If doing nothing about what is going on Syria is immoral, then doing something to prove a petty point, project power; shore up one side in a military conflict; assure allies of a nation’s “credibility” in global politics or to assuage the tickled ego of heads of states is equally immoral. In fact, it is dangerous.
In my view, acting to punish and deter the evil deeds of nations becomes ethical only in the context of considered deliberations about the actions to take; the outcomes to anticipate and the unintended consequences to embrace. Therefore, hesitating to think before unleashing the armada of a nation on another, even if in the pursuit of a moral cause, is no injury to “national credibility.” Neither is thinking before acting a form of indecision when recent impulsive actions stare us in the rear-view mirror of our collective memories. Iraq, so to speak.
Foreign policy should NEVER be pursued for the purpose of extracting plaudits in international affairs or for the sake of exciting a jingoistic nation about the extent of its power. For far too long contests of national egos have made bombs rather than bread the staples of nation-building in some corners of the world. In Damascus, Cairo, Khartoum and Kinshaha many innocent mothers and children bear the scars and traumas of these exercises in ego-mismanagement.
Resolving the intractable problems of the world should be a collective moral project. No single nation should present itself, even in idle rhetoric, as the only capable manager of the world’s conscience and the sole moral nation upon whose shoulders rests the burden of correcting humanity’s foibles. That is an awesome responsibility to impose upon oneself. That imposed responsibility is akin to biting more than one can reasonably chew at the bar of global politics and conversation. It is the worst form of the politics of self-imposed burden.
MY SUGGESTION:
In the 21st Century, America should be shrewd enough to pursue a new doctrine of “neutralist interventionism” if it wishes to intervene, intercede and interdict. Whoever “intervenes” in Syria (if that becomes the only alternative to reason) should do so on behalf of the victims of what is, arguably, a deadly contest of group egos: the unyielding ego of the Syrian government and the undeterred impulses of its armed opponents.
If anyone must degrade the fighting power of someone, degrade the arsenals of both the Syrian state and its armed opponents. Play no favorites and aim not to tilt the balance of military power in any one’s favor. Make either side incapable of proceeding any further with its capacity to kill and maim. When both parties in conflict have no ability to win, and a costly loss to both is the only alternative, reason might prevail. Get the foot soldiers (and not those who lead and misuse them) somewhere, possibly in Africa (a neutral continent), rather than the all-too-familiar places, and cause them to stare at each other and talk in the name of those they have destroyed. That is what I call “Neutralist Interventionism.” Try it!
Edward Kissi
From: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com [mailto:usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Toyin Falola
Sent: Monday, September 02, 2013 8:52 AM
To: dialogue
Subject: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Obama team has mishandled Syria
Obama team has mishandled Syria
"Fareed Zakaria GPS," Sundays at 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. ET on CNN
By Fareed Zakaria
Last March, President Barack Obama spoke about how Syria’s use of chemical weapons would be a “game-changer.” It has, except not quite in the sense that he meant. It has been an event that has confused and confounded the Obama administration. Whatever your views on the larger issues, it’s hard not to conclude that the administration’s handling of Syria over the last year has been a case study in how not to do foreign policy.
The president started out with an understanding that the Syrian conflict is a messy sectarian struggle that cannot be influenced easily by American military intervention. He was disciplined in resisting calls to jump into a cauldron. But from the start he confused and undermined this policy with loose rhetoric, perhaps egged on by some of his advisors and critics to "do something."
So he announced just over two years ago that President Bashar al-Assad of Syria had to go. Now a pundit can engage in grandiose speech. The president of the United States should make declarations like this only if he has some strategy to actually achieve them. He did not.
More from CNN: Signs of sarin use, Kerry says
In truth, Obama – and many others – miscalculated. They believed that al-Assad’s regime was near the end, misreading both its strength and brutality, but also the level of support it has from several segments of Syria.
Then, just about a year ago, came the off-the-cuff remarks about a red line on chemical weapons, insufficiently thought through but now publicly stated and definitive. Since then, American foreign policy in Syria has largely been concerned about ensuring that Obama’s threat does not seem empty. It has been a complicated dance.
But what American national interest is being followed? The administration says it is upholding international law. Except, as Fred Kaplan pointed out in Slate this week, the institutions that embody international law and consensus – the United Nations and other international organizations – do not support this action. The United States plus France and Turkey cannot be considered the embodiment of international law and global public opinion.
More from GPS: Does public care about U.N. blessing?
The nature of the strike, we are told, will be short and symbolic – a shot across the bow. In the midst of a civil war in which both sides are in a high-stakes struggle for survival, does anyone think that this will make any difference?
And then, the strangest twist – an unplanned, last minute appeal to Congress, paving the way for further delay, weakening momentum, erasing what little surprise existed, and setting the stage for a potential defeat at home.
I don’t think that this strike, should it eventually take place, will be as damaging as its critics fear. The al-Assad regime will likely hunker down, take it, and move on. It will make little difference one way or the other. But the manner in which the Obama administration has first created and then mismanaged this crisis will, alas, cast a long shadow on America’s role in the world.
Toyin Falola
Department of History
The University of Texas at Austin
104 Inner Campus Drive
Austin, TX 78712-0220
USA
512 475 7224
512 475 7222 (fax)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.