The World is Watching: The Syrian Conflict & War Crime

In the incremental time between blog posts, I keep my eyes glued on all of my news apps and catch glimpses of new stations at night trying to find a spark to inspire my next post. However, I find myself deciding and then getting caught up in a new story, changing my mind and rethinking my area of discussion every couple hours really. It is a little troubling to waver and switch my train of thought as much as I am inclined to with such an outpouring of salient happenings both domestically and internationally, and usually this ends with me waiting until last minute to write something because the headlines are changing everyday and kairos is paramount in current events.

The world stage, to allude back to my first post and title, is such a fast paced and intricately design place. What has become evidently clear is that the overwhelming majority of news splattered all over every news site and channel is negative and portrays the reality of violence and hostility that surrounds our lives and the nature of our foreign affairs. By gathering all of these headlines and conflicts, it has become evidently clear to me that our foreign policy and the way we handle ourselves on the world stage is not accidental at all- it is a reaction and a precaution to events, conflicts, wars, and threats that are the reality of the world. In my first post I proposed the idea of America's perpetual war and our tendencies to get involved in everything, and I think that through my new endeavor of finely combing through news and soundbites, I see that it is a necessary reaction.

Violence, war, and terrorism. Sickening and usually senseless inhumane entities that plague the international system and change the landscapes of our lives. With most of the headlines containing some new act of terror in a far away country, are we becoming indifferent to it? Do Americans that are seemingly worlds away from violence in other countries becoming desensitized because it is not happening here? 

On April 4th 2017, the worst chemical attack in years occurred in Syria turning a northern rebel-held town, Khan Sheikhoun, into a toxic kill zone. The countries violent and devastating 6-year civil war has seen immeasurable tragedies: "It has claimed the lives of at least 400,000, according to a United Nations estimate released a year ago. More than 5 million Syrians have fled the country and more than 6 million more have been displaced internally, according to UN agencies" (CNN). This chemical attack has been viewed and felt around the world- inducing an international outrage over the ruthlessness of the Syrian government throughout the war.

According to an article for the New York Times,  the death of as many as 100 people is attributed to the severely poisonous bombs which may have contained a nerve agent, a banned chemical. The deadly attack tore apart civilian families, and saw children writhing, choking, gasping or foaming at the mouth before passing. They said the toxic substance spread after warplanes dropped bombs in the early morning hours with no warning. Even some  rescue workers and those there as humanitarian relief grew ill from inhaling the chemicals and collapsed from proximity. Just a few hours after the initial attack that devastated those close in the town, another airstrike was directed at one of the clinics treating victims and attempting to help those in pain.

source 

The event is a cause for solace and a cry to work towards resolve, and I feel devastated looking at the horrors of footage and pictures from activists and eye-witnesses from that day. However, the international outrage and the relevance of foreign affairs comes in to play when many western leaders, including America, are pointing the finger at Assad- the Syrian president. 

While Assad denounced chemical weapons nearly 4 years ago, the attacks are currently being accredited to Assad's regime despite denying it entirely. However, denying the chemical attack is nothing new as Assad has denied involvement in any attack involving chemicals the past 4 years despite evidence to the contrary. The Syrian miliarty released a statement which accused the rebels of carrying out the attacks on themselves, and insisted that the insurgents accused the army of using toxic weapons “every time they fail to achieve the goals of their sponsors" (source).

However much sense that does (not) make, only the Syrian military had the ability and motive to carry out such a precise aerial attack like this one. The world is viewing this horrying situation as a war crime, and is likely to put a serious hold on peace talks that were in the works. The Western world condems the attacks and what they mean for peace and order in the Middle East: "On Tuesday night, Britain, France and the United States were pushing the Security Council to adopt a resolution that condemns the attack and orders the Syrian government to provide all flight logs, flight plans and names of commanders in charge of air operations, including those for Tuesday, to international investigators" (New York Times).

