Since the creation of the United States judiciary system many scholars have praised the Supreme Court for its ability to be somewhat politically independent from the other branches. While the Court does enjoy some political independence, most decisions handed down by the Court are highly political and have a long lasting impact on the political landscape of American government and society. In this essay I will analyze the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade (1973), how it has affected American politics, and how it exemplifies the Supreme Court as a political institution. Even though I find myself on the side on women’s rights, I still contend that the ruling made was highly legislative in nature, and in many ways has transformed the Supreme Court from a legal court into a political institution indelibly immersed in the partisan politics present in the other branches. Moreover, this is dangerous for Americans, because the people have always used the courts as an outlet to address its grievances against the other more politically charged branches. If the Supreme Court’s rulings are too saturated in the political views of one party or another, in some manner it defeats the purpose of an unbiased legal judiciary.
In 1969 Norma McCorvey became pregnant with her third child and sought to procure an abortion. Texas criminal law at the time only allowed abortions for the purpose of saving a woman’s life. McCorvey, under the alias Jane Roe, brought a class action suit against Texas challenging the constitutionality of the state’s abortion laws. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court. The question before the court was whether the Constitution allowed women the right to terminate their pregnancy. In 1973 the Court held in a 7-2 vote that a woman’s right to an abortion fell within the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment that has been interpreted to protect the individual’s right to privacy. The Court’s ruling also setup a Trimester Framework, which stated that during the first trimester, the woman has complete autonomy over her pregnancy. In the second trimester, the woman still has the choice of procuring an abortion, but states may regulate to only promote the interests of maternal health and safety. In the third trimester, states‘ interests in preserving the life of the unborn become powerful; so they may limit or ban abortions except when necessary to save a mothers life (O’Brien, p13).
This ruling, in my estimation, seems highly legislative. By creating certain guidelines and steps one must follow in procuring an abortion the Court has seemingly stepped beyond policy making through judicial review into writing and voting upon their own laws. Immediately following the Court’s ruling, reactions were very mixed. While many citizens were initially quiet, political interest groups and organizations quickly drew their opinions. Abortion supporters felt it was a victory for women’s rights and privacy, but on the other hand opponents were infuriated with the Court and believed it had made itself a “super legislature”. With the addition of the Trimester Framework it is clear that the Court was trying to politically appease all sides of the debate.
Going into the 80’s, 90’s and recent elections, the Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade (1973) has been a major issue in American politics. It has become all but necessary for political leaders and candidates to express their opinion on abortion. The concept of pro-life and the opposition of the Court’s ruling in Roe have been a part of the Republican platform for decades (O’Brien p18). Likewise, support of Roe and of a woman’s right to choose has been endorsed by multiple Democrat Presidents like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Reagan, throughout his time in office, pushed Congress to implement more legal protections for the unborn. However, failure to get legislation, statutes and amendments passed led his administration to purse federal appointments of judges and justices to the bench that shared his similar ideology. Ultimately he would initiate abortion legislation in the hope that packing the Court might overturn the ruling in Roe (O’Brien, p18).
This is a prime example of how the Supreme Court has become a powerful political instrument and institution. In 1988 Reagan’s administration sought to challenge the ruling in Roe, in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1988), but subsequently found little success (O’Brien, p20). While the Court did not overrule Roe it did intensify a renewed look at the issue. By the time Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey(1992) made it to the Supreme Court much of the high bench had changed. The last two liberal justices, William Brennan Jr. and Thurgood Marshall, had retired and been replaced by much more conservative justices, David Souter and Clarence Thomas. Only Justice Blackmun remained on the bench as one of the original seven members in the majority during Roe (O’Brien, p22). The balance of the Court had shifted so much that they proceeded to redefine and reject much of the Court’s ruling in Roe, and in the following years allowed the states to implement more restrictions on the procurement and availability of abortions (O’Brien, p26).
In Planned Parenthood, Justices Souter, Kennedy, and O’Conner no longer became concerned with the legal case facts and constitutional questions, but the Court’s institutional integrity and legitimacy. They believed if the Court overturned Roe it would be looked at as a political institution and arm of the other branches, whose decisions simply change according to the political views of those who sit on the bench and not the principles of law (O’Brien, p27). The Supreme Court is no longer and maybe has never been politically independent. It is not merely a “Temple of Law”, but a major political institution. Roe and later abortion cases have not only divided the Court based on constitutional interpretations, but has divided the Court over its purpose in American government (O’Brien, p26). Because of the concern that the Court’s integrity could be at stake, I believe that the plurality opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) that upheld abortion as legally protected under the Fourteenth Amendment was a way to validate Roe, and ultimately themselves.
