{"id":9038,"date":"2014-03-13T15:02:25","date_gmt":"2014-03-13T15:02:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/wordpress72\/?p=25254"},"modified":"2025-12-19T11:22:29","modified_gmt":"2025-12-19T10:22:29","slug":"inside-the-minds-of-officials-during-the-syrian-conflict","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.erasmusmagazine.nl\/en\/2014\/03\/13\/inside-the-minds-of-officials-during-the-syrian-conflict\/","title":{"rendered":"Inside the minds of officials during the Syrian conflict"},"content":{"rendered":"

Kim Ghattas (current BBC correspondent) was raised in Lebanon where American-foreign policy was taught to her first-hand. She discusses her time as state department correspondent, and tackles the question of limits in American influence. <\/p>\n

Kim Ghattas arrived at Erasmus University in the Paviljoen on Monday to discuss a hotly-debated subject \u2013 the limits of American power in the context of Syria. BBC and state department correspondent Kim Ghattas had a unique position with decision makers of the White House. During her time in Washington she travelled, shared breakfasts, and late nights with many high-ranking officials whilst never failing to ask them the important questions. <\/p>\n

Tea time <\/b><\/p>\n

Ghattas begins: \u201cThe debate on American power is very cyclical. Under certain circumstances, the nation\u2019s government is painted as an unstoppable power. During Reagan\u2019s time in office, the news headlines predominantly spelled out a decline in America\u2019s influence while forecasting shameful retreats from the middle-east.\u201d<\/p>\n

Ghattas experienced the government\u2019s body of officials as on which hold contrary opinions on foreign policy among whom, Obama weighs and cautiously deliberates the various opinions. Even differences exist between close advisory boards on the level of involvement with international issues. \u201cObama generally takes a protectionist approach fraught with memories of Iraq while officials like Hilary Clinton would prefer even deeper involvement. With enemies like Iran and Libya, current objectives primarily concern neutralization or at most, modest military attacks. Public action was only prompted due to the use of chemical weapons by Assad.\u201d\u00a0 Before published words about a strike against Syria broke out, Ghattas was having breakfast with a high-ranking official where he explained that internal matters like civil wars had to stay internal. Death and conflict reigned over Syria but then Assad\u2019s use of chemical weapons dissolved any rationale behind inaction. <\/p>\n

Fickle loyalties<\/b><\/p>\n

\u201cTo rally allies was very difficult\u201d, Ghattas continues. \u201cBritain (the U.S.\u2019s closest ally) remembered the fabricated evidence of WMDs, and subsequent carnage left from the war on Iraq. On August 29th, Edward Miliband rose against typical principles of bipartisanship, and refused David Cameron from legitimizing all grounds of involvement at the House of Representatives. The public agreed and Cameron suffered aching defeat.\u201d<\/p>\n

Ghattas received a readout (a distributed briefing or private meetings), outlining Cameron and Obama\u2019s meeting, which happened to gloss over Cameron\u2019s defeat. Instead, Obama offered his gratitude for Britain\u2019s past loyalty. \u201cAllies are indispensable, and their absence factors in when the White House deliberates on interventionist measures, and calls their scope of influence into question.\u201d In regards to the Middle-East, she elaborates that America\u2019s past mistakes have grossly restrained their persuasive powers with allies, and especially with international audiences. <\/p>\n

The will of the people <\/b><\/p>\n

Ghattas continues to explain: \u201dObama is in-tune with the desire of the American people, of which the majority (may it be democrats, republicans and independents) are diametrically opposed to an intervention. The lack of transparency during the Iraq war prompted people to evaluate the agenda, and hoped outcome from Syria. The consensus? That the outcome was both unclear, and very unlikely to bring any good\u2026 In London on September 9th, Kerry makes a statement in a press conference presenting the impossibility of Syria giving up their chemical weapons, to avoid an attack. Sergei Lavrov hears this, calls him and sees the statement as a proposal and a way out of military strikes.\u201d<\/p>\n

Ghattas and her coworkers were told that Kerry\u2019s statement had been \u201coff-the cuff\u201d and didn\u2019t represent any chance in policy. Obama could still execute a strike without the approval of congress or the American people. \u201cInstead, on September 11th he delays the congressional vote and works with Russia towards sending inspectors to destroy the chemical weapons. It relieved space for ideas, negotiations and stances to develop. The stereotypical image of the hyper powerful America has greatly subsided mainly because of such approaches attributed to Obama\u2019s personality. In the past, media outlets have largely contributed to shaping the image of a highly strategized American foreign policy but happenstances and fallibility shape progressions as well\u201d.\u00a0 NAH <\/p>\n\n\t

\n\t\t
\n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t
\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Latest news<\/h2>\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t