News / Middle East

Experts Analyze Issues Surrounding US Syria Intervention

President Barack Obama pauses as he answers questions during his new conference in the Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, April 30, 2013.
President Barack Obama pauses as he answers questions during his new conference in the Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, April 30, 2013.
Cecily Hilleary
President Barack Obama is under increasing pressure to intervene in Syria’s civil war, either by ordering air strikes on government targets, arming the opposition or setting up a no-fly zone to protect the rebels trying to oust the regime of President Bashar al-Assad.

The pressure is coming from all directions – from Obama’s political rivals at home, the Syrian rebels themselves and powerful U.S. allies such as Britain, France, Israel and Turkey. All of them argue Syria has already crossed the so-called “red line” Obama himself drew nearly a year ago when he said use of chemical weapons against civilians would be a “game changer” requiring U.S. action in Syria.

The U.S. intervened in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, one line of reasoning goes; why does Obama seem so reluctant to take action in Syria, a country that regional analysts say could destabilize the entire Middle East and beyond?

Is it because after Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, the American public no longer supports military intervention abroad? Is it because Syria has no big petroleum reserves to speak of? Or because the U.S. government doesn’t want to get involved in the internal disputes of yet another Muslim country?

Or maybe because – without a clear United Nations Security Council mandate -- Washington sees no diplomatic or legal basis to justify intervention in Syria. 

Michael C. DorfMichael C. Dorf
x
Michael C. Dorf
Michael C. Dorf
Use of force

The 1945 U.N. charter prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, and stipulates that only the U.N. Security Council has the power to determine whether there has been an actual threat to peace and what should be done about it. In the case of Syria, permanent members China and Russia would veto any such call to action.

Cornell University Law Professor Michael C. Dorf points out another alternative: Self-defense.

“That also includes collective self-defense, and so one justification I could imagine the Obama Administration giving for sending troops to take part in hostilities in Syria would be the defense of Turkey, which is a NATO ally and which has been attacked quite recently by Syria—at least that is what appears to have happened—and that would not require any specific authorization by the U.N.”

Pragmatic approach

Robert Pape, a professor at the University of Chicago who specializes in international security affairs, has long argued the need for a new pragmatic standard for interventions. Such a standard, he says, should be based on three “pillars”—1) whether mass homicide is occurring; 2) the cost of intervention in terms of lives lost; and 3) whether intervention can bring about lasting peace.

“In the case of Syria, there is no doubt that there is mass homicide occurring in the country,” Pape said. “It’s been going on for two years and the Assad government has been a main perpetrator there and that has unleashed the Syrian civil war.” 
The challenge is that any form of intervention, Pape says, would result in a tremendous loss of life.

“It would be very difficult to find ways to intervene directly in the fighting without
Robert A. PapeRobert A. Pape
x
Robert A. Pape
Robert A. Pape
involving tens of thousands of ground troops, if not more, in an ongoing civil war,” he said, adding that there would be no way for American troops to intervene without appearing to be fighting for one side or the other.

“And so the problem here is that this is a situation where you intervene directly in an ongoing civil war with boots on the ground in large numbers, where you are likely to have a lot of people fighting and shooting at us.”

As for the third “pillar,” Pape says the sheer size and demography of Syria undercut the contention that intervention could bring about lasting peace.  Bosnia and Iraq had similar mixed demographics—that is, different ethnic and religious groups intermingled with one another.  The difference, however, is that these populations were smaller and more easy to control. 

In other words, given Syria’s huge size and large population -- 22 million Alawite, Sunni, Shia, Christians, Druze and Kurds living amidst one another -- there is no way a U.S. military presence could prevent a bloodbath following Assad’s fall. 

Despite the practical difficulties -- whether they are legal, diplomatic or logistical -- some regional experts insist there is a moral imperative to do something when hundreds of Syrians are killed, imprisoned or displaced each day.
 
Pape says his approach, while practical, is also moral. “In everyday terms, helping strangers is something that you should do, as long as it doesn’t violate other moral commitments that you’ve made.”

Pape believes that in deciding on Syria, the U.S. President must consider two moral duties—first, those that our armed forces have to protect our country: If significant numbers of U.S. troops were to die, it would weaken the ability of the U.S. military to fulfill its own duty.  Second, U.S. military intervention could easily end up making matters worse for the Syrians themselves.  “We could end up with a situation where Syria becomes literally an ungovernable chaos,” Pape said.

Ian HurdIan Hurd
x
Ian Hurd
Ian Hurd
Humanitarian intervention

Over time, many grew to view the U.N. Charter as too restrictive, and new norms were established.  In 1948, in the wake of the Holocaust in Europe, the U.N. adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, defined as any act of violence designed to destroy all or part of a specific national, ethnic, racial or religious group and obligating the international community to take whatever steps necessary to stop the killing and punish the perpetrators.  The problem with the convention, however, is that it the language is vague—for example, how many members of a group would have to die before the killing could qualify as genocide? 
 