As stated in my introduction, scholars have praised the Supreme Court for being politically independent from the others branches, but this concept does not match reality. The fact is, Supreme Court Justices are not much more politically independent than the President or Congressmen. I attest that the Court becoming a political institution not only hurts its legitimacy, but makes it dangerous. No longer are justices viewed as good judges who interpret and apply the law in a judicious and competent manner, but instead by their political views and beliefs (Leiva, 2004). For decades people have used the Supreme Court as an outlet to address their grievances with the government. Many minority citizens, like African Americans, have used the Judicial Branch to redress issues that the other branches chose to ignore or oppose. Therefore, the increased politicalization of the Supreme Court gives control of the Constitution to the political party in power, which completely defeats the purpose of “separation of powers” or the ability of the Supreme Court to protect the people from the other branches.
The idea that the Judicial Branch is the least dangerous branch, which was declared by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No.78, is both right and wrong. It is right because the court’s lack the purse or military force, but it is also wrong because the courts have become politically intertwined and no longer separate from the other branches. In a way the courts have sold there powers to the other branches. Counter to Hamilton’s prophecy, this has made the Judicial Branch just as dangerous as the others; after all, none of these men and women are elected by the people and can sit on the bench for life. In the end, we should be troubled by the political nature of the Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade (1973). The Court has become a political institution, and not a good reflection of the ideological views of the nation as a whole, but the political views of the Justices and their prospective parties. Furthermore, it would have been more prudent had the justices actually acknowledged that this was a matter in which the country is largely divided, and that perhaps the Court is not exactly the best institution to adjudge the question, for now.
O’Brien, David M. Storm Center. New York: Norton, 2008
Leiva, David E. “Supreme Court A Political Institution, Says Scalia” http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum6/HTML/002091.html (2004)
The film Casablanca is about an exiled American, Rick Blaine, who runs the most popular night club in Casablanca, Morocco. During World War II many Europeans fled from the fascist controlled continent seeking refuge in America and other places around the world. Casablanca acts as the backdrop of the movie, but more importantly is one of the last stops out of the controlled territories. Nevertheless, people can only leave the region if they have obtain exit visas, which are extremely difficult to come by. Amidst the scramble to get out of town, the cynical Blaine comes into the possession of two valuable letters of transit. Around that time, Nazi Major Strasser arrives in Casablanca. Doing what he can to impress the Major, Cheif of Police, Captain Renault, continually trys to detain a Czechoslovakian underground leader, Victor Laszlo. Lazslo arrives with Ilsa, his wife, and Rick’s one time love. Rick is very bitter towards Ilsa, who ran out on him in Paris, and therefore he finds difficulty in helping Laszlo and Ilsa escape the Nazis.
Overall, the film tells the story of a man’s struggle within himself towards moral awakening. At the beginning of the film, Rick is a cynical and sullen person who drinks by himself and doesn’t care much for politics or any kind of deep human relationship. In a sense Rick is very much an existentialist character, he cares very little about what other people think or do and tends to only think and act upon the beliefs and ideals he values. Rick expresses his basic attitude saying, “I stick my neck out for nobody.” By the end of the film, Rick overcomes his bitterness, self-pity and disillusionment by becoming a self-sacrificing idealist, who is seemingly committed to the underground movement’s fight against Fascism.
While Casablanca does speaks to the idea of romance and the power of love, it is much more than just a love story. It is a deep and moving political thriller and allegory that encompasses a staggering number of philosophical and political issues. The movie is based in a World War II context in which fascist political and economic powers have imprisoned millions of people and are actively killing and oppressing whomever they can. Some courageous people are fighting against this tyranny, most are trying desperately to escape from it, and others, like Rick, are trying to get along with it. However, by the end of the film he must make a dire choice and truly come to terms with his ethics and the relationships he deeply values.
