I’m back from a lovely vacation in northern Michigan with my family this week. Now that I’m home, it’s time to make up some lost ground.
The biggest story, at least from my perspective, during my absence was the Obama Administration calling for the resignation of Bashar al-Assad, the President of Syria. If you’ve been living under a rock (or are the kind of a person who reads my blog, but doesn’t watch the news), then all you really need to know is that there’s a revolution brewing in Syria and the Assad regime is attempting to squash it with some utterly disgusting and violent tactics. Of course, he’s using the military to carry out his punishment on innocent civilians.
Soon after the written statement was released from Washington, many conservatives started complaining that it was too little, too late. I think Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) summarized their thoughts in the most tactful way when he responded:
“Bashar al-Assad and his murderous regime’s enablers lost their legitimacy to govern a long time ago. I am pleased the Administration is finally taking these belated steps and hope it will lead to renewed efforts for a strong resolution and multilateral sanctions at the UN Security Council. I urge our partners and allies in Europe and Turkey to join the U.S. on these efforts.
“The end is near for Assad and his regime. His actions demonstrate he is no political reformer and his regime is a source of instability. The U.S. should use every tool at our disposal to support the Syrian people in realizing a more prosperous and democratic future at peace with their neighbors.”
In the moment, on the issues, it appears that Senator Rubio actually agrees with the Obama stance. In fact, that’s just damn good politics, and I wish more Republicans would support our current foreign policy this way. However, throughout this message are signs of his disapproval. Notice, he’s pleased that the Administration is finally taking these belated steps. He also has hope that this will lead to renewed efforts for multilateral sanctions, implying they’ve abandoned their efforts in the past. In other words, Assad never had legitimacy to begin with and this should have all been done a long time ago.
Perhaps he’s right. If so, we must ask the question, “WHEN should this have been done?”
Forgive the long introduction, but that’s the purpose of this blog post. There are many factors at play that must be considered when answering that question.
Let’s go through them chronologically.
2000:
Let’s begin with Assad himself. Bashar al-Assad attained power in Syria when his father, Hafez al-Assad, died in 2000. Al-Assad was “elected” later that year, but his name was the only one allowed on the ballot. Prior to 2000, Bashar was quickly rising through the ranks of the Syrian Army and he had their support throughout this process. According to Assad’s own words in 2000, he saw democracy as a tool to take Syria into the future, causing many in Syria and around the world to hope he would be a great reformer. Assad warned, however, that the transition couldn’t happen over-night and that the reforms would have to come gradually to prevent chaos. That actually makes sense, judging by how difficult the transition to democracy was in Iraq.
As some have pointed out, Bashar al-Assad was never truly elected by the Syrian people. Even through he promised democratic reforms (a promise he routinely broke), many conservatives are arguing today that al-Assad never really had legitimacy because of how he came to power. If this is the standard we should apply, then President Bill Clinton was responsible for not condemning Bashar al-Assad in 2000.
The problem with this standard, obviously, is that applying it risks alienating true democratic reformers. If Bashar al-Assad was a man of his word, and there was no reason to believe he wasn’t at the time, then condemning him might have prevented true reform from taking place. Hindsight is 20/20, but given the circumstances, there is no way anyone can really make the argument that calls for Assad’s resignation should have been made by the United States in 2000.
2003-2004:
Remember the Iraq War? Oh wait, that’s still happening. Well, in the first few years of that war, it was looking like the next target on President George W. Bush’s list was Syria. Not only was Syria financing terrorism against Israel, but many of the terrorists and their weapons of destruction targeting US and coalition soldiers in Iraq were making their way into the country via Syria. Although Iran was certainly also sending terrorists into Iraq, the primary concern during the initial part of that war was Syrian interference. On a side note, at the time, many prominent conservatives suspected Saddam Hussein had shipped his weapons of mass destruction to Syria on the eve of the war, making them a direct accomplice of the toppled regime. In fact, if quizzed today, I would bet that many of those same conservatives would stick to their guns about this accusation.
If Bashar al-Assad’s legitimacy ended here because he was unable to control who (or what) was crossing his borders, then one has to wonder about the legitimacy of the United States government given their inability to control the drugs and illegal aliens crossing into our southern border and the flow of guns leaving our country.
Further, if we were to argue Assad lost legitimacy because he was working with the regime of Saddam Hussein when strict sanctions were placed against that country (assuming this is true), then we must also doubt the legitimacy of the German, French, Russian, and Chinese governments. Coincidentally, China’s leaders were never democratically elected and that government has killed more civilians over a longer stretch of time than has Assad in Syria.
Yet nobody in Washington is asking for the Chinese government to resign.
