In recent weeks, Syrian president al-Assad has given the international community a list of its chemical weapons production and holding sites, and on Oct. 1, let experts from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) into Syria so that they could begin destroying those weapons.
There are also plans for future peace talks within the United Nations between Assad and rebel forces. However, hopes of successful talks have diminished. Assad has said he will not talk to groups with Western support, and the Syrian National Council, the largest rebel group in the National Coalition, has refused to negotiate with Assad.
The rebellion began in March of 2011 when government forces opened fire on protesters calling for the release of political prisoners in Damascus. Currently, the United States recognizes the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces as the leader of the people of Syria. However, there is infighting among the rebel groups, some of which have ties to al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.
This connection has made the West hesitant to arm the rebels. Russia’s president Vladimir Putin said in a statement, “There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough al-Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government.”
However, the United States wants to intervene, but only to enforce an international ban on the use of chemical weapons, following on Obama’s “red line” comment. On Sept. 12, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry stated, “What we are seeking is to enforce the standard with respect to chemical weapons.”
Sophomore Ken Preiser says, “I feel that what the U.S. is trying to do is be the referee, not getting involved. They are trying to make it so they [Syrians] aren’t using [chemical] weapons.”
People, including those in the Aragon community, have differing opinions on the situation in Syria.
Preiser says, “Assad has been wishy-washy before, but the Middle East is about sticking to your word. A lot of countries in the Middle East, at least their leaders, follow through to get respect.”
Junior Masao Dahlgren comments on the relative lack of importance chemical weapons have to the Assad regime, saying, “Frankly, they were a pain to maintain. They were a pain to keep. Syrians really didn’t have any need for them.”
However, others are not so optimistic about Syria’s objective in getting rid of their chemical weapons. Michael Gibbons, history teacher and Model United Nations club advisor, says, “I don’t think it is going to work, I don’t think they [Syria] have the intent and I don’t think they have the capability … In order for the Syrians to turn over their weapons and then have them safeguarded, accounted for and then ultimately destroyed, I see an estimate of 75,000 troops in Syria. Who will provide them?”
Assad estimated that destroying all of Syria’s chemical weapons will take one year and cost $1 billion. Dahlgren says, “I think that it is going to be an incredibly expensive process, and it’s going to require troops on the ground, and there is no easy way of doing it. The United States hasn’t finished getting rid of its chemical weapons yet, and it signed on decades ago.”
Another question facing the United States is its role, if any, in guiding the new government when, or if, Assad is no longer in power.
Junior Kathryn Wysong cites the results of past U.S. involvement, saying, “I think we should keep our eye on it, but try to stay not as involved because when we get involved in foreign affairs, it doesn’t usually end well, and I think that letting the Syrian people make their own decisions would be the best way and not trying to overthrow Assad necessarily.”
Others believe that the America’s push for democracy is sometimes hypocritical. Gibbons says, “I don’t think the United States should have any role in deciding anything about Syria. The Syrian people should have a role in deciding what happens. You hear … [the United States] talking about how much we love democracy, as long as they elect the right people. So, do we like democracy, or do we just want the people in power who we want in power?”