Brief look into the Syrian conflict from Dr. Farida who was working in Aleppo when government forces took control.

While we look on at the tragedies that occurring throughout the world and are affecting children our age and tearing apart lives and communities, we have an obligation to stay informed. I believe we are obliged to not let war crimes and inhumane acts go unnoticed, and that is a relevant outlook on all of the horrifying things going on in our country and throughout the world. This attack must not go unnoticed- Syria must not go unnoticed. From this alone, our government will have policy choices to make within the next few days to follow up with the possible violations on Assad's part and issues securing the peace that was possibly on its way beforehand. 

March 22, 2017

While sifting through current events earlier this week and scrounging for notable and salient happenings in domestic or foreign legislature, I was coming up a little short on finding something so prominent and pressing that I found interesting to write about. Of course there was the onset of a new health care bill, some more very professional and mature tweets from President Trump, some court decisions, and more information regarding the immigration ban and Russian hacking allegations. However, this morning, the morning of March 22 2017, what I and the world needed to address became painfully clear. At 2:40 pm, on the streets of England's capitol outside the House of Commons, police were called to address a horrific incident. This incident, immediately taken as a serious terroristic threat, claimed the life of at least 5 people and tragically injured at least 40. Myself, and the rest of the world stood in support and solace with London and awaited updates on the situation as they became available. After a day of piecing together updates and interviews from UK local news sites in close proximation to the event, the world is left with grief and sadness for the victims, as well as many questions and a legitimate fear for the unknown landscape of our globe with frequent small-scale terroristic attacks.

I say small-scale lightly, because there is nothing small about the nature of any terroristic violence and what it is truly intended to be: an attack on democratic ideals and the safety we have so long attempted to attain and preserve. The attacker, driving a car which was hired last Thursday in Birmingham, mowed down pedestrians on Westminster Bridge at an unprecedented speed prior to crashing into a gate of Houses of Parliament. The initial reckless crash impeded catastrophic injuries to about 40 bystanders caught in midst of a unexpected and unprecedented attack on what started out as a normal day in London. The terrorist himself, armed with two knives, fatally stabbed a policeman named as PC Palmer, who was a 48 year old courageous responder, husband, and dad. Attempts to revive him were fruitless. On the scene, the assailant was then shot by police and died eventually in the hospital. The events taking place on the streets of London put Westminster on lockdown and had those in the House of Commons for the session of Parliament which was currently underway at the time of the attack locked down for 5 hours.

These small-scale attacks are dark and senseless, and usually leave the world with more questions than answers. Sadly, lone-wolf attacks are becoming normalized and more frequent on the global stage. In the wake of any attack such as today, which is ironically the anniversary of the attack on Brussels, people are quick to blame and point fingers and further a divide amongst humans. The recent line of terrorists attacks on the basis of Islamic beliefs is wrongly accrediting inhumane, senseless killing to a peaceful religion- merely a coward scapegoat for extremism. Terrorism has no religion, knows no boundaries, and has no place in our world. Terrorist attacks have vastly shaped many aspects of our everyday lives, the majority of our foreign policy, and perhaps most importantly; our views about those who are different from us. Our views on an entire religion based on a portion which practices lawlessness and evil. 

The war on terror shapes our globe and puts a face to our security fears, and the attack on London confirms recent conclusions about different levels of risk around the world. According to an article for the Daily Mail UK,  London is at greater risk of a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists than New York or Washington."London has become the pre-eminent terrorist target in Western Europe," said Jake Stratton, research director of the Control Risk Group's 2004 RiskMap report.

