The past two years have been very tough for Syria. The civil war has caused a huge economic downfall. According to New York Times, in the past two years unemployment has multiplied five times its prewar value, and the economy as a whole has shrunk 35%. This downfall began in 2011-2012 when Syrian security forces used tanks, gunfire, and mass arrests to stop anti-government protests exhilarated by the revolutionary wave that started in Tunisia, Egypt, and Lybia. These small protests have now evolved into a huge civil war.
The US has now been brought into this because of Syria's use of chemical weapons on their citizens, which violates international law, and also its constant support for democratization. The question is whether the United states chooses to intervene with force to remove the Assad regime from power, which would bring justice to the chemical warfare aspect of the problem, and also could create a new democracy. Having a democracy in Syria is not the only way this problem can be solved, but because of the United States selfishness we believe that the only way to run a country would be with a democracy. John Mills states that democracy has not worked in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, but instead has caused more trouble for the countries. This does not stop our belief in democratization because it is the self interest of the US to do this.
My last post was about Adam Smith's Of Sympathy, and I think that the United States involvement in Syria relates directly to this selection. "Of this kind is pity or compassion, the emotion which we feel for the misery of others, when we either see it, or are made to conceive it in a very lively manner"(Smith). The United States has acknowledged the misery the citizens of Syria have gone through. Chemical warfare has killed 1,429 people. Obama feels for these people and wants to avenge their deaths with international justice. I think the United states stance in helping the Syrian people is also one of self interest.
I think that the United states stance on democratizing Syria is one of self interest that displays the selfishness of the country. On the other hand I think the United States stance on intervening in Syria to help the poor citizens is one of self interest but with out selfishness.
Connor,
ReplyDeleteI believe from a personal perspective you are spot on. Perhaps President Obama and other federal elites feel bad for the citizens of Syria and their democracy-deprived current way of living. But you might consider that the U.S. government would require far more than sympathy to engage in what could potentially turn out to be a full-blown war with a nation we seldom interact with. I do, however, like your direct correlation between Smith and this situation and find your analysis very interesting.
Cullen Cosco
Connor, I agree with you on how the United States can intervene with a sense of self interest that could be between selfishness or one of altruistic intentions. Maybe intervening Syria and putting them into a democracy isn't the right thing to do because of the other failures but there are a few different steps that the United States can take. I think the selfishness of the United States if they were to intervene, should be taken with an open mind because the consequences of the United States, if something were to go wrong are very high.
ReplyDeleteHey Connor,
ReplyDeleteI think it's particularly interesting to view different nations and see where they lie politically in terms to the rest of the world. Syria is clearly amid all sorts of problems internally as the people try to gain control from their dictator. It's obvious that some change will happen in the coming years for that country, but it shouldn't be forced from exterior forces because they simply do not belong, as you said John Mills says. I agree with your points as you make out the situation very clearly and make it easy to understand.
Interesting premise. So it works as follows, if I follow correctly: promoting democracy is a type of selfish self-interest, because it serves our goals but offers little to the Syrian people. Does this mean that you feel that the democracy would somehow be fake? Democracy seems like it would have some benefit, but it could certainly be a selfish goal if this were a mere pretext. The other claim is that we have a self-interest in justice, but one that is not selfish. Is the self-interest here one that derives from the positive feeling at doing good, or from a positive benefit in enforcing international norms?
ReplyDelete