Overview of the international relations conflict
President of the United States Barack Obama met with the Turkish Prime Minister to discuss about how to end up the civil war in Syria. Syrian civil was is an armed conflict, which started in March 2011 and developed into international demonstrations in April. The main conflict is held between non-formed rebels wanted to overthrow the power government Ba’ath Party and the resignation of the Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, whose family rules the country since 1971. Ba’ath Party is neo-Ba’athism dominant government party that has ruled in Syria since 1963. All started as a civil and peaceful demonstrations against the president and government, but it turned into armed bloody conflicts as the Ba’ath party used force to stop demonstrations and strengthen their power over the country. Since Syrian civil war has started, several countries are trying to find the solution to stop the unnecessary bloodshed in the country. Even the US President Barack Obama was asked to involve and help to stop this conflict, however he did not seem to be into involving into another Middle-East conflict.
The cause of the Syrian civil war rose from the demonstrations against government. As in every armed conflict the trigger was the use of brutal force against unarmed protestants. The cause of this war follows also from the bad living conditions in the country of Syria, but that would be another story. Now, let’s take a closer look on the discussion between Barack Obama and Turkish Prime Minister.
“While the Turkish and US leaders agree that Syria's President Assad must be ousted to end the slaughter, the meeting was by far not all Erdogan had hoped for: Obama continues to reject arming the Syrian opposition” (Schließ, 2013). The Turkish prime minister, “Erdogan's wish to have the US take a stronger stance on Syria” (Schließ, 2013). However, the US president said, “Washington has a moral and national security incentive to stop the killing” (Schließ, 2013); they would not act since there would not be stronger evidence about the usage of chemical weapons. Chemical weapons seem to be the main reason US do not want to involve for now. As Barack Obama said “that solid evidence of chemical weaponry would constitute a red line in the conflict and produce major consequences,” added “is important for us to make sure that we're able to get more specific information about what exactly is happening there” (Sterling, 2013). It seems like a good point from US president not to send weapons and troops somewhere without knowing how the bloody situation will turn out in few months, but on the other hand this act opened many discussion if US really needs to involve as Turkish prime minister asked for. Barrack Obama during the discussion pointed out that US wants to “find a solution that brings peace to Syria, stabilizes the region, stabilizes those chemical weapons, but it's not going to be something that the United States does by itself” (Sterling, 2013). US president just „wants to be convinced not just that things will get worse without American intervention, but that US action will actually improve matters” (Rachman, 2013). If the US will involve and the situation in Syria would go worse and unstable US will be blamed for the situation and that is something that Obama wants to predict.
For instance the approach of Barack Obama is disputable for the German Security expert Horst Teltschik, who says, “US and European intelligence should be able to differentiate after two years which groups should be supported and which ones shouldn't” (Schließ, 2013). Schlieb also stated another possibility pointing out "Israel has hit Syria with its air force three times already without eliciting a response” (Schließ, 2013). Should Turkey use their air force to attack strategic map points like presidential palace or military basements? That’s a question asked by Mr. Teltschik. However, this is “not a very realistic...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document