Analytical Paper Assignment (Syria and Ukraine) - Essay Example

Analytical Paper Assignment The past events in Syria and Ukraine prove that imperialism is no longer relevant. It is no longer easier for powerful countries to increase their power by exercising control over the rest of the world. America, for instance, prefers not to intervene in the military actions of Syria mainly because they want to maintain a neutral stance, and projects a good international policy of not meddling in the affairs of other nations. Liberals, who prefer anti-intervention, favor intervention through military force only if such actions are considered humanitarian- in the sense that doing so would protect the safety of more people who are in vulnerable in cases of possible war should such actions not be taken. Of particular, interest in the lives of people, hence the need for humanitarian intervention. “Why do other nations try to control other nations? Humanitarian intervention should only take place in the event that the government of such countries are overwhelmed and need external support. Then, then perpetrators of such crimes should be brought to justice” (Bass p24). This is the justification that the US had when it toppled Iraq’s Sadam’s regime in an effort that saw them control the “weapons of mass destruction”. Pundits argue that this was in bad faith, but a majority of people thinks that it was done in good faith. Interventions in Syria and Ukraine should be guided by a genuine course: intervention should only be necessary if the lives of the civilians are at risk. The issue of Neo-colonization also arises. When nations such as the U.S. try to meddle in the affairs of countries such as Syria and Ukraine, are they really justified in doing so, or could there be hidden interests, in order to promote their ideological affinities? This act can be viewed as global leadership where military strength is used; force is projected to both friends and foes; assertions made and red lines enforced. “Governments should not display striking idealism in the face of war crimes and atrocities, but instead should pursue international justice” (Bass 54). Why did Obama fail to bomb Syria in 2013, even after declaring that the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime was a red light that it sought to undermine the American power? “Military action in Syria cannot be lawful; also the United Nations Charter is against the use of force on other nations. Customary laws support the same. These can be viewed as superiority issues” (Said 32). Of course, countries want to dominate others. The best way to do so is through military might. The stronger and more powerful their arsenals are, the better. These analyses depend on the contexts and can include the difficulties associated with intervention as well as the moral unacceptability of not intervening. The American foreign policy is such that it justifies military action if there is substantial evidence that the countries such as Syria and Ukraine pose a threat to world security. On the other hand, it can be argued that the two countries are trying to show their military might as well and want to be considered independent just like the USSR and the USA are. “With the end of Cold War, the rest of the world was assured that the West would pursue their dedication to democracy, freedom, human rights and justice that would not be hampered by superpower rivalry” (Bacevick 23). Humanitarian interventions can then be viewed as not being genuine, but a gimmick that hides the truth on the ground: super powers feel threatened when nations such as Ukraine and Syria engage in massive nuclear and chemical weapons. The Kosovo War in 1999 was a “military humanism”. “The situations may be horrible, but military interventions only serve to make them worse. This is the scenario that puzzled many people ever since the Syrian uprising (2011), that turned violent and opposed the Damascus regime” (Prashad 43). Then there was international intervention. Most powerful nations failed to intervene; others refused to intervene, lest it be said that they interfered in affairs of Syria. Problems arise in the interpretations of the setting: there are changing dynamics in conflicts, especially where recommendations for persuasive policy are grounded on impulse reactions rather than relevant knowledge (Have p19). No matter how nations think that they have expert opinions, they have to make the right choices as concern dying and killing of people. That requires that alternatives and policy risks are carefully considered. Ideology issues aside, the questions on the right thing to do in the case of Syria and Ukraine pose serious challenges. Syria underwent massive humanitarian catastrophes that saw destruction of homes and cherished cities. Outside players supported the position of the regime, yet it is the citizens of the country who suffered most. The insurgencies and the governing authorities were supported by same outside forces. This can be viewed as proxy war that engages regional interests. The same external forces do not yield to their adversaries and losses (the Syrian people) (Kristof 58). The case of Syria is one that depicted geopolitics-both regional and global. Perhaps, this explains why the anti-Assad regime excluded Iran from Geneva diplomacy. The talks would have seen a war-ending transition. Te exclusion of Iran shows submission to America’s regional allies’ views-Israel and Saudi Arabia. They sought to work against diplomatic obstacles in their quest and political compromise as relates the case of Syria. The