28
Mar 16

The Ironic Effect of European Bombings on Muslim Refugees

When something as terrible and emotional occurs, such as the attacks in Brussels last Tuesday, it’s easy to overlook long term implications and just focus on the ongoing tragedy. But doing so ultimately allows these subtle but pivotal effects to go unchecked, resulting in a disaster just as awful and even more preventable.

Here’s what happened in Brussels: At 8am local time on Tuesday (3am Eastern time) two explosions went off at Brussels airport, one caused by a suicide bomber and the other by an unstable bomb left behind when another terrorist fled the scene. Collectively they killed around ten people. About an hour later, an explosion at the Maelbeek subway station, not far from the European Union’s core institutions, killed approximately 20 more (Shannon). Collectively there were about 300 people injured, half of which needed to be hospitalized with many put in intensive care. ISIS has claimed responsibility for both bombings (BBC News).

This is without doubt a great tragedy. But the carnage will not stop at Brussels. As Ammar Al Saker, a 21-year old refugee who saw the news on his cell phone from the middle of a Greek refugee camp told his friends, “God knows what will happen tomorrow… For us it will get worse” (Shuster).

Europe and Turkey have been experiencing huge waves of refugees, with some countries being more accepting than others. But after the Paris attacks in November, this pathway began to close. Even Greece, who has been one of the more welcoming countries to date, closed its borders to all refugees with ethnicities other than Syrian, Iraqi, or Afghan. This excludes all African refugees escaping crimes against humanity, who have made an even longer and more dangerous trek to Europe than the Syrians. The bottleneck has caused thousands of refugees to convene in squalid camps at Idomeni, sleeping in tents and unable to get the supplies or care they desperately need (Shuster).

To many refugees who consider themselves victims of terror as well, this backlash is perverse. After all, nearly all of the perpetrators of the Paris attacks, including the mastermind Salah Abdeslam, had been born in the European Union, and had passports which would allow them to move more freely than any immigrant or refugee ever could (Shuster). Abdeslam was finally imprisoned in Brussels about a week before the attacks, but its reasoned he was likely behind those as well (Bothello, Krever, and Shoichet).

Not all Europeans feel the same way about blocking refugees. It’s become a prominent political issue across the continent, with left-leaning parties calling for more acceptance and to put a stop to the “racist” rhetoric and restrictions of the right-wing parties. These restrictions, like what we’ve seen in Greece, are often based on ethnicity, with an increasing focus on blocking Muslims (Shuster). So other than being closer to the action, it’s really not too different from American politics.

A few days after the attack on Brussels, angry right-wing protesters took to the streets in an “anti-terror” raid. Ironically this raid took the local police’s attention off of searching for the suspects and created an even more chaotic atmosphere in an already shaken city. I feel this raid is a great metaphor for the effect of ethnic fear and restrictions sweeping Europe. It doesn’t help anyone, least of all the victims of these acts of terror, and instead polarizes the situation, breeding hate and chaos during a time when we all need to be standing together as one to defeat a common enemy. Blocking refugees doesn’t make us less safe, it makes us less human.

Bothello, Krever, and Shoichet. “6 Detained in Raids in Belgium.” CNN. Cable News Network, 25 March 2016. Web. 28 March 2016.

“Brussels Attacks: Two Brothers Behind Belgium Bombing.” BBC News. BBC 23 March 2016. Web. 28 March 2016.

Shannon, Victoria. “Brussels Attacks: What We Know and Don’t Know.” The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 22 March 2016. Web. 28 March 2016.

Shuster, Simon. “Refugees Could Be the Next Victim of Brussels the Attack.” Time. Time Inc., 22 March 2016. Web. 28 March 2016.


30
Nov 15

Russia and the West are Teaming Up to Combat ISIS. What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

So there’s been a lot of stuff happening over the past few weeks regarding ISIS, Russia, and the West, and I thought it might be helpful for myself if I wrote up a quick summary of it all, because honestly it’s fairly hard to keep track of. Realizing this, I figured you all might be interested in the summary too, along with my comments as a Political Science major with plans to one day work at the United Nations. Hopefully we can hash all this out together, because I won’t lie, this is an extremely complicated with issue with lots of gray areas (#PLAIssues).

First things first, it’s important to know where everyone stands. The U.S., as you’ve probably heard, is against ISIS and the Assad regime, and is therefore supporting anyone attacking those groups. This includes the Syrian and Yemini rebels, which have been fighting against both. In fact, most of the major players we’ll be talking about are against ISIS and Assad. The only exception is Russia, who is allied with Syria, and has been working to help end the civil war. This stance I found has been confusing for a lot of people, because honestly, who wants an ally whose country is falling apart and who every other country hates? Well, it depends on what you value in your allies. Being allied with Syria, for one thing, gives Russia a foothold in the Middle East, right next to America’s major ally/foothold, Israel. Being Assad’s ally in the regime’s hour of need also makes Syria rather beholden to Russia. If you only have one ally, and they’re as powerful as Russia, you basically have to do what they say, because you can’t risk losing their help or having them turn against you. So if President Putin so desired, he could basically make Assad his puppet, and Assad really couldn’t do anything about it. The very idea is both brilliant and terrible.

