Skip to footer

Diplomacy or military intervention in Syria? 7 opinions from around the globe.

After 15 months of violence in Syria, President Bashar al-Assad announced yesterday that the country was facing a full-on civil war, a conflict he would do everything in his power to win.

This adds increased pressure to the ongoing international question du jour: Is the answer to Syria’s conflict diplomacy or military intervention? Or something else entirely? From Thailand to Jordan, here are some opinions around the globe.

‘Serious diplomacy’

  • By Whitney Eulich Staff writer

Al Jazeera
Op-Ed: Phyllis Bennis, a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies
Syria: Only diplomacy can stop the war 

The death toll in Syria is reported to be 10,000 according to the United Nations, prompting many people to say ‘we’ve got to do something.’ But any military support or action is complicated, and has the potential to pull outsiders into a larger role in the conflict than they want.
 
Phyllis Bennis, with the Transnational Institute in Amsterdam, argues that what is needed is “serious diplomacy” to keep the violence from exploding beyond Syria’s borders.

The US and its allies are all too aware of the dangers to their own interests of direct military involvement in Syria. A Syrian version of post-Gaddafi Libya means greater instability across the strategic Middle East; expanding regional sectarianism; chaotic borders adjoining Israel, Iraq, and Turkey; extremist Islamism gaining a foothold in Syria; and the derailing of any potential diplomatic arrangement with Iran.

All of that makes it unlikely the Obama administration would risk an attack on Syria without a UN Security Council endorsement.... But ... Washington is in election mode. As the violence escalates in Syria, as more civilians, especially children, are killed, calls for military intervention escalate as well.... Whether [opponents of military force] can stand up to election-year pressures remains unclear.

1 of 7
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.