1. Description of the article
Since the Syria violence begun, many lives have been lost. Thousands more have been displaced from their homes and country. Fighting between the government army and rebels has led to allegations that the Syrian government was using chemical weapons to attack in Damascus. These tensions have fuelled gossip of US-led military intervention.
However, whether the US should intervene militarily or not has drawn several opinions. Opinion based on humanitarian grounds that urge the president to intervene using military action, is one of them.
The proponents argue from the point of view that suffering demands action (Moyn 3). This group believes that the United States is in the best position than any other country to stop the suffering of the Syrian people and the bloodshed going on, and therefore no action from the US means more innocent lives will continue to be lost (Moyn 3). The humanitarian argument, however, has not stimulated the US and its partners to intervene.
The proponents of military action to alleviate human suffering have often cited the Kosovo attacks in 1999 as the moral precedent. However, between then and 2014, when we are experiencing the violence in Syria, “the world has learnt much about the blind spots of humanitarianism” (Moyn 4). What stimulated Washington to act in those days was the argument of “never again” that led to the bombing decision to be taken (Moyn 4). However, there is skepticism that the US never acts wholly on moral intentions.
The other reaction to military action is based on anti-imperialism argument. This group argues that in the history of great powers, slaughter of civilians has occurred, especially in Middle East (Moyn 4). The US led, war on terror, support...
... middle of paper ...
...l bloodshed and would not leave behind a stable, strong, or safe Syria” (Zager).
Works cited
Agence France Presse. "SYRIAN CIVIL WAR: 3 Years, 146,000 Dead, And No End In Sight." 14 3
2014. Business Insider. Web. 12 04 2014.
Gallington, Daniel J. "US. Has Many Non-Military Options in Syria." 14 2 2012. US News.com.
Web. 12 04 2014.
Katulis, Brian. "A Syrian Intervention Need Not Be Military-Focused." 14 02 2012. US News.com.
Web. 12 04 2014.
Moran, Rick. "IS THE UNITED STATES AN IMPERIALIST POWER AND DOES IT MATTER?" 20 8 2007.
Right Wing Nut House. Web. 12 04 2014.
Moyn, Samuel. "Three positions on the Syria crisis." 9 9 2013. Aljazeera.com. web. 12 04 2014.
The New York Times/CBS News Poll. American Views on Intervention in Syria. 10 9 2013. Web.
12 4 2014.
Zager, Michael Shank and Kathy. The Way Forward on Syria. 28 5 2013. Web. 12 4 2014.
BACKGROUND: In March of 2011, the unrest in Syria was just beginning, with protests g...
Humanitarian Intervention generally means the use of military force to ensure the preservation of life, human rights, and freedom. Therefore, many believe that external intervention is a direct challenge to the sovereignty of a nation. However, when gross violations of human rights occur “punishing criminals…is something that most people would support because of their belief that this is what justice requires... If punishment can be justified, so can intervention to stop a crime that is about to occur, or is already in progress” (Singer 120). Therefore intervention is not only needed but a necessity when confronting crimes against peace and humanity. Specifically “acts that kill or inflict serious bodily or mental harm on large numbers of people, or deliberately inflict on them conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction, and when the state nominally in charge is unable or unwilling to stop” (Singer
American involvement in humanitarian intervention is one of the most controversial issues in contemporary US foreign policy. The definition of humanitarian intervention is a military intervention; entering into a country for the purposes of saving lives and protecting citizens from the violation of their human rights. As in all debates, there are always two sides. One side disputes that military force should only be applied when, in the words of former Secretary of Defense Weinberger, ‘a vital national interest is at stake.’ ¹ The opposing side disputes that the US should apply military force to mediate when in the words of former president Clinton, “someone comes after innocent civilians…and it is in our power to stop it, we will stop it,” even if a vital national interest is not at stake.² The just war theory and Plato’s Republic can both be used to justify the humanitarian intervention doctrine.
There is an increasingly growing global controversy about whether the United States should intervene in the Syrian conflict, and whether this intervention should be military or strategic. The U.S. has recently avoided interfering militarily in Syria or providing the rebels with direct support, but admitted the presence of the Syrian opposition.