World leaders and people from all walks of life come together in the face of tragedy and horror. The Prime Minister spoke about the attacks, and responded with deep sadness as well as determined triumph: "The values our parliament represents - democracy, freedom, human rights, the rule of law - command the admiration and respect of free people everywhere. Any attempt to defeat those values through violence and terror is doomed to failure. Tomorrow morning, Parliament will meet as normal. We will come together as normal. And Londoners - and others from around the world who have come here to visit this great City - will get up and go about their day as normal. They will board their trains, they will leave their hotels, they will walk these streets, they will live their lives. And we will all move forward together. Never giving in to terror. And never allowing the voices of hate and evil to drive us apart." Theresa May's message is a model of perseverance in trial and a promise to uphold democratic ideals despite efforts to destroy them. 

Conspiracy or Death to Democracy?

While many are aware that the 2016 election was a unique and very emotionally-loaded topic, did it have Americans questioning the democratic process? Should the sanctity of our long-standing democratic process be questioned after the US intelligence community has claimed Russia attempted to intervene with our election? If a country founded on freedom and democratic ideals is found to no longer have free and fair elections, then what do we even have?

This accusation is not one to be taken likely, for obvious reasons like national security and such. The issue of hacking and interference is one that has been brought up and confirmed by the CIA and the intelligence community, and has been backed by a chorus of capitol hill elites- including GOP senate majority leader Mitch McConnell. In a two-party system where the two parties appear to agree on virtually nothing, this kind of bipartisan consensus that some type of interference was attempted or still in the works is miraculous and very telling of the salience of the situation. However, Trump (who is on the good end of the supposed Russian interference deal) has denied any possibility of such occurring and has ridden it off as more sabotaging ploys from the biased liberal media.

What does this all mean? What are we even talking about?

According to Jeremey Diamond for CNN, back in October of 2016 the US government announced it was fairly confident Russia orchestrated the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and other political organizations of the Democratic Party. The first public understanding of this was a little vague, and for the most part still might be. At that time it was announced that the hacks led to the public dissemination of thousands of emails which included damaging rhetoric about the Democratic party and their nominee, Hilary Clinton. The breaking of the news in October startled many that put so much faith in our democratic system, and the damning new information so close to the election had potential to really sway the polls. However, at first, intelligence agencies were not as bold as to say these efforts by the Russians were an intentional act to put Trump at the forefront for the presidency. That all changed in December 2016 when the CIA firmly told a group of top senators that Russia's hacks were explicitly carried out with the intention of helping Trump.

That is no small accusation by any means, so what brought the CIA to such a conclusion? What are they even concluding in the first place here? Their more complete analysis of evidence finds that hackers not only released the emails, but breached GOP individuals and organization in the months prior to the election. These include Republican House members and leaders of groups and non-profits in close proximity with the GOP. Something I found interesting (and maybe a little ironic) is that there is evidence of Russian digital footprints funneling money into "troll farms" spreading fake news about Clinton. Sad. Fake news and alternative facts are really prevalent today it appears. 

During Obama's last couple weeks in office he made a statement to NPR about the severity of the situation and the need for very calculated next steps for America, even going as far as to say this is a "cyber Cold War." He told NPR, "I think there is no doubt that when any foreign government tries to impact the integrity of our elections that we need to take action and we will at a time and place of our own choosing." However, as the clock ran out on his window of power to make this action he spoke of, it now shifted into the hands of Donald Trump- who denies the entire situation. That's right. He thinks the CIA is lying. About national security. And the sanctity of our democracy. Lying.

In a very intelligible quote from President Trump after the news, he says "I think it's just another excuse. I don't believe it. I don't know why and I think it's just -- you know, they talked about all sorts of things. Every week it's another excuse...No, I don't believe that at all," Trump said. "They have no idea if it's Russia or China or somebody. It could be somebody sitting in a bed some place. I mean they have no idea."

So, even if our president thinks that the intelligence breach is more likely to have been orchestrated by "someone sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds", there is actually consensus among top ranking republicans and democratic in Congress that Russia was involved in some facet of the election. This support in congress is essentially leading to an agreed front to investigate further the connections with Russian intelligence and take action accordingly. While Trump thinks this entire situation is aimed at delegitimizing his win, he is mistaken in a horrifying way. If more truth and evidence arises, this situation will delegitimize the basic principles and democratic practices with which America has upheld and fought for. This has the potential to reshape future US foreign policy and alter the layout of our relations with other countries, particularly Russia. This kind of uncertainty about the motives of the cyber attacks brings back a Cold War era chill that will absolutely have some kind of affect on America in the coming months. 

