Wait a minute – why was Bolton even asked about the possibility of sanctions? What would be the purpose? The whole world has been pretty sure for some time that the Syrian government was behind Hariri’s death. The Lebanese people reacted by rising up and throwing the Syrians out of their country. That fight has been won. What would be the point, now, of any kind of international response? Hauling the responsible parties before the ICC might be a good idea, but not one worth going to war over, or even imposing sanctions.
That’s silly. If the Syrians were involved as a matter of policy, then they need to be punished by the international community.
Why? International sanctions traditionally are imposed to encourage a state to change some existing policy – not to punish it for past transgressions.
How about the policy of assissnating those people that disagree with them?
Sanctions might get them to publicy repudiate that policy (without admitting they ever had it), but that’s all. It’s just something governments do. How many times has the CIA tried to take out Castro?
Just because that’s traditionally what has happened doesn’t mean that’s what always needs to happen. There ought to be an international response, and full out war is overkill. Impose sanctions for five years.
Of course, no reason you can’t attach conditions to the sanctions, such as, say, stopping the funding of Hizbollah or something. Get creative.
Careful. Based on recent experience, that kind of “creativity” can be a prelude to an invasion – even over a casus belli that might not have been considered sufficient by itself, if not compounded with resistance to international demands.
What do you then propose as an alternative BG? Do nothing? Use strong language?
-XT
Why do anything? The Syrian-Lebanese conflict is over. Hariri triumphed from beyond the grave.
But it’s not. Syria still has influence there, and will continue to do so so long as there’s a sympathetic ear to listen. Sanctions would be a way to say that the horrible regime that runs the country is not well-regarded by the rest of the world. Seriously, I’m surprised they haven’t been sanctioned for years.
For the same reason countries always impose sanctions…as a punishment and a future warning. Besides, who said the Syrian-Lebanese conflict is over? Syria is still involved with Lebanon, even if in a covert way…bank on it. If you simply ignore this then you are basically saying to the Syrians that you don’t care…and at least backhandedly encouraging them to similar adventures in the future.
I will agree however that war would be silly. Sanctions though? Yeah…I think that would be appropriate.
-XT
But how can we be sure it would end with sanctions?
Well, how can we be sure of anything BG? Its one of those sticky situations that tend to crop up in life. Do we do nothing and perhaps encourage the Syrians to play more raindeer games? Do we put forth sanctions that may have no effect at all? Do we put on sanctions and they have GW rise, like an evil vampire, and declare himself king of the world…using the sanctions as an excuse? There just isn’t any way to know.
I say doing nothing would be the worst action. I’m willing to take the chance and am simply laying in a stock of wooden stakes and garlic…
-XT
[QUOTE=xtisme]
I say doing nothing would be the worst action.
[QUOTE]
If we do nothing, what exactly are you afraid will happen?
Sanctions-as-punishment would be a bad idea IMO - they would not accomplish anything positive, just add support by patriotic Syrians for the Assad regime and support by Arabs who resent what they’d see as Western meddling for Syria.
But sanctions or the threat of sanctions to enforce cooperation with a prosecution might do some good. The requirement would be for Syria to fully cooperate with, and extradite indictees to, an independent court (Lebanese or international). The precedent would be the UN sanctions against Libya to enforce cooperation with the Lockerbie trial.
It might go beyond sanctions. I believe there is a chance that a number of high-ranking Syrian regime officials may be charged with crimes under international law.
Here’s the UN Report.
The prime suspect, Asef Shawkat, is the head of Syrian intelligence, and is married to Bashir Assad’s daughter. If the U.N. demands that he be brought to justice, it will be interesting to see how Syria responds.
Bush is now calling for a special UN session over this: http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/21/bush.hariri/index.html
Update: Tony Blair is refusing to “rule out” sanctions on Syria. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4373596.stm But Russia is vowing to block any sanctions. http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4§ion=0&article=72338&d=27&m=10&y=2005
Gee, there’s a shocker.
-XT
Looks like the UN Security Council is all set to vote, this week, on sanctions on Syria should the government fail to cooperate with a UN probe into Hariri’s murder: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N30314334.htm Russia and China are against the measure but are not expected to veto it.