HoverBoarder
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 18, 2011
- Messages
- 1,667
I suggest you optimists take a good hard look at the clusterhump that went down in Egypt, and Libya, after the recent "Arab Spring" fun concluded. We shall see whether or not Syrian are sick of killing one another yet in a few months. If they are, then good for them, it took them 18 years less than the folks in Mozambique. (1976-1995, or so)
As to the complaints about the Russians: they are a Power.
They have interests.
They pursued them.
The have a veto on the UNSC.
No deal goes down without them.
So, work with them. Make a deal.
Leave your altruism at the front door, on the mat where it belongs.
No one's saying that it is going to be all peaches and roses, but the Syrians don't really have much left of a choice.
People have tried to work with Russia, and they don't want to.
You said that "Assad is going to go down swinging," and their main backers don't show any sign of switching course and helping the Syrians get an in-control, and not massivily homicidal government.
As you said, they have their own interests, and they are pursuing them. Those interests do not allow for a stable and peaceful Syria with Assad not in power, and Assad is going to continue to kill as many Syrians as he can to stay in power.
So what else are they supposed to do?
As far as being an "altruistic optimist," I have no problem with that. Imperfect democracies like those that have started to develop in Libya and Egypt are in my mind better than brutal bloody dictators. I don't support anyone being killed, but I also don't support allowing serious human rights crimes and crimes against humanity just because it suits a foreign policy interest.
The current Syrian civil war was fully 100% preventable, without taking that much effort. If Russia had put the red line for their support at something less than using chemical and biological weapons, say at mass murdering protesters, than the regime would have had to negotiate.
As it was, they looked at their situation, and compared it to other cases. In Tunisia, the government transitioned without any major fight. In Egypt, they caved to international pressure. In Libya, the government was only unsuccessful in killing massive numbers of Libyans to retain power only because Nato got involved. The real success stories seemed to be Bahrain and Iran, where they mercilessly killed any dissenting protesters, and executed hundreds more in the privacy of their jails. So when Iran came to give Syria advice and support, that is exactly what Assad's forces did.
It was OK, and seemingly the logical route to kill thousands of protesters and tens of thousands of Syrians instead of negotiating and working on a solution to end the violence. The previous Assad government had killed 20,000 Syrians to terrorize them into submission, and the current Assad government saw no reason to do things any differently.
That calculus could have easily been much different for the Syrian government if the cost-benefit analysis would have been different. If they would not have gotten unconditional support to continue on as large of a mass killing spree as they wanted, they would have had to of chosen a different route.
When the next situation like Syria, Libya, Egypt, Iran, or Bahrain arises, we will have likely not changed anything about that unconditional support structure that allowed those cases to get out of control, and have blatant human rights abuses. However, I have no problem in being optimistic, altruistic, and realistically trying to change that. Much better than being sarcastic and indifferent.