An Indian Perspective on Syria
show comments
  • carvaka

    there is another reason why india prefers a non-interventionist policy. or doesn’t even try to “promote” democracy.

    a lot of indians think that democracy can’t be a top down process. you have to build institutions – which is a long and torturous process. and that often happens best during long struggle , when you have to take a lot of interest groups along with you.

    when an intervention is needed it often means the struggle inside the country is not strong enough , their alternate political structure is much weaker.

    so most probably removing assad will bring another assad (somewhat better or worse) but not democracy.

    i am not saying international community should just watch while assad butchers people. but there is a lot of things between regime change and doing nothing.

    india is also skeptical about west’s intervention approach because it looks to us selective. it is done to weaker nations and it is done to those who are often in the opposite side.
    so to a lot of people it looks like there is an ulterior motive, even if there is none.

  • Jacksonian Libertarian

    As a Jacksonian I am against intervention for Wilsonian do-gooder reasons, and think that when the do-gooders start mucking about they just make things worse and prevent a clear decision of “Trial by Combat” from settling the issues. The Diplomatic impulse that demands peace at any price is irresponsibly foolish, and costs far more blood and treasure in the long run. Give War a chance, it is the only way 2 cultures can establish which is superior.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.