Les suggestions de Michael Tomasky du Guardian (fortement inspiré d'Elliott Abrams du Washington post)...
"Okay, so now Assad knows we're paying attention. What next? Elliott Abrams suggested four steps in a recent WashPost op-ed. It would surely disturb Abrams as much as it disturbs me to hear that I don't necessarily disagree with these, or at least some of them, especially the third one:
First, the strongest and most frequent denunciations, preferably not only from the White House but also from people such as Sen. John Kerry, who has repeatedly visited Assad and spoken of improving relations with his regime. All those who were taken in by Assad should be loudest in denouncing his bloody repression.
Second, we should prosecute Syria in every available multilateral forum, including the U.N. Security Council and the Human Rights Council. Others should refer Assad to the International Criminal Court. With blood flowing, there should be no delays; this is the moment to call for special sessions and action to prevent more killing. Even if these bodies do not act, the attention should give heart to Syrian demonstrators.
Third, we should ask the new governments in Egypt and Tunisia to immediately call Arab League sessions to debate the violence in Syria. Libya was expelled; let's demand that Syria be, too.
Fourth, press the Europeans to speak and act against Syria's regime. U.S. sanctions against Syria are strong and probably cannot be increased effectively now, but the European Union has far more trade and investment. The French have spoken out and may be willing to take the lead again.
That third one sounds like a potentially useful leverage point, although I admit I don't know the region well enough to know whether this is remotely possible and would guess it probably is not. Other Arab leaders had their own sets of issues with Gaddafi, and Libya is not and never was so central to the whole puzzle of Mideast politics as Syria is.
Where I part company from Abrams is that I'm rather more worried about the possible consequences here. If the killing continues, we (US and other western nations) have to do something. But do we really want to intervene in Syria? Then you're maybe talking about war with Iran. Some people want that. Not this boyo.
Even so, it's very hard to figure out the principles that should guide US and western action here. Yes, we believe in freedom and liberty and democracy. But we, or some of us, also believe in the Niebuhrian limits of projecting military power, because projecting military power costs a lot in blood and treasure and always has many unintended consequences.
I think the administration could be doing more to call America's attention to what is going on in Syria, maybe much more. But words have the potential to commit one to action, or the words become hollow, and "action" in Syria, well, it's frightening to contemplate where that might lead."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2011/apr/12/obama-administration-usforeignpolicy-syria
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire