Despite my attempt at a humorous title, the Syria conflict is a very serious subject. Heck, talk of any armed conflict in general is serious. And I doubt this will be the last post I do about it.
To start, if you are unfamiliar with the events that precipitated the current conflict and the events of the war, here is a timeline from the BBC under its Country Profile for Syria: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14703995. I recommend looking at the BBC’s Country Profiles, as they are relatively brief but very informative.
I am very bothered by the fact that very little is being done about the conflict in Syria; at the same time, however, I also understand the constraints that hold sway over a lot of countries that would otherwise participate in humanitarian intervention. I do not necessarily approve of these constraints, but they are there.
This discussion will start by covering the reasons why humanitarian intervention is not so easy in today’s world. Then I will talk about the nature of the Syria conflict, what is being done (and what is NOT being done), and why it is significant.
Sovereignty: Can’t Touch This
What could possibly be so difficult about intervening in a horrible, horrible conflict in which thousands of people are dying? How is that even a question? The answer, unfortunately, is long-winded and complicated.
One of the basic tenets of today’s world order is that states–countries, if you will–are sovereign.
In simplified terms, to be a sovereign state means that the state is autonomous, that the recognized government has full authority within the borders of the recognized territory. It is an acknowledgement and acceptance on the other recognized members of the international community that a state is legitimate. To be legitimate, in turn, means to have the sole authority of governance.
The definition of sovereignty has changed over time and many academic articles and even books have been written on the subject, hence my very short and not-satisfyingly-thorough definition.
The foundation for the modern concept of sovereignty started with the signing of the treaty of Westphalia in 1648. This is considered the signal of the beginning of the current world order and a new approach to international relations. Back then, states were the main players in the international arena. Sovereignty was inviolable, almost sacred.
Of course, back then there was a standard of recognizing sovereignty in states that had only proved to be “civilized”. It didn’t stop many European states and some Asian ones from colonizing already-occupied lands. But they were not occupied by people considered civilized; some states felt it was a duty to teach these peoples how to be civilized. (“Teach” is a rather mild word here, but methods of indoctrinating civilization were often not mild.)
Now the world order is considered “universal”, by which I mean all inhabited land under the domain of a sovereign state. (As to whether the world order is universal in the political mentality of every state is subject to debate.)
In today’s world, the concept of sovereignty—whether you realize it or not—is the established measure by which we judge one sovereign state invading or interfering with the affairs of another sovereign state as morally wrong. Think of the outrage resulting from Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in the 1990s.
Ideas of legitimacy have changed, too. With the advent of widespread democracy, legitimacy, which used to be largely mutually conferred between states, is now considered to be determined by the people of a state. So when a section of the people begin to openly and violently rebel against their government for inhumane practices, it suggests that the government’s legitimacy is in question.
The question then is: at what point does a government lose legitimacy completely and thereby involuntarily relinquish sovereignty?
Herein lies the problem of humanitarian intervention for outsiders looking in. There is no general consensus on the answer to that question. Which means that the point at which intervention would be considered acceptable is uncertain and undecided. And keep in mind that humanitarian intervention is NOT the same as humanitarian aid; the former involves military forces coming into the state’s territory to stop the crisis.
There is a list of “failed states”, largely determined by international non-governmental organizations (INGOs). The 2012 list from the Fund for Peace can be found here: http://www.fundforpeace.org/global/?q=fsi-grid2012. A state is considered “failed” when the government cannot and/or will not perform basic functions for the people. The top five failed states this year are all in Africa: Somalia, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Sudan, Chad, and Zimbabwe.
Now it is easier to see why, in the context of today’s international system, humanitarian intervention is problematic. So even when many sovereign states have their moral alarm bells ringing with the advent of a humanitarian crisis in another state, international standards meant to safeguard states from each other, get in the way.
Not only that, but what amounts to a “humanitarian crisis” is also unclear. There is no consensus on a threshold of violent, government-related deaths.
Often there will be opposition to humanitarian intervention on the part of some states because of economic interests and profitable agreements with the current regime.
To top it off even further, many countries couch their opposition to humanitarian intervention in what is known as “cultural relativism”. Essentially, this means that moral code is different according to culture; what is wrong for one culture is perfectly acceptable in another. The validity of this concept has been put into question by many academic scholars. There is a fantastic article by Amartya Sen, who deals with a lot of moral issues in international affairs, that provides good evidence against cultural relativism. I don’t remember the title offhand, but when I get the chance I’ll put it under the Recommended Resources page of this blog.
The Case of Syria
Syria, unfortunately, is another case of a dictatorial leader oppressing a revolt against his regime. The fact that thousands have already died since the conflict began last year tells me that it is well into humanitarian crisis territory. But I’m just one person, not the international community. I’m sure, though, that many other individuals around the world agree with me wholeheartedly.
Some efforts are being made to provide humanitarian aid: food, money, clothing, and other supplies needed to care for refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs).
