Syria: a civil war (closed)

[davidbfpo]

From Fuchs a few posts back:

3,000 people died in inter-tribal violence in province Pibor, South Sudan, at the beginning of this year. We didn't even notice, much less did a Western public discuss the prospect of intervention.

This reminds me of an issue that has appeared on SWC before and JMM99 has used a nice global map to illustrate his point of view.

Simply put we all have a very different world map, with assigned, changing priorities and sometimes governments are in parallel with their own public. Sorry who cares about 'province Pibor' ? Very few outside the immediate area and the two Sudan's.

Incidentally I had to search for the location of Pibor:http://earthcatalogue.com/?ecd=SD_HS...er-Pibor-Sudan and a BBC report on the incident(s):http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-16394664

Sadly whole chunks of the world are rarely delivered to our screens, how many viewers let alone editors want to learn about feuding tribes in South Sudan? I'm sure some here will remember the reporting of the famine in Ethiopia, that led to the Band Aid concerts.

Two of us here have already reminded readers of the shame Europe first & foremost has over Bosnia and FRY. The late Michael Foot, a Labour leader, made a startling documentary at the time and IIRC the title was 'Three Hours from Here'. There was endless TV reporting, Martin Bell being one; sometimes grim and even then it took months, years for politicians to get the courage to change the ROE. The UK's record is not good in this respect.

If anyone needs a reminder of humanitarian intervention view the 1999 BBC series 'Warriors', which is awesome - a word I rarely use. It is on YouTube and here are links to Part 1:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGj3cLQKlik and a rather crude snippet:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_Occ...eature=related

Why the outrage over Syria? Well first foremost geography, secondly we have a mass of footage (still) of the year-long protests and check out:http://www.enduringamerica.com/ Add in the calls for "something to be done", even here in the UK by some surprising people - who oppose(d) our role in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I don't know enough about Syria or the Assad regime and what short of "boots on the ground" would affect their decision-making.

That caveat aside what we should do beyond declarations is practical:

• Ensure the evidenceof brutality is collected and is ready for the day when justice can be done.
  
  Boost radio broadcasting to the region.
  
  Reduce all Syrian embassies to consular duties, close all trade offices and UN delegations. Send the staff home PNG.
  
  Monitor all import / export activity and ask those involved why publicly. Yes, publish which ships and aircraft visit.

[J Wolfsberger]

...

Simply put we all have a very different world map, with assigned, changing priorities and sometimes governments are in parallel with their own public. Sorry who cares about 'province Pibor' ? Very few outside the immediate area and the two Sudan's.

...

Sadly whole chunks of the world are rarely delivered to our screens, how many viewers let alone editors want to learn about feuding tribes in South Sudan? I'm sure some here will remember the reporting of the famine in Ethiopia, that led to the Band Aid concerts.

...

The UK's record is not good in this respect.

Except for the occasional incidents, such as Darfur, the world usually turns a blind eye to bad things happening in primitive places far away. For example, I doubt the general public anywhere in the developed world is aware of the ongoing horror show in the Great Lakes region of Africa.

The UK isn't alone in the poor record department. The list of humanitarian disasters that the post WW II world has ignored begins with Biafra, runs through Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge right up to Syria in the present with lots of stops along the way. And after Syria ...?

Part of my cynicism comes from the realization that calls to intervene don't reflect any desire to build a better world so much as a desire for the caller to feel good about himself for making the call, and as a result he hasn't put much thought into what the intervention entails. (e.g. If you want to stop a slaughter you will have to kill people. And if those people collect human shields, some of them will be killed as well.)

In the instance under discussion, I doubt anyone calling for intervention has thought through what it would cost, or what the aftermath would be if the intervention didn't continue past the immediate goal of toppling the current regime. As much as I believe the whole notion of Nation Building to be complete rubbish, intervention without some long term (decades) commitment to improve on the past is a likely to turn out a wasted effort, almost certain to require a repeat in a few years when the new gang of thugs out lives its "welcome." (cf. Iraq now that the U.S. and allies have pulled out, or Afghanistan a few years after we’re gone.)

I don't know enough about Syria or the Assad regime and what short of "boots on the ground" would affect their decision-making.

That caveat aside what we should do beyond declarations is practical:

• Ensure the evidenceof brutality is collected and is ready for the day when justice can be done.
  
  Boost radio broadcasting to the region.
  
  Reduce all Syrian embassies to consular duties, close all trade offices and UN delegations. Send the staff home PNG.
  
  Monitor all import / export activity and ask those involved why publicly. Yes, publish which ships and aircraft visit.

All of which would be good things to do, but of only limited value in reducing the carnage. And I suspect, even if they effected a stop, it would only be long enough to let the world move on to its next cause du jour, after which the retribution would continue and finish off the opposition. Quietly, so the world can blissfully ignore it.