Anyway, because of Russia’s support of Assad, Putin sent in troops a month or so ago to “attack ISIS,” or so they said. What American intelligence told us was that they were really focusing on the groups that threatened Assad, like our friends the rebels. After all, ISIS is attacking everyone that doesn’t agree with it–including these rebels–while the rebels are directly moving against Assad. So it was actually in the regime and its allies’ interests to leave ISIS be until the rebel threat is taken care of, since ISIS would actually be helping them fight off the direct threat. The U.S. wasn’t so happy about this, and promptly sent a team of its own soldiers into Syria to combat ISIS, as well as bolster the rebel force. For a few tense days it looked like Russia and America were heading towards another quasi war.

Then ISIS shot down a Russian passenger plane, killing close to 300 people in one day. This is when Russia’s priorities appear to change, as Putin announced Russia would now aggressively target ISIS. Apparently they meant it this time, because they basically sent a whole air-armada over to the region to drop small bombs. It was an antiquated war tactic, but hey, whatever works. It should be noted that throughout this whole Russian ordeal, the West barely batted an eye.

…Then Paris was attacked and everyone flipped out. The entire Western front was angry, and now France was in the game, sending air strikes over to ISIS strongholds. Recently David Cameron has been plugging for military intervention from Britain against ISIS, and now with their ally France under attack, you can bet on him getting it. In fact, a lot of nations now seem ready to take up the cause, since obviously ISIS isn’t discriminating by country. Who could be next?

Can I just pause and ask why ISIS thought this would be a good idea? If you antagonize every major military in the world, stirring up the West and the East, you know you’re going to get messed up, right? I mean it seems like common sense.

Anyway, while obviously irritated that the West responded way more to the attack on France then the attack on their plane, Russia realized they had a common enemy, and are now teamed up with France. America is also in support of this union, although diplomats are reasonably nervous about what will happen after ISIS is taken care of (because let’s face it, ISIS is toast). President Obama has noted that Americans will not allow the dictator Assad to stay in power even after ISIS is out of the picture, and Russia has remained (suspiciously?) mute on the subject.

Finally, the most recent development: Turkey shooting down one of Russia’s military jets. It should be noted that these two countries have been having problems with each other recently. Turkey, for one thing, absolutely hates Assad–he’s a terrible neighbor, and all of Syria’s escaped refugees have now settled in Turkey to take cover. Ending the Syrian civil war and ousting Assad is very high on Turkey’s list of priorities, but Russia for a while seemed to be helping Assad. Russia has also been flying several military aircrafts over Turkish airspace, aggravating them further. So it doesn’t come as a complete surprise that this strike happened, although the Turk’s timing is quite awful honestly and they used weapons America had given them, which is irritating to the U.S. because now we’ve been roped into what was really a bad decision.

Russia was obviously upset, and has placed sanctions on trade with Turkey that will ultimately cost the country about $3 billion dollars. Putin described the attack as “a stab in the back,” committed by “accomplices of terrorists,” and implied that America could have stopped the attack through better communication (Note that Turkey isn’t in support of terrorists, but what do you expect everyone to think when you attack a country who has publicly made it their mission to combat said terrorists?). Interestingly though, Russia has now agreed to follow along with Western attack plans, which will be lead by the United States. This is great!… Right? Well for now, we know that ISIS is going down, and that is good. But whether this cooperation will lead to a new bond between Russia and the West or ultimately more conflict, remains to be seen.

Adam, Karla and Roth, Andrew. “Moscow is ready to coordinate with the West over strikes on Syria, Putin says.” Stars and Stripes. Stars and Stripes, 26 Nov. 2015. Web. 30 Nov., 2015.

Graham, Thomas E. “Russia’s Syria Surprise (And What America Should do About it).” The National Interest. Center for the National Interest, 15 Sept., 2015. Web. 30 Nov., 2015.


12
Feb 15

Syria is in the International Time-Out Corner Again

I think at this point we’re all aware of some of the problems the U.S. and several other countries have with Syria. After the country’s Civil War began, President Bashar al-Assad’s military was repeatedly accused of indiscriminately killing civilians. For those who haven’t been following the story, Syrian rebel groups have been fighting against Assad’s authoritarian regime, and Assad has responded by firing on, using chemical weapons, and even dropping bombs on it’s own citizens. These “barrel bombs” are the most recent thing that’s got everyone riled up. The United Nations has even held a conference to specifically address the developing humanitarian crisis, which in January alone has resulted in 271 civilian casualties and over 1000 injuries.