Much of the international community has called for Bashar al-Assad’s resignation and now for action to remove him from power. Russia and China repeatedly blocked resolutions made in the UN Security Council against Syria, largely to protect economic interests there.
What disappoints me, however, is the Obama administration’s lack of a strong stance on a decisive resolution to the conflict. I am an Obama supporter, but please don’t take that to mean that I support or agree with EVERYTHING he does, because I don’t, especially in this case. I receive e-mails from the State Department everyday to keep up with things going on in international affairs. I recently received an e-mail with the transcript of remarks given by Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the UN, at a Security Council meeting on Syria on August 30 of this year. I do recommend reading it. Here is the link:
http://usun.state.gov/briefing/statements/197077.htm
Here are some of the things that struck me the most. This passage in particular struck me as particularly telling:
“But this is not, at root, a humanitarian crisis. It is a political crisis caused by the cruelty and callousness of the Assad regime. No amount of humanitarian assistance will end the bloodshed and suffering. That day will come only once Assad has departed and a peaceful, Syrian-led transition to democracy has begun. This remains our goal—and should be the goal of all nations of goodwill. We welcome the appointment of Joint Special Representative Brahimi and fully support his efforts to end the violence and pave the way for a political transition.”
If you read the same passage I did, then you will see that something is very wrong with this statement. It IS a humanitarian crisis at root. Very often a political crisis is also a humanitarian one; I find most humanitarian crises are also political, though it is not always true the other way around. I find that denying that the political crisis in Syria is also a humanitarian one is despicable. I feel like it dehumanizes those who are suffering even more than they already are and it dismisses the horrors of what they are experiencing. I don’t know if you’ve seen the photos released by the media of the conflict, but they are stomach-turning and disheartening.
This is a conflict in which people are being killed indiscriminately. Thousands have been uprooted from their homes. Men and women alike are being subjected to sexual violence (rape). Forget personal socioeconomic security; many don’t know if they’ll live to see the next day.
I think it is disgusting to say that this is not a humanitarian crisis at root. The moment Assad started using death and bodily harm as weapons against those who do not support him represented a breakdown in any humanitarian compassion that all governments need to be effective in a positive way. In this sense, the humanitarian crisis and the political crisis were simultaneous: the government is failing to support the people, instead turning on them.
I just don’t see how it can be described otherwise.
On a different note, there is merit in the statement that no amount of humanitarian assistance will end the bloodshed and suffering. Ambassador Rice is correct: humanitarian aid is not enough, because it is not merely a humanitarian crisis. The political element must also be handled.
Another passage:
“Mr. President, we have heard volumes today about the suffering of the innocent and the cruelty of the guilty. My country was founded on the belief that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. The Assad regime has manifestly lost whatever consent, if any, it ever had. The question is not whether it will fall; the question is when, and at what price.”
This is an official statement that shows the U.S. feels that the Assad regime has lost legitimacy. I was also glad to see that the ambassador called out (though not by name) Russia and China on blocking UN Security Council action on Syria, calling their efforts to do so “reprehensible”.
I’m also glad to see that efforts are being made at the grassroots level to improve the vitality and strength of civil society in Syria. This will prove important for the transition to a new regime. As someone interested in development within conflict zones, I think this is a very good start.
I do not think that it is enough, however. I do not think Assad will willingly step down. It will either take forced removal or death to take him out of power. I do not advocate killing him—I think, instead, he should be tried for crimes against humanity.
As a Middle Eastern state, Syria is in a geographically precarious position. The Middle East has been a minefield in terms of stability, in no small part due to natural resource possession and distribution (i.e. a lot of oil, little water). Much of the area is still in development (economic, social, political). For a lot of secular states, there is too much religion involved in governance, too much rigidity.
On my part, I do not think religion in government is necessarily so bad for largely religiously homogenous societies, because religion can provide a good moral compass as long as it doesn’t lead the government to discriminate against those who practice other religions or to treat its own people badly; it just has to be done right and there needs to be checks on getting too radical or oppressive. On the other hand, I advocate secularism for states like the U.S. because there is so much cultural and religious diversity.
I hope that, in the course of reconstructing Syrian government and society, there is cultural and religious sensitivity. No country can effectively function or progress without all the parts working well together, of which culture plays an enormous role; cultural preferences must be considered in social reconstruction.
A stable Syria will help establish stability throughout the Middle East in general. Perhaps in time it can serve as a leader and role model in the region for other Arab and Muslim nations in the Middle East. With a state that has similar cultural and religious aspects, other such countries can replicate and adapt innovations in the future Syrian system that work well. This is somewhat idealistic on my part, but I feel I have to write it, to get it out there.
For now, I just hope the violence ends soon so that the Syrian people can heal and grow strong again.
To those who have family or friends out there, my prayers are with you and with them.
Breaking the Chaos in the New World Order 