The Arab Spring continues to motivate millions into hope for freedom and justice, even at the cost of their lives. But the recent alleged chemical attack by the Syrian government on its civilians attracted criticism from the world over, for no one ever thought that the fight for freedom from dictatorship and towards democracy could take this cruel turn.
According to reports, on August 21, the government led by President Bashar al-Assad carried out chemical weapon attacks outside the Syrian capital of Damascus killing hundreds of civilians. Two days later, the American President Barack Obama prepositioned four Navy warships into the Mediterranean. But no confirmation was made as to whether the US would take military action, even though it hinted so. Meanwhile, hospitals in Damascus received over 3,600 patients who showed neurotoxic symptoms.
The crisis in Syria has clearly assumed a sectarian character as the anti-Assad forces are mostly Sunni, carrying out vicious attacks against Alawite civilians and security forces. As the conflict drags on, Iran and Hezbollah, both ranged on Assad’s side, have got involved militarily on the ground while Russia has provided the Syrian government diplomatic cover at the UN and also rubbished reports of the chemical attack.
During two and a half years of conflict, however, President Assad has slowly increased the intensity of attacks on civilian neighborhoods where rebels have found support. He and his loyalists have often used conventional weapons to further terrorize rebel supporters, project confidence by defying the international community, or simply to raise the military pressure on some of the most stubborn and strategic pockets of rebel fighters and their backers. While the chemical attack appears to have been the largest mass slaughter of the war, many more have been killed over the years.
The world media was in a state of shock as the news broke and videos showing the victims went live on the social media. all watched with keen interest the reaction of the mighty US and the UK. The Washington Post deliberated on how chemical attacks are different and why the Obama administration and others should react with urgency.
Civilians will die in any conflict, often in excruciating ways, the paper argued, but effort should be to try to ban the most inhumane weapons, “the things that kill on a mass scale”.
UK’s The Guardian impelled upon the Obama administration to act, more so since his credibility was at stake. Contributor Wadah Khanfar disagreed and argued that despite the urgency with which the Syrians want to eradicate the Assad regime, the desire can never be translated into support for American military intervention. That is because of misgivings and mistrust concerning US motives. own hands. The West should not prevent them acquiring the means to decide the struggle militarily, and should encourage them to continue trying to build Syria according to the rules of real democracy, without excluding or marginalising any party or group.”
The Indian Express was guarded. “The unfolding scenario in Syria, with over a 1,00,000 dead and several hundreds reportedly killed on August 21 through the use of chemical weapons, constitutes the biggest threat to international peace and security in recent months. Equally, the continuing paralysis and helplessness of the United Nations Security Council is the most comprehensive statement of its irrelevance.”
The Hindu was cynical at the US’s plans. It wrote, “Expecting the world to believe a military attack will destroy Mr Assad’s chemical weapons arsenal without inflicting unacceptable civilian casualties is silly. If anything, a targeted attack is not so much a guarantee of minimal damage, but an attempt to fulfil President Barack Obama’s vain promise to punish the Assad regime if it used chemical weapons.”
South African paper BDLIVE was against foreign invasion. It wrote, “The combined effect of the Syrian civil war, the US invasion of Iraq and the role being played by Saudi Arabia and Qatar could be the radical redrawing of the boundaries of the region. Iraqi Kurds have claimed a good measure of autonomy in the environment created by the US invasion. The expectations of Turkey’s Kurdish minority were raised by the profile their issue received in the context of Kurdish ethnic claims in Iraq. Given the environment, Syrian Kurds are unlikely to demand less than their kin across these borders. These developments invite the question: which state will be exempt? It would be one of history’s greatest tragedies if the legacy of the Arab Spring becomes a full-blown Middle East war.”
The charade that is unfolding after the chemical attack reflects the West’s weakening position on the Middle East. The press remains interested but also wary and cynical. Everyone is against war motivated by egoisms than welfare and peace. Larger opinions this time seem against military intervention but definitely a quick decision on the situation before the romanticism with the Arab Spring becomes history.
Feedback: abatra@exchange4media.com
