Syria: International Response

In this post, I mentioned that the international response to the killing of Syrian protesters has not been significant. This al-Jazeera article (Arabic; similar content in this Guardian article) goes into some more detail. The US and European Union have "expressed their worry" about the humanitarian situation in Syria, with varying degrees of condemnation of al-Assad's regime. William Hague is calling for direct talks between UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. According to UN sources, al-Assad is refusing because of Ban's outspoken criticism of his regime since the protests broke out.

Further efforts to condemn the Syrian regime's actions as "bloody repression" are being blocked by several countries on the UN Security Council, including Russia and China. Representatives from those two countries were conspicuously absent from talks discussing the contents of a new resolution, and they threatened to use the veto to defeat it.


US officials have accused al-Assad of creating a humanitarian crisis, called for an immediate cessation of attacks on civilians, and asked that Red Cross workers be allowed access to the northern part of the country. If the regime doesn't comply, then what? Then nothing. Nobody is willing to table any kind of action besides writing statements of displeasure, particularly with how NATO intervention in Libya is faring (al-Jazeera English article). Al-Assad isn't stupid. He knows he's likely safe from military action as long as NATO is tied up with their mission in Libya.

Really, though, what can international audiences do when the leader of a country decides to turn his tanks on his own people?
Condemning UN resolutions? Not even a slap on the wrist.
Air strikes? Not working too terribly well in Libya.
Ground war? Human, material, and political costs often prohibitive
Diplomatic envoys? I wouldn't hold my breath for al-Assad to be persuaded to abdicate power or change his course.
Targeted killing/assassination? Won't make you too many friends in the international community, and no guarantee of making the problems go away.
Economic sanctions? Large-scale sanctions arguably more likely to harm civilians than the regime. Small-scale sanctions not likely to faze an autocrat who's made himself a pretty penny from state coffers over the years. 
Arm the opposition? Can come back to haunt you (how many times has the US backed a coup and created a monster?)
Nothing? It's not too fun to stand helplessly and watch innocent civilians be victimized.

So what should we do? I think any sort of military intervention is to be avoided. The Syrian protesters need to defeat al-Assad's regime on their own. This Guardian piece on Libya puts it in far more eloquent terms than I could. But basically if the international community doesn't get in the way, there's a chance Syrians could emerge victorious, more unified for and more invested in the future. Perhaps that's my idealism talking, though.

The Red Cross should do everything they can to get into the country, and they should already be in Turkey, where Syrian refugees are streaming over the border and living in tent cities.