At the forefront of international news this week has been whether the Western world should intervene in the Syrian conflict. Since the Arab Spring in 2011, when many dictators were challenged and toppled in the Arab World (though in the case of Libya, with outside assistance), Syria's Bashar al-Assad not only managed to remain in power- but also used the country's military force against the regime's opponents. In Syria, this has been relentless ever since, resulting in over 100,000 deaths. While some of those killed had actively confronted the Syrian government, demonstrating in the streets and knowingly putting themselves in danger; many others, including women and children, have been murdered by indiscriminate bombardments from the military.
Over the past week, the apparent use of chemical weapons by the Syrian armed forces against their own citizens was described as the crossing of a "red line" by US President, Barack Obama, which would consequently provoke an international effort to intervene against further such actions by Assad's regime. When setting these terms, one of Obama's most vocal supporters has been the British prime minister, David Cameron. However, the momentum behind an international effort to intervene in Syria encountered an unexpected obstacle when the British House of Commons voted against Cameron's formal suggestion that British forces should consider to getting involved in the conflict. Those opposing included all Labour MPs, who form the official Opposition to the Government, as well as some Liberal Democrats and Conservatives, whose parties form the Government. Thus, Cameron was more-or-less obliged to accept their verdict, and would consequently not be able to provide military force to support his rhetoric.
This is a very divisive issue in Britain, with the most powerful politicians advocating intervention and lamenting the House of Commons' decisions; while opinion polls suggest most members of the public oppose any role for Britain in Syria. I have strong opinions to add to this contentious debate. I think that there are ultimately two scenarios when it is justifiable to use military force: firstly, in self-defence, i.e. when a country has clearly been attacked by an external force, with innocent civilians as their victims; secondly, for humanitarian reasons, to defend civilians against overwhelming opposition forces that they have no chance of practically overcoming otherwise, chiefly in cases where a government is systematically attacking its own people. I consider the situation in Syria a clear example of the latter, with the Government, armed with the latest weapons, tanks and a trained army, taking on largely untrained civilians who have only cobbled together what few weapons they can. If this was an evenly-matched, ideologically-divided civil war, then I would agree that it is not for the international community to pick sides; but when it is a national army primarily against unarmed members of the public, to not intervene is practically giving consent to the Syrian government to treat its people however it wishes- even if it means cruelly executing their own citizens by any means they wish until they are satisfied. As we have seen so far, this not an even battle: it is virtually a one-sided bloodbath. Opposition and members of the public will not be able to practically defend themselves against tanks and aerial bombardments. To be left as an internal issue for Syrians to handle alone is to condemn an unlimited amount of people to death, as has been the case for the past two years. Moreover, those who say that diplomacy is the solution, rather than military action, need only look at the relentless bloodshed of the past two years to see that a new alternative is needed. And those who say it is "none of our business" should wonder how they would feel if they were under attack from their own government, with no hope of defending themselves without external support.
Parallels have been repeatedly drawn with Iraq, questioning whether military intervention is justified, when I feel the greater comparison is with Libya. In the case of both the latter and Syria, their authoritarian governments were using relentless force against their own people. In Libya, swift action that avoided "boots on the ground" achieved the goal of stopping that regime's relentless onslaught on its people- I had expected the same response to Syria, so I was shocked by the House of Commons vote. What arouses particularly cynicism is that the Labour MPs opposing the motion, judging from their public appearances since and distasteful cheers after the vote, give the impression that they were voting more for the sake of undermining the Government and playing politics, in an attempt to overcome the negative attention the Party received for supporting the Iraq War- all at the expense of thousands of lives. The motion clearly did not state imminent military action and regardless of future developments, but merely attempted to gain potential consent to unspecified involvement in certain circumstances, which would require another vote anyway. So those voting against the motion effectively ruled out any military role in any circumstances. Some say that consent from the United Nations should come first but, given that strategy seems to play a greater role in the United Nations Security Council's decision-making than morality, leaders should ultimately do what they think is the right thing and for the greater good. Those advocating a delay until the United Nations' has made a collective decision say that this would give any intervention legitimacy. But for me, neither legitimacy nor party-political strategy should be the top priority- this should be a humanitarian effort. The only consolation is that other countries will at least be taking action to stop the ongoing bloodshed, even if British forces are not there to support them.
No comments:
Post a Comment