26 apr. 2011

"USAs passivitet om Syrien skamlig"

En ledare i Washington Post kritiserar i skarpa ordalag Obama-administrationens passivitet: Shameful U.S. inaction on Syria



FOR THE PAST five weeks, growing numbers of Syrians have been gathering in cities and towns across the country to demand political freedom — and the security forces of dictator Bashar al-Assad have been responding by opening fire on them. According to Syrian human rights groups, more than 220 people had been killed by Friday. And Friday may have been the worst day yet: According to Western news organizations, which mostly have had to gather information from outside the country, at least 75 people were gunned down in places that included the suburbs of Damascus, the city of Homs and a village near the southern town of Daraa, where the protests began.

Massacres on this scale usually prompt a strong response from Western democracies, as they should. Ambassadors are withdrawn; resolutions are introduced at the U.N. Security Council; international investigations are mounted and sanctions applied. In Syria’s case, none of this has happened. The Obama administration has denounced the violence — a presidential statement called Friday’s acts of repression “outrageous” — but otherwise remained passive. Even the ambassador it dispatched to Damascus during a congressional recess last year remains on post.




Men Obama vill inte agera mot Syrien - han ser att Assad kan vara en allierad i hans nya "mjuka" diplomati:
Yet the Obama administration has effectively sided with the regime against the protesters. Rather than repudiate Mr. Assad and take tangible steps to weaken his regime, it has proposed, with increasing implausibility, that his government “implement meaningful reforms,” as the president’s latest statement put it. As The Post’s Karen DeYoung and Scott Wilson reported Friday, the administration, which made the “engagement” of Syria a key part of its Middle East policy, still clings to the belief that Mr. Assad could be part of a Middle East peace process; and it would rather not trade “a known quantity in Assad for an unknown future.”

Carl Bildt både twittrar och bloggar om händelserna i Syrien, men frågan är vad Sveriges syn är. Carl Bildt bloggade tidigare stolt om hur han besökte Assad i Damaskus, samtidigt som han vägrade besöka Israel.

Obamas "change" är i fallet Syrien som i många andra fall ganska enkelt: smörande och knäböjande för diktaturer. Frågan är om Carl Bildt kommer göra annat än twittra och blogga. Jag hoppas att jag blir överraskad.

Länk via Arieh Furth på facebook.

1 kommentar:

Ingenjören sa...

Mmm, notera dock hur många som först kritiserade Obama för att han inte ingrep i Libyen och därefter för att han ingrep i Libyen. Samma sak kommer att gälla i Syrien. Om Obama ingriper i Syrien kommer man anklaga honom för att hata Israel eftersom han bevisligen vill att Islamister ska styra Syrien, dvs, exakt den kritik som riktas mot honom m.a.p. Libyen. Ingen president har gett ett så stort ekonomiskt stöd till Israel som Obama, men det spelar ingen roll, om man vill se honom som en Israelhatande kryptomuslim så kommer man alltid kunna göra det.