Post by peterd on Sept 3, 2013 9:56:36 GMT -8
Against Backdrop Of Obama's Call For International Intervention In Syria, Arab Press Criticizes Arab League's Powerlessness In Handling Arab Crises
The impasse in the Syrian situation, as manifested by the failure to reach a political solution and the West's delay in arriving at a decision regarding a military strike, has sparked a debate in the Arab countries about the legitimacy of foreign intervention in Syria and the role the Arabs themselves must play in resolving the crisis.
The September 1 Arab League foreign ministers' meeting in Cairo shed light on the division in the Arab world between those in favor of foreign intervention in Syria (chief among them Saudi Arabia) and those who reject this option out of hand. According to reports in the Arab media, the meeting participants were in dispute over whether the Arab League should back a U.S. military strike in Syria.[1] Also during the meeting, Ahmad Jarba, chairman of the Syrian National Coalition (the umbrella group of opposition and revolutionary forces in Syria), urged the meeting participants to support the U.S. strike in order to protect the Syrian people;[2] a similar call came from Saudi Foreign Minister Sa'ud Al-Faisal, who criticized the Arab countries opposed to resolving in favor of backing a Western attack, saying: "Any opposition to an international move only encourages the Syrian regime to continue to commit crimes using every kind of weapon of mass destruction at its disposal... It is unfair to claim that whoever comes to the rescue of [the Syrian people] is interfering in Syria's internal affairs. After all, it is the regime in Damascus that opened the gates wide to the forces of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, the Hizbullah forces, and other forces from the neighboring countries, [and invited them] to enter Syria – so much so that it has become an occupied country."[3]
On the other hand, many other Arab countries, headed by Egypt, Iraq and Algeria, were firmly against endorsing an American military strike in Syria. Egyptian Foreign Minister Nabil Fahmy stressed in a speech that Egypt opposed any foreign intervention in this country "out of commitment to the principles of the U.N. Charter that prohibit the use of force except in cases of self-defense [or cases covered by] Chapter VII of the Charter." He added that the ideal solution to the Syrian crisis would be a political one, reached in the framework of the planned Geneva II conference. [4]
www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/7387.htm
The impasse in the Syrian situation, as manifested by the failure to reach a political solution and the West's delay in arriving at a decision regarding a military strike, has sparked a debate in the Arab countries about the legitimacy of foreign intervention in Syria and the role the Arabs themselves must play in resolving the crisis.
The September 1 Arab League foreign ministers' meeting in Cairo shed light on the division in the Arab world between those in favor of foreign intervention in Syria (chief among them Saudi Arabia) and those who reject this option out of hand. According to reports in the Arab media, the meeting participants were in dispute over whether the Arab League should back a U.S. military strike in Syria.[1] Also during the meeting, Ahmad Jarba, chairman of the Syrian National Coalition (the umbrella group of opposition and revolutionary forces in Syria), urged the meeting participants to support the U.S. strike in order to protect the Syrian people;[2] a similar call came from Saudi Foreign Minister Sa'ud Al-Faisal, who criticized the Arab countries opposed to resolving in favor of backing a Western attack, saying: "Any opposition to an international move only encourages the Syrian regime to continue to commit crimes using every kind of weapon of mass destruction at its disposal... It is unfair to claim that whoever comes to the rescue of [the Syrian people] is interfering in Syria's internal affairs. After all, it is the regime in Damascus that opened the gates wide to the forces of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, the Hizbullah forces, and other forces from the neighboring countries, [and invited them] to enter Syria – so much so that it has become an occupied country."[3]
On the other hand, many other Arab countries, headed by Egypt, Iraq and Algeria, were firmly against endorsing an American military strike in Syria. Egyptian Foreign Minister Nabil Fahmy stressed in a speech that Egypt opposed any foreign intervention in this country "out of commitment to the principles of the U.N. Charter that prohibit the use of force except in cases of self-defense [or cases covered by] Chapter VII of the Charter." He added that the ideal solution to the Syrian crisis would be a political one, reached in the framework of the planned Geneva II conference. [4]
www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/7387.htm