After reading a bit more about Casablanca, I found it interesting that many film critics tend to equate the character of Rick Blaine, with the United States’ actions in World War II. Rick, who is American, is a larger metaphor for the United State’s movement from neutrality to war. Like America, in the beginning, Rick has no interest in taking sides or getting involved in the politics of Europe, but by the end of the film he is fully engaged in fighting fascism. This awakening is sealed in the end when Rick helps Laszlo and Ilsa escape and in the process kill’s the Nazi Major. Subsequently he is protected by the French Captain Renault, further deepening his awakening. Rick says to the French Captain, “this is the beginning of a beautiful relationship”, which in my estimation represents America’s willingness to befriend and fight with the free forces of Europe.
The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is an intergovernmental organization of twelve of the worlds largest oil producing and exporting countries. The members include Algeria, Angola, Ecuador, Gabon, Nigeria, United Arab Emirates and the five founding members, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela (Brief History, 2012). The organization was created at the Baghdad Conference on September 10-14, 1960, in Baghdad, Iraq (Brief History, 2012).
According to OPEC statutes, it was founded to bring together and coordinate petroleum policies of its members, in order to secure fair and stable prices for petroleum producers and a stable supply of petroleum to consuming nations; as well as a fair return of capital to industry investors (Mission, 2012). Largely, OPEC is an association of nationalized manufacturers or suppliers of oil that attempt to maintain high price levels while limiting competition for the mutual benefit of its members. By increasing or decreasing oil production in member states they can determine oil prices and reserves on a global scale.
OPEC, consists of three main organs for the running and function of the organization. The first is the Conference, which is the supreme authority of the organization and is charged with formulating the organizations policies and the processes by which to implement them (OPEC Statute, p.5). The Conference consists of a delegation representing each of the member countries (OPEC Statute, p.5). It also decides upon the application of new member states as well as the appointment of the Board of Governors (OPEC Statute, p.5).
The second is the Board of Governors which is composed of Governors nominated by member countries and approved by the Conference (OPEC Statute, p.9). The Board of Governors purpose is to manage and implement the decisions of the Conference and to submit a budget to the Conference for approval (OPEC Statute, p.9). Governors construct the Conference agenda as well as submit recommendations to the Conference based on overall affairs of the organization (OPEC Statute, p.9).
The final organ of OPEC is the Secretariat, which carries out executive actions of the organization under the direction of the Board of Governors (OPEC Statute, p.12). The Secretariat is run by the Secretary General and staff who are the legal representatives of the organization (OPEC Statue, p.12). The Secretary General must be a legal citizen of a member country to be appointed by the Conference and must reside at OPEC’s headquarters in Vienna, Austria to operate day to day functions (OPEC Statute, p.12).
OPEC was formed during a period of time in which large scale decolonization occurred. Newly independent and developing countries sought out a way to gain complete sovereignty over their natural resources to further their economic development. The original contracts between oil producing countries and the mainly western oil companies were seen as unfair exploitation (Bird and Malcolm). Prior to OPEC international petroleum was a very close knit oligopoly, controlled by the seven big oil companies known as the “Seven Sisters”.
The ensuing national take over of member domestic oil industries as well as a growing connection between oil producing countries led to the formation of OPEC as well as the decrease of the “Seven Sisters” power in the international oil industry (Bird and Malcolm). The collaboration of these large oil producing nations has made the organization very powerful and influential within the world economy. In 2010 OPEC members collectively held 79% of the worlds crude oil and 44% of its production capacity (Shahriari, p.7). In 2011 OPEC broke the $1 trillion earning mark, netting its greatest profits in history (Shahriari, p.7).
OPEC is a highly controversial organization primarily due to its economic power and willingness to assert that power in international affairs. Arab nations, many of which are OPEC members, have ascertained that they can use their oil as a political and economic weapon against other nations (Horton, 2011). Angered by US support of Israel during the Yom Kippur War of 1973, OPEC members, mainly Iran and Saudi Arabia, placed an oil embargo on the United States and Western Europe. The 1973 Oil Embargo had devastating effects on western economies. Oil prices quadrupled, unemployment and inflation hit record highs causing a world wide economic recession (Horton, 2011).
OPEC has become the one if not the most effective and influential institution in determining global oil prices and production. However, recent trends point to a somewhat concerning future for the cartel. The new discovery and development of large oil reserves in Alaska, Canada, the North Sea, Mexico and emerging Russian markets, could possibly diminish OPEC’s power over the industry in the coming decades. Similarly, many oil consuming nations have increased funding and research for alternative energy methods and technologies with the goal of being less dependent on foreign oil and more environmentally friendly.
