Violence in Syria

Posted by DipNote Bloggers
December 23, 2011
People Stand at Site of Bombing in Damascus

Deputy Spokesperson Mark Toner released the followed statement on violence in Syria on December 23, 2011. He said:

"The United States condemns in the strongest terms the bombings today in Damascus. We extend our sympathies to the families of the victims. There is no justification for terrorism of any kind and we condemn these acts wherever they occur.

"For nine long months the Assad regime has used torture and violence to suppress the aspiration of the Syrian people for peaceful political change. Throughout this time we have spoken out against the violence in Syria, as we have in other countries since the moment peaceful movements for democratic change began in the region, and we will continue to do so. It is crucial that today's attack not impede the critical work of the Arab League monitoring mission to document and deter human rights abuses with the goal of protecting civilians. We hope that this mission will proceed unfettered in an atmosphere of non-violence. The burden is on the regime to cooperate fully and quickly with the monitoring mission.

"The Syrian people continue to suffer daily. They deserve a peaceful political transition that begins with respect of their human rights and an immediate end to repression. The United States will continue to support the Syrian people in their struggle for a peaceful transition from dictatorship to democracy."

You can also find the statement here.



United States
January 3, 2012

Zharkov in the U.S.A. writes:

The "Responsibility To Protect" doctrine is not limited to any one nation or organization, so whose responsibility is it to protect Syria and how would we know?

Suppose Iran asserts the "Responsibility To Protect" doctrine for the people of Syria?

Should Iran intervene?

And if Iran intervenes, should Iran protect the people in the street, or the people in the government?

Who should decide whom to protect, Syria's government or Iran's government?

And what if Syrians didn't want Iran's "protection"?

Principles of ethical responsibility are universal - if it is ethical for one nation, it is ethical for any nation.

If a duty exists for the US to protect foreign citizens from their governments, then that duty exists for any nation to protect other peoples from their governments. There is no escape from that conclusion.

The next question is, how far shall this duty extend?

Should other nations intervene to prevent US authorities from executing convicted criminals?

Should there be a duty for Mexico to intervene or demand UN sanctions if US election fraud is apparent?

Is there a duty for Russia to intervene if the US mandates dangerous vaccinations against the will of the citizens, or teaches dangerous doctrines in American schools? On that last point, the US has intervened in Afghanistan to abolish teachings of the Taliban, replacing them with schools teaching Western values to Afghanistan children. China has done the same in Tibet, teaching Chinese language and culture to Tibet's children.

If an entire culture is sick, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, where they behead women, torture prisoners, and worse, does a duty exist to change that culture by military force, to make them imitate Western values?

If there is a "responsibility to protect" citizens, when does that responsibility end?

Is the "responsibility to protect" an arrogant form of socialism hiding under the cover of ethical responsibility?

Can the government of one country claim any authority to guard citizens of all other countries?

For whom was such a government created - its own people or the people of some foreign land who cannot vote for or against the intervenor government?

Leah N.
United States
January 4, 2012

Leah N. in the U.S.A. writes:

Poor news - Syria's 'mutilation mystery' deepens...


Latest Stories