Intervenir pour des raisons humanitaires? Ce ne serait assurément pas un mauvais objectif, mais il y a bien plus selon Frida Ghitis du Miami Herald dont les propos sont rapportés sur le site de CNN.
"U. S. Secretary of State John Kerry has just announced that the U.S. will provide an additional $60 million in non-lethal assistance to the opposition. He has hinted that President Obama, after rejecting suggestions from the CIA and previous Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to arm Syrian rebels, might be ready to change course. And not a day too soon.
The war is taking longer than anyone expected. The longer it lasts, the more Syria is radicalized and the region is destabilized.
If you think the Syrian war is the concern of Syrians alone, think about other countries that have torn themselves apart over a long time. Consider Lebanon, Afghanistan or Somalia; each with unique circumstances, but with one thing in common: Their wars created enormous suffering at home, and the destructiveness eventually spilled beyond their borders. All of those wars triggered lengthy, costly refugee crises. They all spawned international terrorism and eventually direct international -- including U.S. -- intervention.
The uprising against al-Assad started two years ago in the spirit of what was then referred to -- without a hint of irony -- as the Arab Spring. Young Syrians marched, chanting for freedom and democracy. The ideals of equality, rule of law and human rights wafted in the air.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/28/opinion/ghitis-syria/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire