Introduction
There has been an intensified debate about the alleged chemical weapons attack on civilians in Syria and the proposal by the United States to conduct minimal military strikes in the country to safeguard the Syrians from the hostile regime.
It has been argued that the government of Syria, under its President Assad, authorized the use of chemical weapons in an attack that targeted the opposition factions in the country. This development came amidst the civil war in the country. The war has dragged for a considerable number of months, resulting in a lot of deaths and massive destruction of property. More than ten thousand people have died since the breakout of the war (Cowell para. 6).
What has been outstanding as far as the civil war in Syria is concerned are the politics of supremacy among different players in the global economy. The main players have been the United States, on the one hand, and Russia together with the support of Iran, on the other hand. Therefore, both the print and audio visual media have reported on these developments, with a number of reporters and commentators providing commentaries on the ongoing developments.
This essay presents the developments on the chemical weapons attack on Syria and the steps that are being taken to handle the situation in Syria. The critical focus of the paper is the analysis of issues and the role and position of different stakeholders in the developments. The paper heavily borrows from the commentaries and reports presented by editorial journalists in key media resources.
The Syria chemical weapons attack debate
According to Cowell (para. 1), the United Nations has intensified its investigations over the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria in the recent times.
The United Nations has been pulled into this debate as one of the key moderators and centers for global pacification. The United Nations’ investigators are looking into the allegations that chemical weapons were deployed seven times, including in the last attack that was conducted on the 21st of August, 2013 and whose impact raised an alarm. The United Nations’ investigation has taken a dual dimension.
It focuses on the possible production sites for chemical weapons and the possible storage sites for such weapons as it seeks to link the presence of the weapons to the supposed attacks (Cowell para. 2-5). This nature of investigations is based on the United Nations Convention on Arms and Weapons. The Convention has not only banned the use of chemical weapons, but it also largely bans the production of such weapons.
Kristof (para. 1) noted that the threats made by the United States to implement minimum military strikes in Syria have been vital in bringing out the truth about the development of chemical weapons in Syria.
He notes that Syria has continued to develop chemical weapons for a long time, contrary to the international convention on the development of weapons that prohibits any country from developing such weapons. In what seems like a one sided view to the issue, Kristof (para. 2) continues to argue that the United States has managed to flex its military power.
Such a decision, according to Kristof, is critical in compelling Syria to bring out the truth about the prevalence of chemical weapons programs in the country. In addition, there are conflicting reports about the intensity of chemical use in the civil war in Syria and the scale of damage. The scale of damage is one of the determinants of the nature of intervention that ought to be adopted (Anderson, para. 3).
A follow up on the diplomatic efforts by Gordon denoted that a considerable level of progress has been made in the negotiations. The negotiations that had been taking place in Geneva, Russia, and the United States reached a deal to the effect that the arsenal of chemical weapons in Syria needs to be destroyed.
The negotiators set a deadline for the completion of the program of chemical weapons destruction in Syria at 2014 (Gordon para. 1-2). However, there is no optimism that such an agreement will be implemented fully. A substantial number of commentators argue that the timeline set for the completion of the chemical weapons destruction in Syria is quite short (Feith para. 4).
Moreover, there is an immense critique of the environment under which the agreement has been reached. This implies that a lot of logical issues were sidelined during the negotiations due to immense pressure on the negotiators caused by the tense security environment and the possible security concerns and consequences that were bound to be witnessed if the two countries failed to come to a consensus over the issue of chemical attacks and chemical weapons in Syria.
Even with the involvement of the United Nations as a moderator, the developments prior to the agreement denoted pressure on the negotiators and the two governments to reach an agreement to avoid any blame for the fallout in the negotiations. Unsuccessful negotiations would mean the possible use of force to access the country and the destruction of the weapons (Gordon para. 2-4).
Gladstone and Sengupta (para. 1) observed that the United Nations is a major force in not only the preparation of the sides to reach an agreement, but also a major player in the enforcement of sanctions. However, the same body is largely controlled by member countries, especially countries that have veto power.
The United States and Russia have the veto power. In spite of the agreement having been reached, the ultimate player in this case is the Syrian regime. The resolution that was made by the United Nations Security Council does not threaten the Syrian government under the leadership of President Bashar al-Assad. This offers a great opportunity for the government of Syria to cooperate with the United Nations to avert the possible use of force, which may be lethal to the citizens of the country.
There is no optimism over the possibility of ending the Syrian conflict by virtue of launching the program to bring the Syrian civil war to an end. Efforts to intervene and end the nuclear weapons production in the country should go hand in hand with the long term efforts of bringing the civil war to an end and restoration of political order in the country (Gladstone and Sengupta para. 8-9).
However, whether President Bashar al-Assad can be coerced as a means of bringing the war to an end is an issue that is still complex due to side politics from the players in the diplomatic course (Kristof para. 8). Moreover, there seems to be a split within the country over the embrace of coercion. The rebel forces in the country seem to back the use of coercion, while the government and other citizens vehemently oppose such a move (Gordon para. 8).
There have been confusing reports about the nature of the chemicals that were used in the attacks, with some correspondents and chemical weapons experts pointing to the use of mustard gas. Others argue that the attackers used sarin.
Reporting on the possible links to chemical attacks in Syria, Kaiser (para. 3) noted that the United Nations’ investigators need to assess the debris where the bombings took place to ascertain the nature of the chemical weapons that were deployed in Damascus and other alleged regions. However, Kaiser does not show optimism in these inspections. The United States is bound to launch attacks even before the United Nations’ investigators present their report (Kaiser, para 9).
According to Fidler (para. 1), the chemical weapons debate has attracted the attention of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). NATO, which is one of the military forces in the Western Europe region, has claimed that these attacks need to be given attention. The tone in the allegations raised by NATO denotes that the masterminds behind these attacks need to be brought to book. This implies the possibility of the involvement of NATO in direct intervention.
However, it is not known whether there is a force from the United States compelling NATO to give the warning. The statement released by NATO seemed to be affirmative. In the report, it was noted that there are stockpiles of chemical weapons in Syria. Again, this raises the question about the essence of the ongoing investigations bearing in mind that most of the renowned powers provide statements that seem to affirm that the Syrian regime has promoted the production of chemical weapons.
If it is true that such weapons are being produced and have been used to unleash violence on the people of Syria, then the condemnation from the international community is welcome. The production and deployment of these weapons pose a threat not only to the citizens of Syrian, but also across the entire world. The mere fact that these weapons have been deployed in Syria means that there is a high potential of these weapons crossing the borders and being deployed in other countries (Fidler para. 3-9).
Feith (para. 2) ascertains that the policy of the United States in Syria is multifaceted. The United States is not only concerned about the production and the claimed deployment of chemical attacks in the country, but it also focuses on the humanitarian crisis that has been created from the long standoff in the country and the possibility of combating the greater interests of Iran in Syria. It is claimed that Iran has continuously offered support to Hezbollah proxies, who have helped in keeping the hostile regime in power.
The United States government has continuously made attempts to link the Syrian regime to the chemical weapons attack. People have been seeing the policy of the United States in Syria as focusing on ousting President Assad from power. This has caused the United States to change its policy by launching the campaign to preserve Assad in power and still implement its foreign policy goals in the region (Feith para. 2-4).
Informed opinion on the Syria chemical weapons attack
The issue of chemical weapons attack in Syria is an eye opener into the large gap that prevails in the international political systems and the ability of these systems to embrace trust and cooperation for the sake of promoting human security. The debate and opinions on the issue revolve around the responsibility of each player and whether these claimed responsibilities can be justified.
Therefore, it can be said that a lot of ethical issues are evident in the developments that are taking place, with most of the players seeking to justify their planned set of responses. It is evident that the supposed attacks have sparked the struggle for power and supremacy in the global political arena. This incites a psychological war between the United States and its contemporary competitors (Charles para. 1-2).
The countries that are on the periphery, but have been closely linked to the contemporary developments and the search for a permanent solution in the conflict include Russia and the United States. These are the two countries that have immensely struggled for power and supremacy in the world history.
Russia, together with a number of its allies like Iran and North Korea, is opposed to plans to conduct military strikes in Syria by arguing that they will aid the Syrian regime to counter any military attacks if the United States decides to go on with the proposed military strikes.
In this case, Syria is viewed as a periphery battle ground as far as the renewed struggle for supremacy between the United States and Russia is concerned. The struggle by these periphery countries to justify their actions concerning the issue does not offer a solution to the citizens of Syria, who continue to face the wrath from the sustained civil war in the country.
Whether the chemical weapons are deployed in the country or not seems to be the main focus. Looking at it from the ethical stance, it is critical to focus on tactics that will stop or minimize the negative attributes of the civil war on the civilians. This is the form of humanity that is required, instead of the contest that is being seen from the commentaries. The use of chemical weapons needs to be condemned using the strongest terms possible as the use of such weapons endangers the status of humanity in the word.
The question that needs to be asked and responded to is how the production of such weapons can be stopped without causing more harm to innocent people in Syria. The question should not focus on whether these weapons were used or not, but on whether there is a better way of preventing the production of such weapons in order to eliminate the chances of such weapons being deployed again and assuring the Syrians of safety and security.
With periphery politics surrounding the issue, the investigations and the role of the United Nations in the issue are bound to be watered down by what can be termed as the re-emergence of realistic tendencies in global politics. For once, it is critical for the United States to put aside its interests in Syria and implement policies that can help to avert the humanitarian situation in Syria.
Conclusion
From the discussion above, it can be argued that the issue of the civil war in Syria and the recent developments has sparked international debates. The rationale for this conclusion is that the supposed chemical weapons attack in Syria has sparked concerns about international security and the responsibility of world powers in sustaining global peace.
In addition, the issue of the battle for supremacy has re-emerged, thereby making the issue more complex due to the clash of interests evident in the way different countries are crafting their foreign policies in relation to the Syrian chemical weapons attack issue. Variations in commentaries and opinions are bound to broaden as actions are taken by different players.
Works Cited
Anderson, Jon Lee. “Syria, Assad, and the History of Chemical Weapons.” The New Yorker. 2013. Web.
Charles, Eric. “Syria, Chemical Weapons, and Confirmation Bias.” The Daily Democrat. 2013. Web.
Cowell, Alan. “U.N. Investigates More Alleged Chemical Attacks in Syria.” The New York Times. 2013. Web.
Feith, Douglas J. “A Very Productive Chemical-Weapons Attack.” The Wall Street Journal. 2013. Web.
Fidler, Stephen. “NATO Says Syria Chemical Attack ‘Cannot Go Unanswered’.”The Wall Street Journal. 2013. Web.
Gladstone, Rick, and Somini Sengupta. “Swift Movement Is Seen on Syria After U.N. Action.” The New York Times. 2013. Web.
Gordon, Michael R. “U.S. and Russia Reach Deal to Destroy Syria’s Chemical Arms.” The New York Times. 2013. Web.
Kaiser, Jocelyn. “Backgrounder: Clues to a Chemical Weapons Attack in Syria.” Science Magazine. 2013. Web.
Kristof, Nicholas D. “That Threat Worked.” The New York Times. 2013. Web.