International Relations

Call for Syria to Open the Door

/ Uzma Gulamali / 1 Comment

Last week the United Nations broke its two-and-half-year deadlock over Syria when it passed two binding demands on the country. First, Syria is to abandon its weapons stockpile; second, Syria is to give chemical weapons experts unfettered access.

This week there is a push to send humanitarian aid to Syria. The 15-member Security Council agreed to a non-binding statement in order to increase aid access. This is a call for Syrian authorities to grant humanitarian organizations entry into the country, to expedite visas for necessary personnel and to “demilitarize” medical facilities, schools and water stations.

There is no doubt the civil war has taken its toll on the country. There are over two million refugees, about five million Syrians displaced within the country and one-third of Syria’s housing is destroyed. Syrian U.N. Ambassador Bashar Ja’afari said the Syrian government would study the council statement before responding. Hopefully, Syria will listen to the United Nations — or at least it’s best friend Russia, who is supporting the United Nations’ request to “lift bureaucratic impediments and other obstacles” in order to allow more humanitarian relief across the country.

As happy as I am at the prospect of Syria being disarmed and hopefully getting help Syrians desperately need, the deal sounds too good to be true to me. How about to you?

To read more check out a couple of my sources: online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303722604579111691747164868.html

abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/diplomats-back-syria-humanitarian-access-20444294

“Cutting The Pentagon’s Budget Is A Gift To Our Enemies”

/ Matthew Clemente / Leave a comment

“Cutting The Pentagon’s Budget Is A Gift To Our Enemies”

That was the proposition being debated on the NPR’s Intelligence Squared. Moderated by 

ABC News’ John Donvan, this debate featured Thomas Donnelly–Co-Director, Marilyn Ware Center for Security Studies, AEI–and Andrew Krepinevich–President, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, who argued for the motion; and Benjamin Friedman–Research Fellow, Cato Institute–and Kori Schake–Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, who argued against it.  

Here is description of the debate: 

Political gridlock in Washington triggered across-the-board spending cuts, known as the sequester, in March. As a result, the Pentagon was given six months to eliminate $41 billion from the current year’s budget, and unlike past cuts, this time everything is on the table. In 2011, America spent $711 billion dollars on its defense—more than the next 13 highest spending countries combined. But the burdens it shoulders, both at home and abroad, are unprecedented. Could the sequester be a rare opportunity to overhaul the armed forces, or will its impact damage military readiness and endanger national security?