OPEC has had a brief and tumultuous history which has coincided with a meteoric rise to power on a global scale. The fact is, the modern world is dependent on petroleum, and for all the allure of cleaner, cheaper, and more reliable energy sources OPEC should continue to be a major energy player with considerable influence on the world economy and international politics.
Mission. 2012. Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. Sept. 27, 2012<http://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/about_us/23.htm>
OPEC Statute. 2008. Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. Sept. 27, 2012 <http://www.opec.org/opec_web/static_files_project/media/downloads/publications/OS.pdf>
Brief History. 2012. Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. Sept. 27, 2012 <http://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/about_us/24.htm>
Adam Bird and Malcolm Brown. “ The History and Social Consequences of a Nationalized Oil Industry”. 2005. Stanford University. Sept. 28, 2012 <http://www.stanford.edu/class/e297a/VENEZUELA%20OIL%20&%20LAND%20REFORM.htm>
Shervin Shahriari. “Latest Developments in the Oil and Gas Industry”. Turquoise Partners. Ed. Ramin Rabii. Nov. 2010. Iran Investment Monthly. Sept. 29, 2012 <http://www.turquoisepartners.com/iraninvestment/IIM-Nov10.pdf>
Sarah Horton. “The 1973 Oil Crisis”. Envirothonpa. 2011. Pennsylvania Envirothon. Sept. 30, 2012 <http://www.envirothonpa.org/documents/The1973OilCrisis.pdf>
Artemisia Gentileschi, Venus and Cupid, ca. 1625-30. Oil paint on canvas, 38 x 56 in (96.52 x 143.83 cm) Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, Richmond, VA.
Artemisia Gentileschi was born in Rome, and spent a majority of her career working in Rome and Florence. The daughter of the Tuscan painter Orazio Gentileschi, today she is recognized as one of the most influential and accomplished female artists of her time (Venus and Cupid, 2011). Artemisia was first introduced to painting and learned much of her technique and style from her father’s workshop in Rome. There she learned to draw and correctly mix colors. Artemisia was an early Baroque painter who was highly influenced by the style and works of Italian painter Michelangelo Caravaggio.
In a time in which women painters were not easily accepted by the larger artistic profession, she managed to distinguish herself by examining and portraying specific female points of view in her work. Moreover, she was one of the first female artist to paint historical and religious paintings during a time in which such heroic pieces were considered beyond a woman’s scope (Artemisia Gentileschi, 2011). Consequently, she also became the first woman to become a member of the prestigious Accademia di Arte de Disegno in Florence (Artemisia Gentileschi, 2011).
Many of her works are a portrayal of strong suffering women in relation to greek myths and biblical stories. Many scholars believe she developed this style because she felt a connection to these women, who like her had struggled. The feminist related themes in which she painted throughout her life is no more evident than in her painting Venus and Cupid, which was painted during the middle of her life somewhere between 1625 and 1630.
This painting, I believe, is a commentary on the position of women in society and specifically the art profession. It depicts the strong and beautiful Godess Venus reclining across a beautifully colored scene. It is different from many of her other works that are often viewed as violent and angry, especially toward the male gender. This is most notably accredited to her alleged rape by a fellow artist which seemingly had a profound affect on her works and subjects (Venus and Cupid, 2011). Artemisia used a realistic portrayal of the human state, both physical and emotional, combined with dramatic lighting within her paintings to evoke strong emotions from the viewer which was in many ways a type of therapy and rebellion for and against the things she felt abused by in 17th century society (Artemisia Gentileschi, 2011).
Unknown. Venus and Cupid http://www2.richmond.com/news/2001/oct/17/venus-and- cupid-ar-605220/ (Oct. 17, 2001)
Unknown. Artemisia Gentileschi http://www.lycos.com/info/artemisia-gentileschi.html (2011)
One summer, when I was about 10 years old, I was stung by a fairly large honey bee. The sometimes curious creatures had built a hive amongst an old wood pile my brother and I used to play near. While not allergic, the sting was painful and created in me a hatred for the devilish beasts. That summer, along with my brother, I vowed, childishly and naively, to rid my parents property of these evil creatures. We dawned our pee wee football helmets and pads, trash can lids for shields, and old three foot property stakes as our spears. For a couple weeks that summer, my brother and I racked up a now saddening death toll. Today, kids everywhere may delight in the fact that bees are no longer stinging them as frequently on playgrounds and in backyards, but the decline in honeybee populations in the U.S. is a major environmental problem that could have major implications for our agricultural food supply as well as the overall health of our economy.
