Syria’s Disarmament:
A Justification to Disarm U.S.’s Enemies
The Syrian conflict began
in March 2011, when protestants against the president Bashar al-Assad demanded
his resignation. When they took up the streets in demonstrations against Asad’s
regime, the government responded with extreme measures, such as kidnapping, torturing
and killing protestors and their families. In consequence, civil rebel forces
began to arm themselves to encounter the government’s violence. Nowadays, the
tension between the government and the rebels became substantial when allegations
that the government had used chemical weapons in civilians were asserted. These
allegations led to international intervention in order to defend the Syrian’s
human rights. In this way, countries such as England, United States, France,
Russia, among others, gather together in order to disarm the Arab republic and to
avoid an increase in the amount of deaths. Superficially, these are good
justifications for the disarmament of the country; however, there are hidden reasons
for encourage such measure.[1]
As it had been stated
before, one of the main reasons for Syria’s disarmament is the number of crimes
against humanity that has been committed against the Syrian people since the
use of chemical weapons. But truth is that many murders and deaths had occurred
since the civil war began. There have been more deaths caused by guns than the
ones which resulted as a consequence of the use of chemical weapons. However,
in the last two years before the use of chemical weapons, only a few measures
were taken in order to help the Syria people. These measures include refugee
camps, food aid, medical supplies, emergency health care and water.
Nevertheless, any of these measures included procedures to put an end to this
violent confrontation. So, as there are weapons, the number of deaths will
continue increasing no matter how many refugee camps would be created.
On the other hand, since
Syria has broken the 1925 Geneva Gas protocol which “prohibits the use of
chemical and biological weapons in war” (Geneva Protocol), there is a possibility
for the United Nations to request of an intervention of the country; yet, this
has not been confirmed. Nevertheless, the President Barak Obama had clearly stated
that he “would use its political, economic and, if necessary, military power”
(New York Times) in order to put an end to the conflict. In this way, the
violent conflict in Syria will be halted by using more violence. However, as
Professor Sigrun Skogly had explain in a BBC article, “these actions need to be
exercised in a manner that is likely to minimise the continued human suffering
of the populations and a military campaign may not be the appropriate response
in such circumstances”, as the president of the United States is insisting on.
In this way, it may be
thought that the United States’ persistent intentions to disarm Syria are far
beyond of achieving peace in the Arab republic. As Zaher Mahriqui stated in his
article for the Press TV “the objective of the US and [his ally] Israel has
always been to disarm any Arab army that might us its weapons against Israel”.
In consequence, disarming Syria will be a key point in ensuring Israel’s peace.
However, this will be a long way as the Arab republic in not the only thread
that the American’s ally has. So, the
aftermath international intervention would just be the American justification
to weaken its enemies and any thread against it and its allies.
In conclusion, the disarmament
of Syria is a direct consequence of its use of chemical weapons on civilians.
This measure is claimed to be in favour of the Syrian people and to avoid more
crimes against humanity. Additionally, an international mediation was needed
since Syria has broken the Geneva Protocol, which prohibits the use of chemical
and biological weapons. However, this last reason for international
intervention could only be a mean for the United States to disarm the Arab
republic which threads the peace in its ally country Israel.
[1] Expository Thesis Statement
Outline
- Introduction:
- Thesis Statement “countries such as England, United States, France, Russia, among others, had gather together in order to disarm the Arab republic and to avoid the increase in the amount of deaths. Superficially, these are good justifications for the disarmament of the country; however, there are hidden reasons for encourage such measure”
- Body:
- Measures taken to help Syrian people
- Break of Geneva protocol
- Reasons for disarmament
- Conclusion:
- Disarmament, a justification to maintain peace in Israel
Bibliography
1925
Geneva Protocol. United Nations office for disarmament Affairs. Available at http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Bio/1925GenevaProtocol.shtml.
Retrieve: September 28, 2013.
Attacks
on Ghouta. Analysis og Allegeat Use of Chemical Weapons in Syria. Human Rights
Watch. Available at http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/syria_cw0913_web_1.pdf. Retrieve: September 28, 2013.
Landler
M. (September 24, 2013) Obama Defends U.S. Engagement in the Middle East. The
New York Times. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/25/us/politics/obama-iran-syria.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&ref=syria. Retrieve: September 28, 2013.
Mahruqui
M. (September 24, 2013) What does the Syrian Chemical Diarmament Deal Mean?.
Press TV. Available at http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/09/24/325714/syrian-chemical-disarmament-analysis/. Retrieve: September 28, 2013.
Syrian
Civil War. Wikipedia. Availabla at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_civil_war. Retrieve: September 28, 2013.
Viewpoints:
Is thre Legal Basis for Military Intervention in Syria?. BBC News. Available at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23847169. Retrieve: September 28, 2013.
