The Syrian Crisis
In light of the
coming class on Syria, I have looked into the current events that have created
such a crisis in the country. We are (probably) all familiar with the
international situation several months back concerning the use of chemical
weapons in Syria, and whether or not the United States would take action
against that. However, the state of the war between the rebels and the
government in Syria obviously did not stop there, though the interest of the
people did seem to.
This connects to
a theme about the idea that initial outrage or concern about disasters and its
media coverage tends to die out quickly, while the crisis or disaster itself is
prolonged. Of course, the presence of chemical weapons is always a taboo in the
world, causing uproars all around. At that same time there were strong opinions
one way or another as to whether interference in the country was necessary.
Since that time, it seems that Syria has been all but forgotten by people,
having moved on to bigger and more mysterious crises (such as flight 370, and
the Russian-Ukranian conflict). We have also discussed that this tendency to
forget goes hand-in-hand with the level of media coverage. While the media
coverage is significantly less concerned (which cannot really be surprising considering
that we are no longer in danger of joining the fight), but it was still very
easy to find two articles on the state of Syria in two newspaper companies.
This was interesting for me to note that, though international concern seems to
have died down, news coverage about the war is not obsolete yet.
It leads me to
wonder, do you think that the only reason people in the United States was
concerned was because of our possible participation in the world (which the
country just could not handle at the time considering the wars in Iraq and
Afganistan)? Or was it because of the outrage over the use of chemical weapons
(which would have made the crisis in Syria not unlike other typical disaster
coverages)? Ought we to show continued concern for it?
According to the
two articles by the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, their is an
imminent threat against particularly historic cities due to the war, Palmyra
and Maaloula respectively. Both articles concerns themselves as much with the
loss of culture because of the danger to the historic ruins in Palmrya and
religious structures in Maaloula as it does with the violence that is plaguing
the nation. However, both also follow along the same trend that leads to one
ultimate conclusion: the rebel forces are losing. These rebel forces are aiming
to denounce the rule of the current president, and for a change in government.
Considering this, one has to ask, would it be a worse disaster for the rebels
and the people they are fighting for if the Syrian government comes out ahead,
or is it the continued strife that is turning this crisis into a disaster?
Maaloula before the battle
and after (taken from LA Times):
Both sides are blaming the other for the ruin that the war is
causing to the monasteries, historic churches, and other Christian sites.
Palmyra before:
and during (taken from NY Times article):
The damage to the ruins has so far not been as destructive as
initially thought, however no one has been able to go in and inspect. The only
people now in the ruins are Syrian armed forces, which had previously been held
by the rebels.
No comments:
Post a Comment