Since last Friday’s column detailing the conflicts in Northern Africa and the Middle East, Syria has taken a turn for the worse. Against prior progress toward democratization, on Monday the Syrian Army attacked the city of Dara’a with tanks and killed at least 25 people. In response to the heightened oppression of protesters, the U.S. proposed targeted economic sanctions to freeze assets of Syrian officials. The Obama administration also issued statements denouncing Syria’s actions as deplorable under the belief that increased denunciations will provoke a reformative reaction from President Bashar al-Assad. The problem is neither of these plans will be effective in stopping the military from suppressing and killing protesters.
According to The New York Times, administration officials believe Assad is sensitive to the portrayal of Syria as a failed state because he sees himself as “Westernized” and would react to his portrayal as a “brutal dictator.” This perception of Assad’s sensitivity by the U.S. government assumes he believes in certain “Western” values including the defense of democracy and civil rights. Yet the dangers protesters face in Syria demonstrate otherwise.
U.S. citizens often take for granted the protection of the equal rights, security and general freedoms they enjoy in America. In light of the recent protests and the ongoing struggles millions face to gain freedom and security, it is evident that democratic values are often stifled in many regions of the world. In countries like Syria, the protection of equal rights and freedom of speech are suffocated by the ruling power in order to maintain control of the state. Human rights are constantly being violated, and state leaders generally ignore or perpetrate attacks, even in front of an international audience.
It is foolish to assume such a country, with limited government legitimacy or concern for public welfare, will respond to sanctions that barely have an impact on the economy or any effect on the power of the state. Historically, economic sanctions against Syria have not prevented the government from violating international norms on human rights and nuclear proliferation. The 2006 and 2007 sanctions against Syria under the Bush administration have had little effect. Furthermore, in a country that currently lacks respect for what the U.S. considers unalienable rights, painting a negative picture of Assad and his regime would have no effect on the mistreatment of protesters. From the moment the government allows the army to attack and kill civilians for expressing dissent, it is nearly impossible to convince the government to act otherwise through strongly worded statements.
Brutal dictators are brutal precisely because they are not concerned about upholding a positive image of their leadership, so labeling them and their actions as deplorable won’t make a difference. Despite the efforts of protesters and the illusory promises of reform, right now Assad and his government are far from “Westernized.” Assad could easily flee the county to avoid conflict, and frankly it appears that he has no indignation about the human rights offenses under his regime. Since the protests began in March, the U.S. has denounced Syria’s leadership multiple times, and it does not seem to be deterring the military.
Given the multiple uproars in the region and the strain on international institutions, a viable solution to the conflicts in Syria is not yet clear. In dealing with conflicts in other countries in the region, the U.S. has taken a more proactive role and implemented military measures like a no-fly zone in Libya. But given the complexity of the situation and the multiple conflicts currently in the region, implementing interventionist measures may not be as effective as the U.S. would hope. If the U.S. decides to get involved with Syria, it will face many difficulties, but simply denouncing the nation’s leadership will not provoke reform.
Vasiliki Mitrakos is a Weinberg sophomore. She can be reached at [email protected].