Navigating Through the Travel Ban

The way we interact with other countries is constantly evolving to meet the needs and priorities demanded by a particular time or circumstance, and sometimes these changes go virtually unnoticed by the masses if it seems routine and mundane enough. However, we are in a time of change which puts a magnifying glass on our new president's decisions in his first 100 days, and the nation is closely (and nervously) watching his splew of executive orders in rapid succession. The one that particularly affects immediate foreign policy and has the nation in respective confusion, dismay, or possibly appraisal, is the executive order on January 27th, 2017 placing a temporary ban on traveling from 7 Muslim-majority countries. The initial response to the order sparked a lot of controversy, protests, and extrapolations from the order that may not specifically be outlined in such.

sourse

The wording of the order can clear up some of the misinformation myself and others have most likely seen on the internet, because to understand how something affects us we must dive into what even does this mean?

The content of the order is broken down into 11 sections with multiple subsections for further elaboration of each focal point. The first three sections labeled policy, purpose, and suspension of Visa's contain a lot of the meat of the order and the rest focuses on implementation and logistics. The order establishes its foundation as means to protect the United States from foreign terrorist entry. As suggested in the "purpose" aspect of section 1, despite the lengthy background check process involved in visa-issuance which was revamped after the terrorist attacks on September 11th 2001, the wording of this sections asserts that the visa process has not stopped would-be terrorists from entering the country. However, I find it interesting to note that the executive order does not include any countries with which radicals have actually killed any Americans in the United States since September 11th. Perhaps even more interesting, the order did not even initially state which countries the ban would apply too at all. Hmm. It's obvious where some confusion could manifest from when the initial order fails to mention where exactly it even applies, but after the release of the order the Department of Homeland Security cleared that up with a fact sheet. Thanks guys. Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, and Yemen.

sourse

As the order began to take immediate affect, people who had been previously issued visas were detained at airports around the country and not allowed admittance. So, this is where the controversy arises. The detainment of people who had been in the country legally and now being told they must go back stirred up a splew of protests calling to release them. 

sourse

sourse

While it may be a result of pressure to assert dominance and carry out a the promises of a very national secutiry centered campaign, this immigration ban affects real people- people who have been living in the United States peacfully and productivly for years. Krishnadev Kalamur for The Atlantic writes, "There have been multiple reports since the executive order was signed of people being prevented from boarding flights; refugees, who had gone through the years-long process before being approved to come to the U.S., stranded in third world countries; of Iraqis who had worked for years with the U.S. military being denied entry; of Iranian students stuck overseas; of U.S. tech companies recalling its foreign workers because of the possible impact." Not only does the ban signify America turning our back on those in need of refuge, shelter, and compassion at no fault of their own, but it also demonstrates a shift in treatment to members of our own society. Sequentially, the detainment of families and people traveling back into the States set off a chain of protests in airports such as JFK International Airport and Los Angeles International Airport.

sourse

While the legality of Trump's actions is being called to question, individual Judges in at least 4 cities have made rulings about the detainment of people at individual airports filed by ACLU and others. These challenges to the executive order appear to be just the begining, and it appears to be the start of a domino affect of other judges doing what they can legally to play a role in the deterioration of the compassionless decision. One specific immigration lawyer, Leopold, representing two Iraqis detained at JFK airport comments that no one is questioning Trump's power to close borders to a class of person deemed detrimental to our security, but states “The problem we’ve got there is that this is unprecedented.”

