Throughout the semester I have been focusing my research blog on the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war. When the semester began, my research was based on very general information in regards to the chemical weaponry, such as the deception behind the destruction, the Geneva Convention, the OPCW (Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons), and the attacks that occurred, such as the one in Damascus. As the semester progressed I delved into more detailed aspects of the use of the deadly weapons. I looked into topics and ideas such as the use of barrel bombs, the destruction of the chemical weapons, the psychological aspects behind the weapons, and much more. Additionally, throughout the semester I have been relating all of my topics of discussion back to ideas mentioned in our textbooks as well as in our lectures. With my final blog post I hope to summarize all my posts into a more organized fashion and relate it back to the different globalization perspectives, as well as the role that the chemical weapons have played in the Arab Spring and to Controversies of Globalization.
First, I want to focus on the background of the Syrian civil war. This first article I posted on Diigo about this topic was from BBC news. It provided eight miniature chapters about different aspects of the civil war. There is information pertaining to the proxy war, peace efforts, rebels and the rise of jihadists, humanitarian crisis, chemical weapons, war crimes, descent into civil war, and when the uprising turned violent. This link seemed to be mainly unbiased but only mentioned the positive acts of the rebels and the negative acts of the regime. Opposing, the second article I posted on Diigo gave the negative acts of both the regime and the rebels. It clearly stated how most believe the rebels to be the victims simply fighting for their freedom. However, both the regime and the rebels have been accused of killing innocent civilians throughout the bloody civil war. It was interesting getting to read the two different accounts on the Syrian civil war. Reading the two different perspectives towards one issue reminded me of Controversies in Globalization where we read different yes and no arguments towards different topics.
Next and most important, I want to give my general information in regards to the chemical weapons, followed by the more detailed aspects that I covered towards the end. The first question I asked myself in regards to my topic was “what is going on recently with the chemical warfare that has made so many big news headlines?”. There was and still is a great amount of deception occurring in Syria .The first article I posted on Diigo pertaining to the deception was from October 7, 2014 from HAARETZ. The article stated the discovery of four new chemical weapons facilities in Syria. The facilities included three facilities for research and development and one for production. The article stated that there are concerns that Syria continues to hide information regarding the existence of more chemical weaponry facilities. My second article that I posted on Diigo was the report from Aljazeera, confirming the use of chemical weapons in Syria. The report stated that even though an effort was launched in 2013 following the Damascus attack to eliminate Syria’s chemical weapons that chemical attacks on the people of Syria still exist. The information that I learned from this blog post prompted me to do research in regards to the process of removing the chemical weapons from Syria and the organization that is responsible for such a project.
Two of my articles I posted on Diigo both pertain to Syria joining the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). The first article was posted on October 14, 2013 in The Hindu. The article stated that Syria joined OPCW and with the joining had to eliminate their chemical weapons, including all stocks and related facilities. The hope is that by joining OPCW fewer fatalities will occur in Syria through chemical warfare against its civilians. The second article was posted in August of 2014. It is a first hand account of the Syrian attacks in Damascus from a survivor and his thoughts about Syria joining the OPCW. Sadly, the survivor stated that with the removal of chemical warfare would come different war tactics such as starvation. The survivor is reaching out to the United States in hopes for helping Syrian civilians in an unfair battle between the Assad regime and the people of Damascus. Both articles that I posted are related through the discussion of the OPCW but have different points of view. The first article is hopeful that the joining of OPCW will help Syria but the second article counteracts the first by referring to the new war tactic of starvation. Reading the different points of view makes me think about the yes and no arguments in Controversies of Globalization– “Nuclear weapons: Should the United States or the International Community Aggressively Pursue Nuclear Nonproliferation Policies”. In this chapter, Sagan and Pauly are arguing in favor of nuclear nonproliferation policies and Sechser is making the counter argument. Sagan and Pauly believe that nuclear weapons are a challenge of the 21st century and that we need some form of nuclear deterrence. Similar to their argument, the OPCW believes that the removal of the chemical weapons is for the best and that the chemical weapons are a danger that can have catastrophic results.
Furthering the discussion on organizations that control weapons, I want to discuss the role that the Geneva Convention plays in regards to the legality of the chemical weapons in Syria. My first article on the Geneva Convention is from Al Jazeera from August 2013. The article looks into why it is not illegal for Syria to use chemical warfare against its people. The article first states that Syria has been reluctant to sign any treaties such as the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993 or the “Rome Statute” that would make it illegal to use chemical warfare against it’s civilians. Next, the article states that Syria did sign the Geneva Convention but the problem with that is that it only pertains to wars between states and not civil wars, making Syria still not legally at fault. Syria still continues to use chemical warfare without any regards to the safety or health of its citizens. My second article is from New Republic. This article states that if Bashar al Assad’s use of chemical weapons in a suburb is true, then why isn’t the United States acting to protect the Syrian civilians. This article, contrary to the one mentioned earlier, says that Syria is legally at fault in regards to chemical warfare because they signed the Geneva Convention. Both of the articles mentioned Syria’s signature on the Geneva Convention but had different outlooks as to if Syria should be held legally responsible and if international groups or other countries should intervene. Both articles state that Syria is not treating their civilians humanely but that it is not an issue of human rights as much as it is an issue of legality and international intervention. The information of the Geneva Convention and the human rights issues occurring in Syria relate to the chapter in Controversies of Globalization, “military intervention and human rights” that we read in class. Deciding whether or not to interfere between the Syrian rebels and the regime has many factors to consider. The chapter in COG covers the different opinions towards military intervention and whether protecting human rights justifies it. After reading these articles, I wondered as to if Syria is committing an illegal act. Before reading these articles I had assumed that using chemical warfare against civilians would be illegal but never considered under what treaty or law. Additionally, the question as to whether or not the U.S. or other countries should use military force is harder to answer. I believe people who can’t protect themselves should receive assistance but at what cost?
