United States Policy Towards Syria - Essay Example

? UNITED S POLICY TOWARDS SYRIA Insert US Policy towards Syria Introduction Several countries and influential peoplehave attempted to pull down Bashar Al-Assad from power. This is because Assad is a very intelligent person and he is trying to play the Israel card to defeat other people. For example, his gangsters schemed to molest Israel using a group of activists from Palestine instead of employing a tank army. Unidentified human wag of Arab protestors came close to the border wire, and Israel’s border troops drove them off. However, that was just a misinformation aimed at inflaming nationalists and sectarian passions. Assad’s troops then disgorged the common anti-Israel bile (Hersh, 2011). Therefore, Assad has proved to be very witty and stubborn to other nations like Israel. That is why the United States came in and it is now attempting to pull down Bashar Al-Assad from power. According to Timmerman Kenneth (2001), it has not been that easy because a few days ago Assad’s regime initiated mob assault on the French and American Embassies in Damascus meaning that he is already aware about their mission. Political stake in America is that President Obama is planning to command that Syrian powerful man Bashar Al-Assad steps down. The ultimate aim of this context is to respond to the question, will Assad leave the office as US is demanding and this will happen under what circumstances? The only way to pull him down is through pressurizing him using different tactics. Therefore, this context looks at different strategies through which Assad may leave. There are three main strategies of approach that the US needs to employ as we shall see later (Hook, 2010). The following is a map of Syria showing major regions that are affected by political instability in the country. Timmerman, Kenneth R. 2001 Document Outcome Before the United States declares forceful removal of Assad from power, it has to examine both sides of the case. It must ensure that once the process is through, all the Syria citizens remain happy and at peace and the US itself as well as the international community is happy with the outcome of the process (Hersh, 2011). This means that the Obama administration must consider the US national interest and Syria’s national interest before taking any action. Therefore, the policy objectives that they lay down must be consistent to the expectations of Syrian citizens. The first policy objective to be considered is to ensure they employ a soft oratory scheme to avoid showing the world that they support the opposition group. Their focus should be on democratic principles and not just showing support to the opposition. If such a peaceful system is employed, the most probable outcome of US’s policy toward Syria will be a success in ensuring Assad is no longer in power, and people receive democracy (Hersh, 2011). Brief Background The gesticulate of Arab turbulence that began with the Tunisian rebellion of January 2011 extended all through to the Middle East Arab nations particularly to Syria in mid-March. During that time, residents of a diminutive city went to the streets to complain about the torment of students who had designed anti-regime graffiti. President Bashar al-Assad who inherited dictatorial leadership from his father pretended to be a compassionate leader at first since he hesitated in taking force and reform actions. However, in April 2011 after he had hosted the country’s decades-aged stratocracy, he initiated the first of what turned up to be a sequence of onslaught, sending tanks into restless cities and security troops began firing live bullets on students who were demonstrating. Note that later on, it was too hard to either stop the violence or take Assad’s political reform offers – neglected as impostors by remonstration leaders could end the political instability. According to Ze'ev Schiff (2002), the demonstrators have never managed to withstand direct physical attack from the military, armed forces. The conflict began as a small issue, which seemed to be simple and resolvable, but until today, it has never ended and it is still worsening up. The unrest has had massive effects to the country, especially to the citizens of Syria who are actually dying from direct attacks by military people. The ethnic divisions of Syria have complicated the conflict, and it does not seem to end soon. Assad and the majority of the military people belong to the Alawite sect, which is a small group in a mostly Sunni nation. This onslaught process is rebuked internationally since many nations though President Assad, a British-trained Physician would redeem the country from the harsh dictatorship of his father’s regime (Meernik 2006, 392). Due to too much killing of the Syrian citizens by Assad, the international community has come in to save them, and its appeal is that Assad should step down because he has neglected the rights of Syrian people. These international nations are led by United States, which is attempting to come up with the best tactic to remove Assad from power. However, two crucial rights organization; Human Rights Watch in New York and Amnesty International in London have asked the Arab League to prop the referral of Syria to the International Criminal Court for committing a crime against humanity. So far, it is reported that 3500 people have died while more than 10,000 have been arrested. This is the most serious political unrest that the Arab Spring has observed in 2011 (Hersh, 2011). Therefore, the injustice against humanity is what prompted United States and other international community to come in and ensure Assad steps aside. However, removing him on the seat has proved to be slightly difficult because since Obama announced it, he has not taken any step and the condition in Syria is worsening up. Course of Action (COA) United States must Pile Up Pressure on Syria To begin with, United Stated must bring collaborative polygonal pressure to bear on Damascus. Now that Libya is already resolved, it is time for the united states not only to call upon Assad to step aside (Hook 2010), but also to take action and make sure his dominion is entirely destroyed. It was in Ausgust this year when president Obama asked Syria’s leader, Bashar al-Assad to step aside and leave the office. However, ever since that time, Assad is still in office and very keen at mistreating people. This means that United States need to come up with a tactic that will make sure he leaves his regime in Damascus. The target of United States policy should therefore, ensure that there is a stop to the aggression that has lead to more than 3000 Syrian citizens through working towards the downfall of Assad’s regime (Bleckman and Kaplan 2001). Besides, united states need to struggle hard to initiate the stipulations for a firm democratic scheme in Syria that guides the rights of all citizens. Its tactic must target to deteriorate those who hold up to the government interior and exterior to Syria while motivating the opposition to illustrate its aim of a non secretariat and equitable Syria (Hersh, 2011). However, while Americans and the international community exhausted of another military interference after the campaign of bringing down Muamar Gadaffi, the question remains, could United States achieve such an objective peacefully? Actually, the answer is yes. First, the White House has to alter its oratory. This means that the Obama administration must refrain from its present incomprehensible approach of putting all the United States support to the Syrian opposition exceedingly to appoint where it becomes calm without any form of violence (Sadat and Jones 2011). Whereas the Obama administration promises to maintain being tangential, as a policy matter, it is wrong to self-defeating and pessimistic to command that, the protestors avoid aggression even as the activists habitually continue to be murdered by the government’s hooligans. It also expresses insincere when the United States Ambassador to Syria, Mr. Robert Ford announces that the Syrian antagonism need “not look to outsiders to attempt resolving the problem,” since Libya was hastily proclaimed an international problem (Hersh 2011, 67). It is now time for Obama and his administration to be reluctant for a while to see if the Syrian opposition can find a solution within itself. This means that American policy should never hinder the protesters from defending themselves, and it should not dishearten other nations or entities from helping protesters. This is the best way to demonstrate reluctance into the matter because, through this tactic, the Syrian opposition will not feel encouraged by Americans to violate (Hersh, 2011). However, the United States should also not take the situation for granted and just relax; it should support mass defections of Syrian troops and officers. Through this tactic, the American interest in protecting the opposition will remain, but the whole process could come out peacefully other than removing Assad forcefully. Secondly, since United States has support from other European nations, which demand Assad to step down, it can now employ concentrated joint pressure to bear on Damascus. This is an ambassadorial scheme that was used recently by Assad himself when he was being forced to pull his troops from Lebanon in 2005 (Hersh, 2011). In fact, a few hours after president Obama proclaimed Assad to step down, Canada, Britain, Germany, France and the entire European Union ganged up in demanding Assad to step aside. This is the best support that can force Assad out thus the United States does not need to hurry instead it can discuss with these supportive nations in order to come up with the best approach. To strengthen up this call, United States and its friends especially nations like Saudi Arabia and Turkey should initiate a concentrated diplomatic exertion to delegitimize the government (Meernik 2006) and its envoys in international meetings. The Obama administration must also emphasize for a United Nations Security Council decree condemning the onslaught as well as submitting the government to the United Nation’s human rights council and the international Criminal Court for injustice against human lives. At the same time, Americans could also select a contact group with local friends to coordinate policy toward the government. According to Freedman, Lawrence (2009), Obama had proclaimed earlier own that a veer of new authorizations particularly the extraordinary move of aiming at Syria oil sales. The Obama administration will also have to make use of the final determination of the 2003 Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act: a prohibition for American assets (Hersh 2011, 212). The United Nations, which has its nations representing 90 percent of oil sales in Syria, has to meet up to look at similar determinations. These labors will divest the government of significant foreign exchange (oil that signifies about 30 percent of Syrian budgetary revenue) and compel it to scrounge from the Central Bank or classified banks. This could then lead to exacerbate worries between main constituencies in Syria and enhance splits