Whether this is an aggresive attempt to assert dominance and remain true to lofty (and racist) campaign promises, a true push for tighter national security, or an incompassionate measure to keep those in seek of refuge from war-torn envirments out of our country will become clearer as the affects of the order arise. This new ammendment to our foreign policy has caused waves domestically and around the world, and it is just the begining. Whether you see this as American nationalism and much-needed security and peace of mind, or as morally scewed and ulteriorly motivated, I urge all to keep a close eye on the turnout of such a dramatic change to our immigraton policy.

---

Perpetual War

The way that you personally interact with those around you, whether they be friends, acquaintances, strangers, less-than favorable people, and everyone in-between, says a lot about you and your values and thought process. Some people you admire and co-align with, others you may use as leverage to help you in some way, and some make you want to turn the other way when you see them coming towards you (with good reason of course). One thing is undeniable, and that is the fact that these dynamic inter-relations to those around us are salient and help mold the world with which we live in. Mirroring the day-to-day relationships and connections we maintain in our own minuscule lives, these relationships exist on the ever-changing global scale as well. While America's involvement on the global stage may seem incomprehensible and out of the realm of the immediate importance and relevance we feel from our own personal connections to people, foreign relations play a prominent role in our every day lives even when it may feel like it doesn't.

The global stage in which international relations takes place on is characterized by fast-paced exchanges, cultural clashes, long-standing allies and enemies, and a constant and steady need to stay above the power curve. The relations among countries and America's involvement and standing with other nations is fragile and intricate, and much of the exchanges between countries happens swiftly and quietly, but still is of great importance to us as citizens who have, in my opinion, a civic obligation to understand on some level.

I intend to simplify and dissect a series of important and pressing happenings around the world that somehow involve or affect America. All countries are interrelated in multiple facets, whether that be economically, trade-wise, or legislatively.

You hear it all the time. In fact, you may have even said it yourself at some point. Why does America keep getting involved in everything? It may feel like we are constantly involved in a million things at once, every news channel you turn on flashing some piece of new involvement or tragedy taking place in a country far enough away that many citizens lightly disregard it. However, did you know this constant need to intervene and be involved in everything, even when it appears irrelevant to us as a nation, is actually intrinsic in our foreign policy practice?

With America regarded as a super power on the global scale, this power somehow transposed into an unwritten duty and license to get involved in every conflict that arises with a shred of potential of affecting America in any regard. While it may be true to say a nation with our power should have, on some levels, a responsibility to help abroad when needed and uphold democratic principles, should there be a limit to this? An extent in which we diplomatically will not go?

It is no secret that our political landscape today is vastly different than that a the start of the 21st century. The blueprints for much of our foreign policy procedures today roots from the national security doctrine of President Roosevelt and President Truman. To sum it up, historian Charles Beard described this diplomacy as "perpetual war for perpetual peace." It's an Orwellian nightmare that only  only gets darker and more involved in the after-math of 9/11.

War is peace, right?

George Orwell's 1984

Post 9/11 rhetoric and the legislature that came out of it, known as the Patriot Act, enabled greater executive powers which made military action abroad and domestic data collection (spying) on citizens somehow justifiable. According to Caroline Modarressy-Tehrani,  the mindset of a post 9/11 world and the declaration of War on Terror solidified many policies that had been in the works long before Bush took office.

Basically, the act allowed for the executive branch to take whatever action they felt was necessary to protect the United States from terrorism, and all of the sudden any infringement on privacy domestically and involvement internationally was magically justified.

                   

American Military Presence Abroad

So if it feels like we are always at war, that's because we are. And we are because that is the ground work of our foreign policy procedure.

At his last count, Kevin Gosztola put the U.S. war count at 74. So while Iraq and Afghanistan come to mind, we must not fail to acknowledge the other countless wars we are simultaneously involved in that are often undeclared and unannounced.

This understanding of American tendencies abroad and where it comes from is paramount when attempting to dissect world issues today. International relations parallels the importance of personal relations in your own life, except on a much larger and deadlier scale.