In 2005, after the international community failed to stop the genocide in Rwanda, the U.N. General Assembly agreed on a new duty known as the “Responsibility to Protect (R2P).”  This set of principles holds that states are responsible for the protection of their own citizens with the help and support of the international community.  If a state fails in its obligation, the international community is obligated to intervene via sanctions and diplomacy, and, if those fail, military intervention.

These two norms form the basis of a new notion –the “humanitarian exception to the principle of nonintervention,” or, intervention without a U.N. Security Council mandate.  But the notion remains problematic, according to the experts.

“It’s really not very certain in international law what the legality of humanitarian intervention is,” said Ian Hurd, associate professor of Political Science at Northwestern University “There are several bodies of international law that give you different answers.  So really, you can use international law to justify a humanitarian intervention, as in Libya, but you can also use the fact of state sovereignty to argue against it.”

Instead of looking for legal justification to intervene in Syria, says Hurd, the U.S. should consider whether intervention is going to help the situation or whether it’s going to make it worse. 

“In the Libya case, I think it was fairly clear that NATO hardware would help protect Libyan citizens against the government,” Hurd said.  “But in the Syrian case, it’s not so clear that American or outside technology is going to help or hurt the citizens that it’s looking to protect.  The Syrian government is much better armed and organized, has very good air defenses and a very well-organized and strong military compared to the Libyan government.”

According to Hurd, it was relatively easy for NATO to destroy the Libyan government’s air defenses and then go on to support the rebels from the air.  “That would not be feasible in Syria without causing enormous damage,” he said.  “You would probably end up killing more people by accident than you might even save.

But humanitarian intervention doesn’t have to be military, says Hurd. He points out that the U.S. is already intervening in at least two or three important ways:  Putting pressure on the Russian government to reduce support for Assad and providing humanitarian relief for the people of Syria.

You May Like

UN: 1 Million Somalis at Risk of Hunger

Group warns region is in dire need of humanitarian aid, with at least 200,000 children under age of five acutely malnourished as drought hits southern, central part of nation More

Human Rights Groups Allege Supression of Freedoms in Thailand

Thailand’s military, police have suppressed release of independent report assessing human rights in kingdom during first 100 days of latest coup More

Jennifer Lawrence Contacts FBI After Nude Photos Hacked

'Silver Linings Playbook' actress' photos were posted on image-sharing forum 4chan; Federal Bureau of Investigations is looking into matter More

This forum has been closed.
Comment Sorting
Comments
     
by: Ali from: Denver
May 15, 2013 1:56 AM
I rather support a dictator than the sick and psychopaths rebels that want pure islamic system. That would not only be the end of Syria, it will be the end of all of us. I will pity you guys (Mr Dorf, and others) with their comments here, as being selfish and self centered and stupids, that have no respect for other people except their own reputation as supreme race. shame on you.


by: Clariss from: USA
May 14, 2013 10:59 AM
hey Assad, Obama will love you to stay in power if you become a member of the Muslim Brotherhood...


by: Sarg. Bonaventura from: NYPD
May 14, 2013 10:56 AM
hey Obama... its really sad to see you writhing in agony like the incompetent Prez that you are...
and one more thing... to Cecily Hilleary, where did you get the "powerful U.S. allies such as Britain, France, Israel and Turkey..."??? Britain has never been our allies!! nor have the French and the Turks have classified US as their number one enemy... where do you get your information from??? Israel is the only nation we can really rely on... and i say that is enough - thank God


by: nehad ismail from: London, UK
May 14, 2013 1:56 AM
President Obama's lack of clear decisive strategy has emboldened Iran, Hezbollah and al Qaeda to operate freely in Syria.
The Syrian people, the opposition and the Free Syrian Army are not demanding military intervention. All Syrians with a few exceptions have rejected an Iraqi or Libyan style intervention. They don't want troops on the ground. They want no-fly, no-kill zones in the North near the Turkish borders and in the South near the Jordanian borders. This will provide protection for the Syrian refugees and may encourage more defections from the regular Syrian army to the FSA.

