangers that lie within particular military strategies.

In the article that author discusses how Iran, who happens to be one of Syria's few allies, adds influence to Syria, and Libya in their "anti-western regimes".  The author continues to say how timing is important when it comes to influencing foreign policy, and this is something we should be aware of.  He continues to say how Russia has interest in taking command of Libya, but considers their current state of government a joke.

As far as intervention goes, he hints and suggest that the United States pressure on Syria has been a military strain to them, potentially stopping them from taking their own action.  But its really the close ties to Russia which raise the biggest questions. How much influence does Russia still have on Syria?  Does the US fear that Syria is just going to become another puppet state for Russia.  Another home of military power?  Interesting enough, Russia and China stated their claims against military intervention and both took stand against the vote.

I like how the author puts high emphasis on the negatives these actions could put on the United States.  He basically says there is no need to force a win, if the win only gives us an outcome of pushing Russia and China to from alliance against us.

Lessons From Libya

The West, Syria and Libya

The article, http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/19-01-2012/120282-west_syria-0/, is from a Russian site and provides an interesting view on the western participation in both the Syrian and Libyan revolutions.  The article compares the involvement of western media and militaries in the uprisings and does not look at such involvement positively.

In the article, the author accuses western media of being biased on their reports on the uprisings.  He also says that the internet is behind the biased reports and removes articles and blogs of opposing views.  The author feels that the western media was just creating unconfirmed stories and showing images to tug at the heartstrings of viewers.  He even accuses Al-Jazeera of biased reporting and says that they are "credible as the scrawlings of a demented simpleton on the walls of a football stadium."


The author goes on to criticize the US military involvement in the uprisings.  He says the at the US are "massing troops in Malta, while it sends in waves of marines to be shot down by snipers."  Being that this report is on the site named after a soviet newspaper from the days of the USSR, I am inclined to take everything written with a grain of salt, the same way it seems he approaches western media.  However accurate the article is or is not, it is interesting for me to see an article on the US's foreign involvement from a Russian's point of view.  Although, in my opinion, the fact that the article is available for reading contradicts some of the authors claims of western censorship.

Personality Conflicts

  In the following article, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-17389717, the author Rana Jawad of BBC talks about the differences in the personalities of Gaddafi and Assad playing key roles in the Libyan and Syrian uprisings, respectively. 
  Ms. Jawad explains how Gaddafi's image as a "dishevelled loon" perpetuated his isolation in the world.  al-Assad is seen as "suave" and a major player in the Arab world; having a GDP which is largely dependent on oil exports is something that should not be forgotten as well.  We must also remember, despite Gaddafi's apparent lunacy, he was the head of the African Union for many years.  I find the personalities of the two men to be quite similar; both men could be considered sociopaths, willing to kill anyone who opposes them, both had and have all of the country's wealth concentrated in their inner circles, and both were eccentric.  al-Assad, however, has the benefit of hindsight to aid him in his quest to regain control of his country.  Gaddafi's mistakes were many and catastrophic, the least of which was surrendering his nuclear weapons years ago.  While Syria is not a nuclear power, they do enjoy significantly better air defense systems than Gaddafi's Libya did.  This makes the mission for any coalition forces drastically different in Syria than it was in Libya.
  Jawad does explain the allies that Mr. Assad enjoys with Hezbollah and in Tehran, but I believe they will only go so far in supporting Assad.  There is no legitimacy in the eyes of fellow Arabs and the West when one decides to massacre their own people.  Recently, the League of Arab Nations signed a resolution condemning Assad's actions against his people, and UN fact-finders entered the country.  The attacks on cities such as Homs stopped, albeit briefly, but the world has gotten a better glimpse into the country of Syria and the mind of al-Assad as a result.  Aside from the obvious differences and tensions between Western and Arab countries, what the world is waiting for before deciding to take decisive action against Syria is beyond me.  Perhaps the bystander effect is operating on a global scale...