On Friday, September 27, four of our most prominent and knowledgeable professors gathered in a panel to debate, discuss and analyze the ongoing civil war in Syria. The panel consisted of professors Alex Roberto Hybel, Tristan Borer, William Rose and Caroleen Sayej from the department of International Relations and Government. Together they presented a timeline of the conflict, contextualized the conflict in terms of international law and U.S. foreign policy, and made speculations about Obama’s recent policy decisions.
Professor Sayej opened up the discussion by providing the history of the conflict, which began in March 2011 when a handful of Syrian boys expressed their serious discontent with the Assad government by “scribbling on walls that the regime needed to be toppled”. Over time these exclamations grew into larger protests.
- In mid 2011, the Syrian government started to fall apart and president Bashar al-Assad was pressured by France and Great Britain to step down from his position. Ensuing Assad’s refusal to comply, sanctions against Syria were imposed by the end of 2011.
- In the beginning of 2012 the regime was still entrenched and Assad remained in power. During 2012 the violence in Syria continued to escalate and by the end of the year the opposition, also referred to as the rebels, united.
- By March 2013 the number of Syrian refugees had reached one million. During this year we have also seen the involvement of Iran, Russia, and Hezbollah, the use of chemical weapons against the Syrian opposition, American and U.N. involvement, and most recently international diplomacy regarding Syria’s chemical weapons.
- On Friday September 27, the day of this discussion, the U.N. Security Council unanimously passed the resolution requiring Syria to surrender its chemical weapons.
Sayej continued the discussion by contextualizing the Syrian crisis by looking at other conflicts in the Arab Spring. She explained that the conflicts have all begun with similar protests, but the conflict in Syria is the only conflict where the violence is completely out of control. It is a conflict with no end in sight. The Syrian conflict also differs in terms of the domestic rhetoric used, which has a heavy focus on Israel, Western conspiracy, imperialism and pan-Arabism. Sayej explained that the U.S really has no leverage in Syria to simply intervene and tell Assad to step down. Syria is also a country with Cold War remnants, which is why the Syrian government is supported by China and Russia, but the rise of the Shiite Crescent has become the new dominant force in the region. If Iran were to use Syria and Hezbollah to dominate the region, it would impose an imminent threat to the Sunnis in the region, and the Syrian conflict would become an even greater national security threat. But Sayej stressed that the conflict is more complex than a Shi’a-Sunni divide; the Persian-Arab divide has an even greater importance in the conflict. But Sayej cautioned that we should not broadly generalize the issues in the Middle East, such as the Shiite Crescent, because it is not the case that all Shiite leaders align with each other.
Professor Borer was the next speaker on the podium. She dedicated her speech to the concept of international law. She began by reciting Obama’s statement that the Assad government’s use of chemical weapons “crossed a red line”, and that “time had come to use limited force”, which led to the resolution that was passed by the U.N. Security Council on September 27. The use of chemical weapons in international armed conflict to target civilians is strictly forbidden by international law, stated in the Geneva Protocol in 1925, and is one of the few universally accepted conventions. However, this law does not apply to civil war, which is an interstate conflict. Professor Borer touched upon several issues regarding Obama’s expressed moral obligation to act upon this violation of international law:
First, Obama was initially planning on bypassing the Security Council and bomb Syria, although chapter seven of the U.N. charter states that a state can only bomb another state in self-defense or to defend an ally. Hence, Obama was willing to violate one international law to uphold another. Second, there has been over 100 000 previous deaths in this conflict, but only the deaths caused by the chemical weapons (which constitutes less than 1% of the total deaths in Syria during the past two and a half years) call for international intervention. Why does the means of death matter to us? Another question Borer posed was: when does the Responsibility To Protect apply to a civil war? Borer explained that the moral obligation to intervene in a conflict, the “Just War Theory”, is a last resort. The U.S. is at the moment not calling for intervention in Syria, which tells us that the U.S. government does not see that the conflict meets the required criteria. But when will it be time for a last resort?
Professor Rose addressed the U.S. foreign policy decisions regarding Syria. He discussed the importance of having the approval of Congress in any foreign policy decision regarding conflict intervention, as case studies show that is significantly minimizes American losses. He also emphasized that intervention in a civil war means taking sides. Taking sides in an instate conflict also implies a post-intervention peace enforcement, where troops are placed to uphold a new government, chosen by the peace enforcers. This differs greatly from peacekeeping, which entails giving unbiased military support to maintain peace in a region. Case studies show that taking sides in a conflict usually ends up being significantly less successful than peacekeeping missions.
Finally, Professor Hybel speculated and analyzed Obama’s recent actions. His interpretation was that Obama is clearly not an individual that relies on his intuition: he demanded information upon information about Syria and then he made his own analysis of the situation, he did not simply rely on his staff to make decisions. In this situation Obama took his time to carefully consider his next move and made well-informed decisions. He studied the domestic arena and realized that the American public was greatly opposed to any intervention in Syria. An intervention would be very costly, and without the public support it would be extremely difficult to intervene, which is why the Obama’s initial statement turned into the resolution on Syria’s chemical weapons. Hybel concluded that Obama took a calculated risk when he threatened the Syrian government. Despite the critique against Obama as weak and indecisive, Hybel argued that the U.S. achieved its goal – Syria’s chemical weapons are being destroyed – with merely the threat of force. So after all, Obama might have made the right decisions. He accomplished what he wanted – he got the conversation started.
Although news today is focused on the government shut down, the situation in Syria continues to happen regardless of its place on the front page of the paper. What do you think about this issue? Comment below.