Eight Arguments Against Going to War With Syria
An opinion piece by Dr. Stephen Zunes highlighting 10 reasons why the U.S. should not attack Syria
Expert Analyst: International Politics, Middle East & Nonviolent Action
Syria
An opinion piece by Dr. Stephen Zunes highlighting 10 reasons why the U.S. should not attack Syria
Wisconsin Public Radio
89.3 KPCC (NPR)
Dr. Stephen Zunes talks about Syria and how the situation should be handled
United For Peace and Justice
Dr. Stephen Zunes talks about why there is nothing the U.S. can do about the Syrian situation
An op-ed piece published on Truthout.org about Israel’s attack against Syria on May 6th, 2013
Free Speech Radio News
May 3, 2013: The source is no longer available. More Syria articles.
Foreign Policy In Focus/Institute for Policy Studies, May 2, 2013 [Republished by Alternet, Ander Niews Week (Netherlands), Common Dreams, Greanville Post, Huffington Post and the Middle East Institute]
The worsening violence and repression in Syria has left many analysts and policymakers in the United States and other western countries scrambling to think of ways our governments could help end the bloodshed and support those seeking to dislodge the Assad regime. The desperate desire to “do something” has led a growing number of people to advocate for increased military aid to armed insurgents or even direct military intervention, as the French government has said it will consider doing unilaterally.
Uprising Radio
Uprising Radio
Wisconsin Public Radio
Dr. Stephen Zunes appears around the 30 minute mark
Australia Radio
Foreign Policy In Focus/Institute for Policy Studies, June 13, 2012. Republished by National Catholic Reporter & ZNetwork U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has claimed that “there are attack helicopters on the way from Russia to Syria,” though the…
Although the impulse to try to end the ongoing repression by the Syrian regime against its own people through foreign military intervention is understandable, it would be a very bad idea.
Empirical studies have repeatedly demonstrated that international military interventions in cases of severe repression actually exacerbate violence in the short term and can only reduce violence in the longer term if the intervention is impartial or neutral. Other studies demonstrate that foreign military interventions actually increase the duration of civil wars, making the conflicts longer and bloodier, and the regional consequences more serious, than if there were no intervention. In addition, military intervention would likely trigger a “gloves off” mentality that would dramatically escalate the violence on both sides.
Official Washington has been rife with condemnation at the decision by the governments of Russia and China to veto an otherwise unanimous UN Security Council resolution condemning the ongoing repression in Syria and calling for a halt to violence on all sides; unfettered access for Arab League monitors; and “a Syrian-led political transition to a democratic, plural political system, in which citizens are equal regardless of their affiliations or ethnicities or beliefs.”
As the Syrian regime continues to slaughter unarmed civilians, the major powers at the United Nations continue to put their narrow geopolitical agenda ahead of international humanitarian law. Just as France shields Morocco from accountability for its ongoing occupation and repression in Western Sahara and just as the United States shields Israel from having to live up to its obligations under international humanitarian law, Russia and China have used their permanent seats on the UN Security Council to protect the Syrian regime from accountability for its savage repression against its own citizens.