Double Standard in the Middle East

In recent weeks,the Arab world has plummeted into more chaos with the
recent demonstrations in Syria.The demonstrations in Syria follows what
appears to be a domino effect of revolutions across the Middle East and North Africa that started in Tunisia and escalated into Egypt and then Libya.
As a result,both Tunisia and Egypt has seen their governments toppled by mass protests stage by citizens in their country.Usually, those protest organizers utilized social networks such as Facebook and Twitter to rally the masses. However, in Libya, Colonel Gadhaffi has refuse to step down leading to NATO implementing a no fly zone over Libya with increase pressure from the international community for Gadhaffi to step down and respect his people wishes. Gadhaffi has refused and civil war has claimed hundreds of lives across Libya,especially in the rebel's stronghold of Misrata. This time around, it seems Syria under the control of Bashar Al- Assad, is utilizing the same tactics as Libya's Gadhaffi to crackdown on mass protest which has angered the international community. Yet, the United States has yet to intervene militaryly. And will they?

According to the New York Times article "U.S. Moves Cautiously Against Syrian Leaders," the Obama administration has moved to impose
ecnomoic sanctions against three high level Syrian officials, including a brother and cousin of Syria's regime leader Bashar Al-Assad. Also, the Times states that the Obama Administration has not considered military action yet. Well tell me Mr. Obama, What makes Syria so different from Libya? Is Al-Assad not brutally cracking down on protesters with his men even killing protesters? Does the blood of citizens on the streets of Syria constitute the same drive and passion dedicated to help the Libyan people? Is that all Al-Assad gets, economic sanctions?


Not Surprisingly though, analyst and experts has found a reason to explain
why the U.S has not voice a hard line towards Syria. In the Times article,
Steven A.Cook,senior fellow for Middle East studies at the Council on Foreign Relations,has stated that the "Syria is important in a way that
Libya is not." Cook goes on to explain that There is no central U.S. interest engaged in Libya.But a greatly destabilized Syria has implications for Iraq, it has implications for Lebanon, it has implications for Israel.” In addition, in the most recent CNN report "U.S. slaps sanctions on top Syrian officials," states the U.S has less leverage over Syria than Libya, and that the U.S. is under pressure from allies such as Israel and Saudi Arabia who fear that "Assad's departure could produce a more radical Syria and encourage further revolutions." In essence, if the U.S intervenes in Syria, radical and extremist groups could takeover the country, further plunging the country into turmoil and risking American endeavors in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Thus, it is apparent the U.S. is leading a Double Standard here. Al-Assad
actions are no less or no more worse than Colonel Gadhaffi in Libya and military option should be exercised despite the implications. After all, were there not implications to imposing a fly zone over Libya too? And According to the Washington Post, Syria is a nation listed on the U.S State Department as a terrorist sponsored country, yet the U.S is still engaging in formal diplomatic talks with Syria. How soothing to protestors and the American people. And how about those economic sanctions? The U.S did not even impose a direct sanction against Al- Assad and according to the times, those sanctions are not that effective given that Syrian leaders usually hold their money in Middle Eastern and European banks, which is beyond the reach of the treasury. In other words, those sanctions are pointless. The U.S should learn from the past that economic sanctions is not sufficient enough. CNN reports that as far back as 2004, the Bush administration had imposed sanctions on Syria, including a ban that halterd all trade between the U.S and Syria. By and large,those provisions has fell short.

Simply put, if the U.S wants to act as the International police then it should act accordingly in ALL regions of the world. The same actions in Libya that warranted military actions, albeit small scale operations, should be employed in Syria. If the U.S, due to "diplomatic pressure" cannot properly enforce its rules and act in the interest of citizens all over the world equally by the provisions it sets before it self which warrants intervention, then how can those people in Syria and elsewhere in the world have faith that Uncle Sam will rescue them. If not, then the U.S should only focus on its domestic affairs. As I am writing this, 100 protesters were killed by Syrian Soldiers the Washington post writes. Sadly enough, Obama did not answer the 3 am calls for help. Obama and his administartion acting in Libya gave hope for protesters tired of corrupt regime hope that they would be rescued, but only that light of hope is slowly beginning to fade as people realize the U.S does not have that much power and leverage in all parts of the world. The U.S. is simply
acting where its self interest is deemed more significant. And even more
surprisingly,American journalist are treating the unrest in the Arab world
as a human interest story, tending not to focus on the long term solutions
and policy. By the neutral and objective reporting of CNN, NY Times, and the Washington Post, respectable news agencies in their own rights, they
need to step up the media pressure on the Obama administration to
act in the same manner or more just as in the case of Libya.

sources :

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/04/29/syria.sanctions/index.html?iref=allsearch

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/30/world/middleeast/30policy.html?ref=politics

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/thousands-of-syrians-protest-military-crackdown/2011/04/29/AFeX9aDF_story.html