Assad, however, continues to deny any government involvement in these bombings, despite the fact that these events are well-documented: there are literally videos of the Syrian military pushing these bombs out of helicopters and onto civilian populations. In a rare interview with BBC news on Tuesday morning, President Assad reiterated, “We have bombs, missiles and bullets… There is [are] no barrel bombs, we don’t have barrels.” British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond was quick to condemn these remarks, saying, “Assad is deluded or lying when he says his military are not murdering hundreds of innocent civilians with the use of barrel bombs.”

To be fair, Syria isn’t intentionally targeting civilians. As Syrian activist and journalist Ibrahim as-Assil explained at the a UN conference this past May, the problem is more that these bombs are inaccurate, not that the regime has malicious intent. However, the moral conflict arises when the government refuses to acknowledge that they need to find another way to combat the rebels, which doesn’t involve endangering civilians. To make a long story short, the U.S. and several other countries have cut Syria off, so long as its government’s disregard for human life continues.

Recently though, things have been shaken up again in the Middle East. And it stems from the rise of ISIS.

To clear up any preconceptions you might have about Syria’s connection with ISIS, ISIS is not a Syrian rebel group. It is a transnational organization which was around for years before the start of the Syrian civil war. While ISIS does not support Syria’s secular government, they have managed to benefit from the conflict within the country. It allowed ISIS to get battlefield experience, and attracted a ton of financial support from Gulf states and private donors looking to oust Assad. Throughout the turmoil they have also attained a crucial safe haven in eastern Syria. ISIS also absorbed a lot of recruits from Syrian rebel groups, which means that arming Syrian rebels, as some have suggested, probably would not have helped dismantle ISIS (although according to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford, it may have been essential to taking out Assad. Either way, arming them now would be too little, too late at this point.).

While countries like Jordan and the U.S. previously refused to work with Assad, the emergence of ISIS has reshuffled the deck, and many governments are reconsidering. However, the Syrian government has so far refused to cooperate, and as a result many of said countries are taking military action without Assad’s permission. The U.S., in particular, has become very active in the region; as of December 2014, it has carried 1371 airstrikes in Syria and Iraq where ISIS has been hiding out. While communication is still open with Iraq, Syrians apparently have very little to go off of. In fact, the Syrian regime is getting most of it’s information now from “Iraq and other countries.” When questioned about how there could be no communication between Syria and the U.S. about air strikes, and still be no aircraft collisions, Assad explained, “Sometimes, they [the Americans] convey a message, a general message, but there’s nothing tactical,” he added vaguely: “There is no dialogue. There’s, let’s say, information, but not dialogue.”

Here’s what Assad said, more specifically, about the U.S.: “They don’t talk to anyone, unless it is puppet. And they easily trample over international law, which is about our sovereignty now. So they don’t talk to us, we don’t talk to them.”

So perhaps the U.S. isn’t the only party refusing to communicate. But maybe we’re right right to be cautious around Syria when in comes to ISIS. Because in a bizarre way, the rise of the terrorist organization has really benefitted Assad. By the “virtue” of the misconception that ISIS is a Syrian rebel group, Assad’s supporters have become increasingly more convinced that the rebels need to be stopped at all costs. Assad has also been focussing most of his military on moderate groups of rebels, the ones most against ISIS, which leaves ISIS temporarily unscathed. These same moderate rebels have also been fighting against ISIS, dividing the opposition even further.

So while ISIS and Syria really do hate each other, they seem to have made an implicit deal: ISIS gets a temporary free ride in some parts of Syria, and Assad gets to weaken his other opponents. They both benefit from the current status quo.

With all this information coming to light, I don’t believe anyone can trust the Syrian government, and I don’t have any qualms about our military not being totally upfront about its plans with them. What do you readers think? Do we owe it to Syria to let them in on the airstrikes landing in their country, or should we keep them in the international time-out corner?

BBC News. Assad Says Syria is Informed on Anti-IS Air Campaign. BBC World News. Feb. 10, 2015.

Beauchamp, Zach. The 9 Biggest Myths About ISIS. Vox. Oct. 1, 2014.

Chappel, Bill. Syria Has Learned About Airstrikes On ISIS Via ‘Iraq And Other Countries.’ NPR. Feb. 10, 2015.

Dearden, Lizzie. Syrian Government Forces Killing Hundreds of Civilians in Air Strikes as World Watches ISIS. The Independent. Feb. 4, 2015.

United Nations. Barrel Bombs: Syria’s Indiscriminate Killers. UN Web TV. May 14, 2014.

US News. Should Obama Have Armed Syrian Rebels Sooner? US News Debate Club.

Winsor, Morgan. US Airstrikes Targeting ISIS Cost Over $1 Billion, Pentagon Says. International Business Times. Dec. 20, 2014.

Zirulnick, Ariel. Syrian 101: 4 Attributes of Assad’s Authoritarian Regime. The Christian Science Monitor. Apr. 29, 2011.


Skip to toolbar