Ukrainian geopolitical realities are quite different, indicating likely risks of cold war. There is also likelihood of power rivalry. This has the potential of creating uneven military encounters pitting Russia against Ukraine. This follows steps made by Moscow to annex Crimea. In what can be described as a “Kosovo Precedent”, it can be argued that Ukraine and Syria are creating an environment that can be considered as “secession”. The Ukrainian situation can be understood in terms of pro-Russian intimidation. The Crimean people want to be part of Russia and do not prefer to remain in the autonomous province of Ukraine. The Western media have given little attention to the cultural ties between Crimea and Russia. This also shows the lopsidedness with which the west treats the Syria and Ukraine. The international law viewpoint considers Syria and Ukraine as trying to make an ambiguous case in trying to declare their sovereignty, the west thinks, yet there is a legal act that that has is valid from 60 years ago (Kristof 27). The self-determination remains inapplicable because its exercise would fragment an existing state-Ukraine. The same nation was a member of United Nations. Then, the political outcome can be accepted, even if it is not formalized immediately. In Syria, the US has strategic interests, which may well be at stake. They face difficulty of achieving a regime by intervention. They would rely on weapon and tactics, but there would be the problem of casualties, especially on the intervening side. This further poses a problem: Just when humanitarian intervention is considered fair? The problem of failing to do anything in the case of Syria also arises (Martin 92). Should the authorities sit and fail to do anything? This would be unacceptable. A sustainable and more satisfactory outcome in the case of Syria would only be possible humanitarian initiative were taken on their behalf. No Fly Zones would protect the humanitarian corridors capable of delivering food and other aids to the besieged communities in Syria. These actions face mistrust and suspicions. These jeopardize the genuineness of the humanitarian motivations. What will control the magnitude and scope of forcible actions that may be taken? Such areas will have to be secure first before such moves can be made. Relating to Syria and Ukraine, many internationalist frustrations arise because vulnerable people cannot be protected from severe distress. There are opposing principles: one favors sovereignty of the people while the other concentrates on human rights (Melvin 31). There is also a dangerous interplay-geopolitical rivalry. Upholding the collective rights of countries considered weak and their citizens pursued only with “private interests”. The current frustrations in Syria and Ukraine are a reflection of non-operational structures of new power world order that respects state sovereignty; pursues national interests; hegemonic claims; geopolitical conflicts-there are different ambitions, international law claims as well as military and diplomatic (in)capabilities. In the background, the huge presence of weapon arsenals including nuclear weapons, and other dangerous weapons, makes any moral or political goals not worth the risk international military encounters (McCain 27). Political cultures in the world-especially the powerful countries-must reorient priorities-priories around concerns with a sense of solidarity and identity. If this is not done with speed, nations will continue to be struck with territorial delimited structures such as the ones established in 18th century, in Europe and exported to the rest of the world. Such world orders are now challenged by such functional considerations as climate change, sustainability, and weapons of mass destruction-and by normative contemplation connected with equity, human rights and survival of species (Cooper p29). Such breakdowns are exemplified by Ukraine and Syria. Human tragedies entail trauma and massive suffering. In conclusion, it can be argued that imperialism ended with de-colonization. Marxism rules the world, albeit in camouflage. Works Cited Andrew Bacevich, The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism, New York: Metropolitan books, 2008 Gary J. Bass, Freedom’s Battle: The Origins of Humanitarian Intervention, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2008 Edward W. Said, Covering Islam: How the media and the experts determine how we see the rest of the world, New York: Vintage Books, 1997 V. I. Lenin, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, International Publishers, 2002 Vijay Prashad, The Darker Nations: A People’s History of the Third World, New York: The New Press, 2007 Vaclav Havel, “Kosovo and the end of the nation-state,” New York Review of Books, June 10, 1999. Robert Cooper, “The new liberal imperialism,” The Guardian, April 7, 2002. John McCain, “Obama has made America look weak,” New York Times, March 14, 2014. Marina Lewicka, “Ukraine and the West: hot air and hypocrisy,” The Guardian, March 10, 2014. Neil Melvin, “Preventing new division of Europe,” SIPRI, March 3, 2014. Steven Lee Myers, “Nations press halt in attacks to allow aid to Syrian cities,” The New York Times, February 24, 2012, The New York Times, Patrick Martin, “International tensions mount over Syrian conflict,” The World Socialist Website, February 20, 2012 Nicholas Kristof, “The Right Questions on Syria,” The New York Times, September 4, 2013, John Holmes, “Does the UN’s Responsibility to Protect necessitate an intervention in Syria?,” The Guardian, August 28, 2013. Read More