Honey bees have been disappearing and dying in North America in drastic numbers since 2005. This happening is known as colony collapse disorder (CCD). However, in the past year commercial beekeepers have seen the deaths in their colonies drastically expand. Many beekeepers are reporting deaths of 40 to 50 percent of their hives. The impact of lasting honeybee deaths in masse can and will have detrimental effects on the United States. The Agriculture Department says a quarter of the American diet depends on pollination by honeybees. Fewer bees means smaller harvests and higher food prices.
Many beekeepers and some researchers say that a powerful new class of pesticides known as neonicotinoids are to blame for the current problem. Older pesticides could kill bees and other beneficial insects, however they quickly degrade mostly in a matter of days. Neonicotinoids on the other hand, persist for weeks and even months. Moreover, they are systemic pesticides, meaning they embed into seeds so that the plant itself eventually carries the chemical that kills insects that feed on it.
If neonicotinoids are solely to blame for the mass disappearance and death of the bee colonies, otherwise known as CCD, one would expect to see some type of clear correlation between the increased use of such chemicals and the disappearance of the bees. Likewise, the increase spike in the deaths this past year should be attributable to higher use of pesticides like neonicotinoids. Moreover, given that the EPA and other governmental agencies certify, monitor, and test the effects of all types of pesticides to insure sub-lethal dosing in order to protect important pollinators like bees, you could predict that systemic pesticides, like neonicotinoids, are able to accumulate into lethal doses in beehives.
The growth of neonicotinoids since 2005 has roughly tracked with rising bee deaths. However, to date, research on neonicotinoids supports the notion that the chemicals are safe and are not contributing in any measurable way to pollinator health concerns. Experts say some fungicides have been laced with regulators that keep insects from maturing, this is a continual problem and symptom of CCD that some beekeepers have reported. Moreover, Eric Mussen, an apiculturist at UC Davis, said analysts had documented about 150 different chemical residues in pollen and wax gathered from beehives. The most talked about study, from a Harvard group, found that the colonies fed neonicotinoid-laced corn syrup collapsed in a manner that appeared to mimic the effects of Colony Collapse Disorder, or CCD. Neonicotinoids, declared the Harvard team, were “the likely culprit in sharp worldwide declines in honeybee colonies since 2006.”
The evidence surrounding neonicotinoids’ effect on bee populations is quite contradictory. Currently we have positive evidence, like the study at Harvard, that found that colonies who fed on neonicotinoid-laced corn syrup collapsed in a manner that appeared to mimic the effects of Colony Collapse Disorder. Furthermore, the increase in bee deaths or colony collapses seem to have coincided with agriculture’s increase use of systemic pesticides like neonicotinoids.
There is also a good amount of negative evidence. Most recent research to date has shown that these pesticides are spread among crops in non-lethal doses and therefore this supports the notion that they are not contributing in any measurable way to CCD. Many experts disregard the Harvard Study because they believe the doses given in the experiment were too large and do not correctly simulate the amounts honeybees would come in contact with in the real world. Finally, analysts have tested and documented up to 150 different types chemical residues in many of the hives. Included in this list are certain fungicides have been laced with regulators that keep insects from maturing, this is important because it is symptom of CCD.
In the wake of this crisis the European Union has proposed to ban the use of neonicotinoids on crops frequented by bees. I find this policy move to be a tad bit premature by the Europeans. What we need, sadly, is better evidence and so far, it’s not there yet. This is not to say that insecticides aren’t a big issue for bee health. It makes perfect sense that systemic pesticides—which are absorbed throughout plants’ vascular systems and into their pollen and nectar, and remain toxic to insects for a year or more after application—might present issues not seen with traditional pesticides. However, at the moment it doesn’t seem to be the smoking gun, there is just too much negative evidence.
