Many Reasons Behind US Inaction In Syria
Why Won’t The US Become Involved More Actively In Syria?
Aaron David Miller argues the reason for the reluctance of the US to become more involved in Syria is quite simple – Iran. Specifically, the nuclear deal with Iran.
Miller, vice president for new initiatives and a distinguished scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, writes in Foreign Policy that “avoiding a confrontation with Iran is the president’s core goal in the Middle East.”
He says the failure of diplomacy could increase the risk “of three very unpleasant things happening go up: first, Obama getting blamed for being the leader on whose watch the mullahs got the bomb; second, Israel striking Iran; and third, America having to do the same thing, or getting dragged into an Israeli-Iran fight.”
Writing in The Christian Science Monitor, Howard LaFranchi believes the inaction by the international community is more complicated. He says that part of the reason is that there is no strong lobbying community, like there was for dealing with the genocide in Darfur, while others argue it is a result of Americans’ reluctance to become involved in another Middle East war and the lack of “good options” available to policymakers.
“Another explanation for a lack of public outrage might be the dearth of human-interest stories out of Syria, some regional experts say. The challenges that journalists face in getting stories from the ground-level of Syria’s conflict ‘could be the reason the heart-tugging stories that we [aid workers] hear and see every day are going under-reported,’ says Uma Kandalayeva, Jordan country director for [the non-profit International Relief and Development] IRD.”
Unaffected by anything the international community is doing, Syrian government forces resumed bombing Yabroud, the last
rebel stronghold in the Qalamoun mountains, according to the BBC.
Even more striking, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported that approximately 5,000 people, or an average of 236 people killed daily, have died since the Geneva II talks began on January 22.
Will The Next Global War Begin With China And Japan?
Alistair Burnett considers whether Asia will be the center of the next global. Burnett dismisses comparisons some have drawn between the current tensions in Asia and the environment precipitating the start of World War I, but concedes “conflict between China and Japan could still be a possibility.”
During recent meetings in Davos, Switzerland, Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe compared the current state of relations between Japan and China to that of Britain and Germany before the start of World War I a century ago.
“If a conflict between Beijing and Tokyo were to break out, the US could not bank on its other ally in the region, Seoul, given the tense relations between South Korea and Japan which have their own territorial and historical disputes. So Washington would choose between honoring its defense treaty with Japan and avoiding direct conflict with China. As Washington would stand to lose the trust of many allies in the region and is not noted for eating humble pie, the odds would suggest support for Japan. So if there is any parallel with 1914, it could turn out to be in how cascading alliance commitments can cause a wider war,” he writes.
European Union Seeking To Weaken US Control Over Web
Neelie Kroes, the European Union’s chief of technology, said she believes globalization of the Internet would “and called on the US and UN to back a multistakeholder model of governance. Europe is hoping to weaken US control over the Internet, a goal which gained renewed support on the Continent following the disclosure that the US was spying on its European allies.