in the government, probably with the Damascene and Allepine business families. Besides, Charles Little (2009) stated that the United States must go on supporting the operations of Ambassador Robert Ford as he continues to act as a go-between with the opposition and the Eastern Syria tribes to assist them arrange a feasible alternative to weak reform plans by Assad. Since Robert Ford’s operation is likely to lead to diminishing of the government to drive Assad out (Ambrose 2000), the Senate as a symbol of unity needs to stop holding up his proposal and confirm him at the earliest chances. Whether centered inside or exterior to the country, the United States ambassador to Syria stands form a superior American envoy that the Sunni and Kurdish clans, as well as the opposition, will respect, take seriously and be enthusiastic to assist in bringing about a nonviolent and systematic transition of power. Note that the United States can also decide to work consistently with the European Union in order to choke the economy of Syria. European Union already initiated the move by burning the importation of Syrian oil and blocking any new asset in the energy field of Syria. This single move has seen Syria’s economy shaking since most of their oil was sold in European countries. Currently, there is no any business deal between Syria and Europe, as it was before meaning that their economy is being strangled slowly (Hersh 2011). The United States should also come in and prevent all the South and North American countries from purchasing oil from Syria. This is a fabulous policy tactic that will ensure Assad become bankrupt and be defeated easily. However, through this process, EU and U.S should be careful not to hurt or harm the citizens of Syria who also depends on their economy. Therefore, they should also come up with a way to strangle the economy without harming its citizens. Conclusion Syria had heard several instances of political unrest since April this year when a group of University students protested over the arrest of their colleagues who had designed some graffiti showing anti-governmental messages. At first, Syrian citizens thought they were relieved from the dictatorial leadership that was portrayed by Assad’s father. Assad pretended to be good at first but then ever since April, he has proved to be much brutal than his father. Several people have died while others are arrested protesting for their human rights. The international society has come in to help the Syrian people, and its main aim is to see Assad stepping aside. The Obama administration is planning to pull Assad out of power, but the whole process depends on the policy employed (Hook, 2010). The American Ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford had begun some violent operations to pull Assad away, but that is the best policy tactic, the process should be peacefully. First, America should collaborate with European Union and try to strangle the economy of Syria so that Assad may not have a strong economy that encourages him to harass the citizens. This is possible through making the nations that purchases oil from Syria stop as well as stopping any external investment deals between Syria and any other nation. Secondly, Ambassador Robert Ford has proved to be highly effective in opposing Assad’s regime and, therefore, he needs support from the entire United States. However, they need to make sure that the whole process is peaceful and nonviolent to prevent any further damage of property and death of people. Moreover, Syria has been much dependant on US for investments meaning that there was a close association between the two nations (Freedman, 2009). Now, if the US can ensure all the business deals with Syria ends then the financial status and economy of Syria will be affected. This move is much effective because it will prompt Assad to step aside. The United States can also ensure that Assad is reported to the International Criminal Court and be tried for his actions in order for the Syrian citizens to acquire justice. Through this policy tactics, United States will come out successful since Assad will have no other option other than stepping aside. However, US should not show its support to the Syrian opposition openly so that there will not be any complaints and regrets later. Bibliography Penguin Books p 463, New York. Ambrose, S, E. 2000. “The Rise to Globalism: American Foreign Policy, 1938-1980” Middle East Intelligence Bulletin. Bleckman B, M, Kaplan. 2001. ''Syrian Grand Mufti Publicly Endorses Suicide Attacks,'' Public Affairs, New York. Freedman, Lawrence. 2009. “A Choice of Enemies: America Confronts the Middle East”. Hersh, S. M. 2011. “Syria Calling: The Obama Administration’s Cahance to engage in a Middle East Peace talk”. The New Yorker Report. 3rd ed. CQ Press, Washington D.C. Hook, Steven W. 2010. “U.S. Foreign Policy: The Paradox of World Power”. Middle East Journal 44, 1, p 55. London. Little, D. 2009. "Cold War and Covert Action: The United States and Syria 1945-1958" Meernik, James. 2006. "United States Military Intervention and the Promotion of Democracy". Journal of Peace Research 33 (4): 391– 402. Middle East Policy Council. Washington D.C. Mir H. Sadat, Daniel B. Jones. 2011. “US Foreign Policy towards Syria: Balancing Ideology and National Interest”. InsightMag.com, New York. Timmerman, Kenneth R. 2001. ''Q: Should the United States Renew the Iran Libya Sanctions Act?'' The Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, Ze'ev Schiff. 2002. ''Syria has allowed hundreds of Qaida men to settle in Lebanon'' Read More