John Marshall is widely considered by most constitutional scholars, the nations constitutional schoolmaster. This American statesman substantially shaped the nature of American constitutional law and the judicial system by centering power around the Supreme Court through the most famous and determining cases in American history; Marbury v. Madison (1803). Just after the ratification of the Constitution, two emerging parties, the Federalist, championed by John Adams and John Marshall, and the Anti-Federalist, at the time led by Thomas Jefferson, supported two entirely different ideologies of how American government should work. The Federalist believed in a strong national government while the Anti-Federalist supported state’s rights. While the leaders have changed and party names have fallen and risen, this same argument has been raging since the inception of the United States.
The climax in this battle between ideologies came after the election of 1800. In 1801, lame-duck President John Adams, along with the Federalist controlled Congress, passed the Judiciary Act of 1801. This legislation modified the Judiciary Act of 1789 by creating new judgeships that would pack the courts full of like minded Federalist before Thomas Jefferson, an Anti-Federalist, became President. Before all these commissions could be delivered Thomas Jefferson was sworn in as President. Immediately, Jefferson ordered Secretary of State James Madison to halt delivery of the remaining commissions, claiming they were invalid because they had not been delivered by the end of Adams’ term.
William Marbury was an intended appointee to Justice of the Peace who never recieved his commission. Therefore, having a stake in this feud he applied directly to the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus, ordering Madison to deliver his commission. The Judiciary Act of 1789 had granted the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus to any “courts appointed or persons holding office in the United States.” Subsequently, John Marshall and the SCOTUS found that the Judiciary Act of 1789 to be unconstitutional because it gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus.
Marshall, ironically the Secretary of State under Adams, argued that even though Marbury did have a right to the commission, the Constitution is very specific on the SCOTUS‘ original jurisdiction – and writs of mandamus affecting judgeships are not included – the Supreme Court only has appellate jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court cannot force Madison to deliver the commission and should not of been able to hear the case. Marshall wrote the majority opinion in this case, ultimately seizing judicial review, the Courts ability to determine whether an executive act or legislation on all levels of government is unconstitutional; which has been a lasting hallmark of the Judicial Branch’s power for over two hundred years.
The Syrian Conflict has been a massive humanitarian and political debacle for that country and the region. Innocent civilians have died by the thousands, Islamic extremist groups have intervened to establish a foothold in the country and both Russia and China have essentially stymied any U.N. intervention attempting to cease the violence. The conflict stands on the edge of becoming a full scale regional conflict, which at the center exemplifies the current Sunni-Shiite power struggle throughout a changing Middle East.
On March 15th 2011 Syrian protestors began an anti-government movement that demanded the resignation of President Bashar al-Assad, as well as an end to five decades of dictatorial rule under the Ba’ath Party. Over the past year what was at first a seemingly peaceful protest against the government has quickly evolved into a full scale military conflict or civil war, culminating in both sides committing and accusing each other of mass human rights atrocities. Opposition forces are composed mostly of former Syrian soldiers and civilian volunteers and have become increasing well armed and unified into groups like the Free Syrian Army and Syrian Liberation Army. Nevertheless, the rebel groups remain fractured and with no central leadership. The Assad regime defines these rebel belligerents as “armed terrorist groups” and continues to hold onto power primarily through alliances with Iran and a larger backing by Russia and China.
The conflict has no clear fronts with clashes between government forces and rebels occurring in towns and cities across the country. What has further compounded the problem in Syria is the amount of military aid being sent into the region by multiple foreign countries and organizations who all have many different geo-political interests at stake. Currently, most of the heavy arms shipped into Syria to supply rebel forces are going to hardline Islamic Jihadist [Sanger, 2012]. This could threaten the global community should hard-liners seize control of power and the worlds third largest stockpile of chemical weapons [Blomfield, 2012].
Presently, tens of thousands of people have died in the conflict in Syria, but the international community continues to stand by and squabble over the correct manner in which to intervene. Around the world many have looked to the U.N., and particularly the U.N. Security Council to provide leadership and a well balanced elixir. However, due to many conflicting political and economic interest both the U.N. and the Security Council have become ineffective. In a recent U.N. General Assembly meeting, Turkey’s foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu, stated that,” We have yet to see a single effective action to save innocent lives. The inability of the Security Council to act encourages the Syrian nation to continue the killing” [CNN Wire Staff, 2012].
Throughout 2011 and 2012 the UNSC has failed to adopt multiple resolutions that would condemn the actions of President Assad and attempt to halt the violence. The Arab League, United States, EU, and the GCC, along with a multitude of other countries have condemned the use of violence against the protestors. However, Russia and China have continually opposed all attempts to agree to U.N. resolutions condemning government actions and the imposition of stronger sanctions [Lopez, 2012]. Russian and Chinese officials warn the west that such actions could lead to unwanted full scale foreign military action [Lopez, 2012].