The Syrian people are now receiving assistance from outside states and organizations in an attempt to destroy all chemical weapons and facilities where they are created. The first article I posted in regards to the destruction of the chemical weapons is from i24 news, written on March 3, 2015. This article is very hopeful towards the destruction of all chemical warfare facilities and products. The article states that 1,300 metric tons have already been destroyed and that they are expecting to have the thirteen above ground facilities, five underground facilities, and many aircrafts destroyed by the summer of 2015. Additionally, two of the facilities have already been destroyed. The second article from U.S. News has a different outlook on the destruction of the chemical weaponry stockpile. This article is more skeptical and believes that it is entirely possible for Syria, and in particular the Islamic State, to have hidden stockpiles and is concerned about the discrepancy between what we know and what actually exists. The two articles are about the destruction of the chemical stockpiles in Syria, but one article is optimistic and the other is pessimistic. Similar to article discussed earlier, this article relates back to Controversies of Globalization “Military Intervention and Human Rights: Is Foreign Military Intervention Justified by Widespread Human Rights Abuse?”, According to the different perspectives, Donnelly would vote in favor of helping the Syrian people but must consider first if the human rights abuse justifies the use of military armed humanitarian intervention. Contrary, Bandow would vote against the humanitarian intervention because of the argument that humanitarian intervention isn’t humanitarian and that military action does not promote goodness.
There have been many attacks against the Syrian people that have promoted the response of the OPCW and the fellow state actors such as the United States. It began with the attack in Damascus on August 21, 2013 and has led to the attack on March 16, 2015. The first article I posted about the attacks was about the newest attack on the Syrian people by the Assad regime. The attack occurred Monday, March 16, in a northwestern village in Syria. The attack killed at least six people and injured many others. The weapon used is believed to be chlorine gas. The second article I posted on Diigo was about the uncertainty towards the fact that all of the chemical weapons and facilities in Syria are indeed being reported and destroyed. The uncertainty that followed the most recent attack on the Syrian people led to the doubts of the OPCW. The OPCW is not positive that there are no more chemical weapons in the hands of the Syrian regime. Both of these articles are related because without the regime having hidden stock piles of chemical weapons they would not be able to carry out attacks against the Syrian people, like that which occurred on March 16. There are clearly more chemical weapons that have not been reported and that still remain in the hands of the Assad regime. This relates to class through the chapter in Controversies in Globalization, “Military Intervention and Human Rights”. The removal of chemical weapons from Syria is not a military intervention but it does require other countries to obtain and destroy the weapons. Syria is committing genocide against it’s own people by displacing them which, as mentioned by Jack Donnelly in Controversies of Globalization, is a clear abuse to human rights that requires intervention. The UN has not yet decided to have military action in Syria but instead is removing all chemical weapons from the Assad regime.
Throughout the weeks of research I came across a few different types of globalization perspective but one in particular was highly prevalent. Political liberalism was the main perspective I came across during my research. First, political liberalism has key actors of states, multinational corporations, and non-state actors. The key actors involved in the destruction and control of the chemical weapons are the United States and Russia, both state actors, and the OPCW and the UN, both multinational corporations. Second, political liberalism has trans boundary forces of military, economic, and cultural. We see these forces through the arming of Syrian rebels by the United States as well as the thousands of dollars being used in both the destruction of the chemical weapons as well as humanitarian aide. Lastly, the general assessment of political liberalism towards globalization is mixed which is seen throughout the different perspectives stated when comparing the same issue.
The use of chemical weapons in Syria is directly related to the Arab Spring because it is essentially the continuation of it. The Arab Spring is a revolution that consists of mass amounts of violent and peaceful protests across the Arab countries in hopes of overthrowing the current powers that exist within each country. The Syrian civil war is just one battle of the mass amounts that exist within the Arab world. The use of chemical weaponry in Syria is one of the driving forces of the ongoing crisis in Syria. The killing of tens of thousands of people is leading to more and more unrest in the country with immense amounts of fear for all Syrian civilians.
After doing all of my research I am much more knowledgeable of not only chemical weapons but also the Syrian civil war and why it is occurring. I am curious to see how the destruction of all of the chemical weapons will pan out in the next year or so. I truly believe that the Assad regime is hiding stockpiles of weapons and will continue to use them against the Syrian population. Just like any other government, including the United States, no one knows all that is occurring and there will forever be secrets that we do not know the answers to. As to how long this civil war will continue, I’m not sure but for the sake of the lives of the innocent Syrian people it hopefully will not last much longer.