By Barry Rubin
This interview with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton deserves close analysis for a reason that neither I nor anyone else noticed before.
“QUESTION: But, I mean, how can [Libya] be worse than what has happened in Syria over the years, where Bashar Asad’s father killed 25,000 people at a lick? I mean, they open fire with live ammunition on these civilians. Why is that different from Libya?
“SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I –
“QUESTION: This [Syria] is a friend of Iran, an enemy of Israel.
“SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, if there were a coalition of the international community, if there were the passage of Security Council resolution, if there were a call by the Arab League, if there was a condemnation that was universal – but that is not going to happen, because I don’t think that it’s yet clear what will occur, what will unfold.”
On one hand, what Clinton says is quite logical. It doesn’t make sense for Western countries to send forces to Syria and start bombing. But that’s not the issue. The issue is supporting the Syrian opposition and really comprehending that Syria is an enemy of the West whose regime deserves no quarter.
Yet what does Clinton begin with as the reasons for treating the two differently? Let’s list them:
1. “a coalition of the international community”
2. “passage of Security Council resolution”
3. “call by the Arab League”
4. “a condemnation that was universal”
But, she correctly concludes, “that is not going to happen.”
Now, this is no way for a U.S. secretary of state to speak. What about U.S. interests? What about an independent American decisionmaking process?
Again, these steps might be appropriate for military action–which, again, is not the issue here–but let’s recall, for example, how President George Bush set U.S. policy on Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and then put together an international coalition on the basis of decisions made on the basis of U.S. national interests. That’s the way it’s supposed to work. Not the other way around.
Since Syria is an American enemy killing Americans in Iraq and backing terrorist groups to a degree exceeded only by Iran–which is its ally and also an enemy of the United States–why does the U.S. government need an international coalition, UN resolution, Arab League call, and universal condemnation to act?
At any rate, this kind of things certainly does not apply for taking a strong U.S. stance of diplomatic opposition, freezing all the concessions this administration has given to Syria, recalling the U.S. ambassador in protest, building an anti-Syria alliance, blocking Syria’s takeover of Lebanon, working actively to eliminate Syria’s Gaza client, supporting the Syrian opposition and trying to bring down the regime, punishing Syria for its surrogate warfare against the United States in Iraq, and so on.
But instead the kind of thinking this administration all too often represents turns over U.S. power and sovereignty to others.
Every American secretary of state from 1789 onward would be shaken and shocked by such thinking. They would say: No, the United States determines its interests, sets its policy, and implements that policy. Getting international support is an element in that process but it is a byproduct of U.S. interests and decisionmaking; not the other way around.
It is preferable that the United States act multilaterally if possible, but it is not the precondition for action either. Nor should trying to maximize foreign support require too much watering down of the measures taken or–in the case of the Iran sanctions–smoothing passage by giving exemptions to Russia, China, and other countries thus gutting the sanctions.
Similarly, the U.S. government should not become so obsessed with international popularity and multilateralism as to ignore it when countries stab it in the back, as Turkey’s government did on the UN sanctions issue. Nor should it bring situations, as is happening with the unilateral Palestinian independence issue at the UN, in which the United States opposes something as dangerous but doesn’t lobby energetically with other countries on it.
During the Cold War, the United States usually acted with coalitions under president after president. Even the supposedly obsessive unilateralist President George W. Bush put together an international coalition to invade Iraq.
Yet now broad international support has in many cases become the precondition for U.S. action or indeed formulating a U.S. policy at all. In other cases, the U.S. government refuses to take leadership as if such behavior was a demonstration of high virtue. This kind of thing has become so common as to be accepted without anyone even noticing.
It is real simple
America makes US foreign policy consistent with our fundamental interests.
Turkey has been a loyal NATO member since 1954 and their troops fought, and died, along side US troops in Korea–they are currently supporting US troops in Afghanistan.
Syria just rescinded its ban on face veils for teachers as a result of the uprising – be careful what you wish for and I read Assad closed an evil casino as well.
The idea that Syria as presently constituted is so subversive towards peace in the region that just about anything that replaces Assad will be preferable is a problematic suggestion since it doesn’t allow for what would follow.
I agree that there are many benefits to the fall of Assad but Syria simply doesn’t disappear with him – it’s still there. Unless the U.S. can practically guarantee something better will follow rather than something as bad or worse, they probably don’t want to be associated with the fall of Assad and there is nothing to suggest that kind of nuance exists within the State Dept. The U.S. just got burned on Libya, practically guaranteeing a higher death toll than leaving things alone would have yielded, and aren’t anxious for more of that.
If it’s a simple human rights issue then instead of letting the U.S. get shamed into action by the media again as Clinton suggests with her reference to universal condemnation, then the U.S. would be smart to do what they were too stupid to do with Libya, use the mass media to shame countries in the region to intervene. It’s a win/win for the U.S. because they are treating muslims like adults and advocating human rights at the same time; if Turkey wants to be such a big wheel, then let them play with Kurds in Syria. If it goes bad the U.S. comes out clean, if it goes right we take credit for our ‘initiatives’. We broker deals between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs, why not take that hands off/hands on approach?
I have been learning a lot from Barry Rubin’s book The Truth About Syria. Get it if you want readable detailed background on the history, whys and wherefores of the Syrian regime. The State Department and White House certainly could use it.
“But instead the kind of thinking this administration all too often represents turns over U.S. power and sovereignty to others.”
Some phrases come to mind on reading this piece: Hitting the nail on the head. Getting to the heart of the matter. Taking the blinders off.
Phases like those.
In Clinton’s four conditions (or points), the arab league is mentioned, but not Israel nor other U.S. allies. She does not reflect on the efficacy of previous Security Council Resolutions concerning Syria.
It’s simple Mr. Rubin, Is Soros paying these guys? Looks like the new world order working, engage everybody, take weeks to make a decision, watch the freedom fighters get killed, and lose the opportunity to create positive outcomes for US interest. We need a new leader who cares about us and our friends!