In February of this year U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon along with the Secretary General of the Arab States appointed former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan as joint special envoy to Syria [Sharp, p.10]. The envoy’s goal was to halt violence by creating a dialogue between the Syrian government and opposition forces, using Annan’s six-point plan [Sharp, p.10].
Similarly the U.N. Security Council passed resolutions 2042 and 2043 that approved of a deployment of 300 unarmed U.N. military observers (UNSMIS) to the region to observe and report on conditions of the conflict [Sharp, p.10]. The resolutions also demanded the withdraw of Syrian military forces from populated city centers as well as a full length peace plan which included the beginning of a national political dialogue as well as call for the Syrian government to grant the right to demonstrate [Sharp, p.11]. This marked the first time UNSC members united in efforts to halt the violence in Syria [Sharp, p.10].
The little efforts adopted by the U.N. and the Security Council have failed to make an impact in an increasing violent and politically tumultuous conflict. Since June of 2012 the UNSMIS has suspended all patrols due to increased violence and the Security Council has failed to adopt proposed resolutions threatening sanctions if U.N. demands to end violence were not met [Sharp, p.11]. Likewise, Kofi Annan resigned from the joint special envoy to Syria in the face of continued violence and the deadlock among world powers over how to address the crisis [Olsen, 2012].
Policy regarding the Syrian Civil War has exposed further agitation and fundamental disagreements between western and eastern powers. In recent years the U.S. has embraced doctrines like “responsibility to protect”, which attests that the international community has the obligation to intervene, and sometimes expel brutal regimes that systematically target and kill its own population [Carpenter, 2012].
Contrastingly, Russian and Chinese leaders believe the intensified focus of the U.S. and the west on Syria is merely a play at ousting Assad in an attempt to isolate Iran from Syria [Carpenter, 2012]. It follows that, western intervention in Syria is the latest in an overall strategy of forcible regime change to advance the interests of the west in a greater power play to secure global domination [Carpenter, 2012].
In addition to this, the disposal of the Assad government is not in the greater Russian or Chinese national interest [Carpenter, 2012]. For decades and through much of the Cold War Era, Moscow has had close economic and strategic ties with the Syrian government [Carpenter, 2012]. China is a major party in Syria’s oil industry and has become Syria’s largest trading partner, totaling $2.4 billion in 2011[Carpenter, 2012].
Further complicating any action in the crisis is that Syria is a U.N. member state and thus holds sovereign rights equal to all other member states [Chan, 2012]. Couple that with UNSC vetoes from Russia and China; the international community and U.N. have become powerless to procure a near future resolution. The U.N. was created in a World War II context, thus its structure essentially emphasizes national sovereignty, integrity, and interests over enforcing human rights [Chan, 2012].
Russia and China continue to endorse the traditional principles found in the seventeenth century Treaty of Westphalia, which advocates the prohibition of great powers intervening in the domestic affairs of other countries [Carpenter, 2012]. Accordingly, such interventions in this case could cause chaos in the Middle East that could spread to other regions possibly driving great powers into military conflict [Carpenter, 2012]. Unfortunately until major western and eastern powers come together to attempt to resolve the Syrian conflict multilaterally, all U.N. major actors will remain helpless in effectively suppressing the violence in Syria. It is highly unlikely that these challenges between east and west will be overcome in the near future which could impel U.S./NATO intervention before any accords are made between both sides.
Because the UNSC is essentially at a deadlock and somewhat rehashing old Cold War sentiments, any course of action at this point by the U.N. would primarily be humanitarian or observational. The U.N. Human Rights Council may work in conjunction with organizations like the Red Cross or the ICRC to provide humanitarian services to Syrians displaced by the war. Still, stronger actions are needed to halt the violence between the belligerents. It is evident given the history of the Arab Spring Movement in the last couple of years that Syria can no longer go back to dictatorial rule under the Assad regime; the Assad regime must be dispelled.
The U.N. should call for and back NATO intervention in the form of increasing NATO member sanctions on Syria, implementation of Syrian no-fly-zones, destruction of Syrian WMDs by NATO forces, and a increased effort to organize and supply military intelligence and weapons to verified moderate forces within Syria. Consequently these actions will enrage both Chinese and Russian leaders, but at some point human rights as well as international peace and security must be prioritized over the national interest of global powers [Chan, 2012].