The second thing they demand which can be easily provided by NATO is anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons. Whilst Russia and Iran are supplying armaments to the Syrian army, it makes lot of sense for the West and the so-called Friends of Syria to help the opposition. The murderous Syrian regime is getting economic and substantial military help from Russia, Iran, North Korea and Hezbollah. The Free Syrian Army is getting limited assistance from Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

The longer the West remains inactive, the more Islamic extremists will join the war. Inaction by the Obama administration over the last two years had encouraged the regime to kill more than 80,000 Syrians and force the displacement of 2 million Syrians. By turning a blind eye, President Obama has in effect given the green light to Al-Qaeda and other Jihadists to enter Syria. What is desperately needed is anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons, not boots on the ground.


by: Carlos .. from: USA
May 14, 2013 12:15 AM
the mass murdering dictator in Damascus has had one thing going for him since he started shooting and killing unarmed protesters last year .. President Obama has been resolutely in his corner .. sure he might have feigned the excuse the his friends in the Kremlin were too powerful to contradict .. but President Obama has against all odds opposed all his top advisors .. Petreas, Clinton, Penneta .. all who wanted to help the rebels .. President Obama has singled handedly prevented the over-throw of the 40 years Nazi-like single party military state .. for 794 days the commentators have soft-pedaled his star role in the survival of the dictators ..

I have been to Aleppo .. they are marvelous people .. I never met better .. I am ashamed to be an American there since the president has become the one man in the world to frustrate the heroic sacrifice of these people seeking democracy and freedom ..

Featured Videos

Your JavaScript is turned off or you have an old version of Adobe's Flash Player. Get the latest Flash player.
Ukraine Schools Resume Classes, Donate to Government Forcesi
X
September 02, 2014 12:58 PM
A new school year has started in Ukraine but thousands of children in the war-torn east are unable to attend because of ongoing clashes with pro-Russia rebels. In Ukraine's capital, patriotic education has become the norm along with donations to support injured security forces fighting to take back rebel-held areas. VOA's Daniel Schearf reports from Kyiv.
Video

Video Ukraine Schools Resume Classes, Donate to Government Forces

A new school year has started in Ukraine but thousands of children in the war-torn east are unable to attend because of ongoing clashes with pro-Russia rebels. In Ukraine's capital, patriotic education has become the norm along with donations to support injured security forces fighting to take back rebel-held areas. VOA's Daniel Schearf reports from Kyiv.
Video

Video US Detainees Want Negotiators for Freedom in North Korea

The three U.S. detainees held in North Korea were permitted to speak with foreign media Monday. The government of Kim Jong Un restricted the topics of the questions, and the interviews in Pyongyang were limited to five minutes. Each of the men asked Washington to send a representative to Pyongyang to secure his release. VOA’s Carolyn Presutti has our story.
Video

Video Internet, Technology Offer New Tools for Journalists

The Internet and rapidly evolving technology is quickly changing how people receive news and how journalists deliver it. There are now more ways to tell a story than ever before. One school in Los Angeles is teaching the next generation of journalists with the help of a state-of-the-art newsroom. Elizabeth Lee has this report.
Video

Video Turkmen From Amerli Describe Survival of IS Siege

Over the past few weeks, hundreds of Shi'ite Turkmen have fled the town of Amerli seeking refuge in the northern city of Kirkuk. Despite recent military gains after U.S. airstrikes that were coordinated with Iraqi and Kurdish forces, the situation remains dire for Amerli’s residents. Sebastian Meyer went to Kirkuk for VOA to speak to those who managed to escape.
Video

Video West Africa Ebola Vaccine Trials Possible by Early 2015

A U.S. health agency is speeding up clinical trials of a possible vaccine against the deadly Ebola virus that so far has killed more than 1,500 people in West Africa. If successful, the next step would be a larger trial in countries where the outbreak is occurring. VOA's Carol Pearson has more.
Video

Video Survivors Commemorate 70th Anniversary of Nazi Liquidation of Jewish Ghetto

When the German Nazi army occupied the Polish city of Lodz in 1939, it marked the beginning of a long nightmare for the Jewish community that once made up one third of the population. Roughly 200,000 people were forced into the Lodz Ghetto. Less than 7,000 survived. As VOA’s Kane Farabaugh reports, some survivors gathered at the Union League Club in Chicago on the 70th anniversary of the liquidation of the Lodz Ghetto to remember those who suffered at the hands of the Nazi regime.
Video

Video Cost to Raise Child in US Continues to Rise

The cost of raising a child in the United States continues to rise. In its latest annual report, the U.S. Department of Agriculture says middle income families with a child born in 2013 can expect to spend more than $240,000 before that child turns 18. And sending that child to college more than doubles that amount. VOA’s Deborah Block visited with a couple with one child in Alexandria, Virginia, to learn if the report reflects their lifestyle.
Video

Video Chaotic Afghan Vote Recount Threatens Nation’s Future

Afghanistan’s troubled presidential election continues to be rocked by turmoil as an audit of the ballots drags on. The U.N. says the recount will not be completed before September 10. Observers say repeated disputes and delays are threatening the orderly transfer of power and could have dangerous consequences. VOA correspondent Meredith Buel reports.

AppleAndroid