2005:
The late-former Prime Minister of Lebanon, Rafik Hariri
Back in 2004, Syria also occupied Lebanon. Syria’s dominance of the political process in Lebanon resulted in Lebanese Prime Minister Rafic Hariri resigning from office. Rafic Hariri was the leader of the anti-Syrian block in Lebanon and his resignation was a serious insult to the Syrian government. In early 2005, Hariri was killed by an enormous Improvised Explosive Device. The United Nations is still investigating what happened, but it was widely believed that Syria and Assad were responsible for the bombing via a terrorist proxy, specifically Hezbollah. Following this attack, several more just like it were launched against other members of the anti-Syria block in Lebanon.
So then, does a government lose legitimacy and need to resign after it is connected to foreign assassinations? Well, I hate to say this, but this was common practice by the United States throughout the Cold War. Particularly in Central and South America but really throughout the world, when a nation was being taken over by communists (even if they were democratically elected) or even if non-partisan leaders sought to open the political process to communist parties, the United States frequently acted against them. Now, I’m not arguing that Syria should have ordered the execution of Hariri; nor am I saying that the United States wasn’t justified in our containment policy against the Soviet Union. Morality aside because it is relative politics, if Bashar al-Assad lost legitimacy because he was responsible for foreign assassinations of his enemies, what are we left to conclude about every President from Truman and Eisenhower to Reagan and Bush?
From 2003 to 2005, it would have been the responsibility of President George W. Bush to call for the resignation of Bashar al-Assad.
Like President Bill Clinton, Bush failed to act.
2011:
By now, we’ve realized that Bashar al-Assad has no interest in reform. His decision to kill his own people because they don’t want to be brutalized by their own regime breaks virtually every imaginable ideological explanation of government. The first responsibility of government is to protect its people, a concept generally identified as a Suzerainty Treaty. Whether it is God, a national head of state, or even a small team leader, people agree to follow this leader and in exchange, he will protect the people. Now that the overwhelming majority of people now feel threatened by this individual posing as a leader, that covenant between the Syrian people and Bashar al-Assad has been broken. To me, when a government no longer protects its people (let alone attacks its people) is when a government loses legitimacy and must be replaced.
Russia is a good example of this. The United Russia coalition enjoys the confidence and support of a huge majority of the population. Sure, they oppress Communist, Marxist, Fascist, and separatist political parties (sometimes violently), but when your leaders have the support of 80% of the population, then the Suzerainty Treaty is working. Is it dangerous to suppress political parties and sympathetic media outlets? INCREDIBLY! But let’s face it, Abraham Lincoln did the same thing (by 19th century standards) during the Civil War, and he’s loved by more Americans than Putin is loved by Russians.
Having established that the Syrian regime lost legitimacy when it stopped protecting and started violating the Syrian people, we can conclude the conditions were met for the international community to call for his resignation sometime within the past several months. As conservatives are now asking, “What took so long, Obama?”
There are two very real factors in the delay.
First, because of the United States’ consistent support of Israel in the past and our support of various dictators around the Muslim world, many Syrians instinctively distrust the United States. Many Syrians have lost family and friends in the many conflicts and skirmishes that have taken place between Syria and Israel over the last 60 years. They know perfectly well that Israel’s bombs, guns, aircraft, and other tools of war came directly from the United States. Understanding this, President Obama was very wise in waiting until Syrian opposition to Assad was so great that the Syrian regime couldn’t use our condemnation of them as part of their propaganda against us.
The only thing that will unite the people under Assad again would be a common enemy, and President Obama has been very careful not to lead America into that trap.
Second, and more globally, the reputation of the United States has been hurt by the “Cowboy Diplomacy” of the previous administration. The whole idea of “going it alone” and “you’re either with us, or against us” did a lot of damage to this country by creating distrust among our allies. Take a moment to place yourselves in foreign shoes. The most powerful nation in the world has made itself unaccountable to international law, is becoming increasingly irresponsible financially, and is shockingly unpredictable with its application of force. That’s pretty damn scary!
President Obama waited until much of the rest of the world was ready to call for Bashar al-Assad’s resignation.
Some here will say that demonstrates a lack of global leadership, but let me tell you something. Scores of world leaders and governments don’t call for the resignation of a head of state unless the President of the United States is pushing them to do it. Just because President Obama wasn’t beating the war drum on Fox News and asking for international support doesn’t mean his administration didn’t play a crucial role in making this happen. Years down the road, when the crap hits the fan, I think we’re going to have a lot more friends ready to support us than if we were to continue with the “our way or our way without you” approach to foreign policy.
Truth be told, I’m a conservative, and I like President Obama’s handling of the Syrian Spring so far.
Here in the United States, we are all familiar with the phrase that “all men are created equal.” Thomas Jefferson first used the phrase in our Declaration of Independence and it’s been repeated countless times and across the world. Unfortunately, it seems like few people actually think about the implications this would have for global policy making. Not surprisingly, the blind fools following Ron Paul; who evoke the Founders at every turn as though they just had lunch with them; are the most oblivious.