Nearly two months ago Syria despot Assad threatened to extend the civil war to the entire Middle East [Taheri, 2012]. Since then Assad has initiated mortar and missile attacks along the Turkish and Israeli borders as well as resuming arms shipments to the Kurds fighting against the Turkish government [Taheri, 2012]. In early October of this year Syrian mortar attacks killed six Turkish civilians in the border town of Akcakale [Taheri, 2012].
This course of action is probable and very likely given a number of reasons. One, NATOs historical willingness to intervene in places like Libya and Bosnia; in which the latter procured results directly in the face of both Russian and U.N. condemnation. Two, because Turkey is a NATO member and any continued attacks on Turkish territory could raise the probability of the alliance taking a direct and active role in helping to overthrow the Assad regime [Taheri, 2012]. Three, there is a growing feeling of nervousness by the United States that further chaos in Syria could turn that country into a terrorist haven disturbing the balance of power in the Middle East increasing the likelihood of future military intervention.
The escalating conflict in Syria has huge implications on a great number of issues including, peace in the Middle East, the success or failure of the Arab Spring Movement, the U.S. war on terrorism, and the re-emergence of Cold War battle lines. Ultimately, these issues and the future success of a stable Syria lie in the hands of the Syrian people. Henry Kissinger once said, “ you can’t make war in the Middle East without Egypt and you can’t make peace without Syria” [Lister, 2011]. So let us hope his quote, which is not a direct reference to Israel this time, may be full of wisdom in that the Syrians have it in them to find peace in the regional crossroads of the Middle East.
- Blomfield, Adrian. “Syria Carries Out Chemical Weapons Drill.” The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group Limited. 18 Sep. 2012. Web. 12 Nov. 2012. <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9550215/Syria-carries-out-chemical-weapons-drill.html>
- Sanger, David E. “Rebel Arms Flow Is Said To Benefit Jihadists in Syria.” The New York Times. The New York Times Company. Oct. 14, 2012. Web. Nov. 10, 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/world/middleeast/jihadists-receiving-most-arms-sent-to-syrian-rebels.html?pagewanted=all>
- CNN Wire Staff. “Diplomat to UN: Security Council Has Failed In Syria.” CNN. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. Sep. 28, 2012. Web. Nov. 9, 2012. <http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/28/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html>
- Carpenter, Ted. “The Syrian Civil War’s Global Implications.” CATO. CATO Institute. Sep. 10, 2012. Web. Nov. 10, 2012. <http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/syrian-civil-wars-global-implications>
- Sharp, Jeremy M. “Armed Conflict in Syria: U.S. and International Response.” Congressional Research Service. Aug. 21, 2012. Web. Nov. 5, 2012. <http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33487.pdf>
- Chan, Jacinda. “Why the UN Isn’t Saving Syria.” Policymic. Mic Network Inc. Mar. 2012. Web. Nov. 9, 2012. <http://www.policymic.com/articles/4673/why-the-un-isn-t-saving-syria>
- Olsen, Kelley. “China Says Will Cooperate With New UN Syria Envoy.” TOLOnews. 18 Aug. 2012. Web. 9 Nov. 2012. <http://tolonews.com/en/world/7266-china-says-will-cooperate-with-new-un-syria-envoy>
- Taheri, Amir. “Will NATO get sucked into Syrian War?” New York Post. NYP Holdings, Inc. Oct. 5, 2012. Web. Nov. 13, 2012. <http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/will_nato_get_sucked_into_syrian_sJJkxd7g4K0Mg1UfNqp2lJ>
- Lopez, George A. “Russia and China: Sabotaging U.N. with vetoes.” CNN. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. Feb. 8, 2012. Web. Nov. 13, 2012.<http://edition.cnn.com/2012/02/08/opinion/lopez-russia-sanctions-cold-war/index.html>
- Lister, Tim. “Syria: The key piece in a regional Rubik’s cube.” CNN. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. April 25, 2011. Web. Nov. 5, 2012. <http://articles.cnn.com/2011-04-25/world/syria.role_1_president-bashar-al-assad-alawite-minority-syrian-alliance?_s=PM:WORLD>
By: Aiden Asher 