...ing whether to involve US forces in faraway disputes. Opponents to intervention cite recent failures that occurred in peace missions in Africa. Opponents to intervention have a logical perspective. America is responsible in depleting African resources as well as allowing illegal trading practices with African countries in the past, with this said the U.S has a responsibility in strengthening its economic structure. The United States has extended its hand on several occasions most recently in rebuilding Iraq. Supporters of intervention are called internationalist argue “some proponents of using the American military to intervene in humanitarian crises Africa believe that the suffering of civilians in sufficient reason mobilization (“U.S intervention in Africa.facts.com). Intervention however is costly and may not be affective without proper planning and resources.
The “Trojan Horse” exists in humanitarian intervention as it is mixed with considerations of national interest, such as state influence, national power, prestige and access to potential oil supplies. For example, in Syria and Sri Lanka, the responsibility to protect norm has not done very little to protect populations within states. The author notes that the international community's feeble responsibility on the Darfur’s crisis has failed to recognize the role of the “responsibility to protect.” The West’s disinclination to intervene in Darfur raises skepticism about the West’s humanitarian intervention techniques, especially after the invasion of Iraq and western strategic interests in Sudan. Nevertheless, the notion of the responsibility to protect is important in the protection of human rights as it seeks to confront atrocity committed by states through prevention, protection or
Once the United States could not find any WMDs, they attempted to justify their invasion as a humanitarian endeavor. This post-hoc justification called into question whether the Iraq War was actually a humanitarian intervention. The 2003 war represents one of the first times a group of intervening states have justified their actions citing the humanitarian outcomes that came about from non-humanitarian concerns. A major concern with the Iraq War was that the United Nation’s Security Council did not authorize the intervention, calling to question the legality of the invasion. In a pre-emptive strike the United States was able to topple Saddam Hussein’s regime but may have caused more problems as a power vacuum formed in the absence of the Iraqi leader. This unilateral action by the United States raises questions on the viability on transnational institutions, like the United Nations. If they can not stop a nation from acting against there rules what is the point of having
The country of Syria just hit it’s fifth year on war. Many people are out of jobs or short on education. Lots of people have fled trying to find a better place to live. While others took the dangerous route by staying and trying to make the best of life.
...Humanitarian Intervention: Moral and Political Constraints. (The Lessons of History)." International Journal 62, no. 4 (2007): 942-51.
Humanitarian intervention can be defined as the right or duty of the international community to intervene in states with certain causes. The causes can be that the state has suffered a large scale loss of life or genocide due to intentional actions by its government or even because of the collapse of governance (Baylis, Owens, Smith 480). One of the main arguments in the article was president Obamas decision not to bomb Syria after many of his Allies and people believed he would’ve after making so many plans and decision to carry out the bombing. Obamas decision can be expressing in some of the key objections to humanitarian intervention. For example, the first key is that states do not intervene for primarily humanitarian reasons. This means that humanitarian intervention would be unwise if it does not serve the states national interests. President Obama did not want to risk taking a shot while there were United Nations inspectors on the ground completing work (Goldberg
While the term “civil war” seems to be the “preferred term for the ongoing violence in Syria” (Keating, Would You Know a Civil War When You Saw One?), it is evident that the war has seeped out of Syria’s borders as other countries have attempted to intervene. Herbert Wulf writes in his essay, The bumpy road to re-establish a monopoly of violence, that “A characteristic of recent wars is a disruption or loss of the state monopoly of violence, as it can neither be adequately exercised nor can the rule of law be maintained” (Wulf). As much as the violence seems to be contained w...
Lawson, Fred H. "Syria." Politics & society in the contemporary Middle East. Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2010. 411 - 434. Print.
One of most crucial aspects of humanitarian intervention is the lack of proper motives. As noted by Bush, Martiniello, and Mercer, in the case of Libya and Côte d’Ivoire the Western nations were pursuing their own economic imperial interests under the guise of humanitarian intervention (Bush). The lack of pure motives to help decrease crimes against humanity resulted in an increased number of human rights violations in both Libya and Côte d’Ivoire (Bush). In order
Most importantly we witnessed there is no easy military solution to the crisis and the options being considered always risk thousands of live and there is no humanitarian space to provide aid and protections to vulnerable groups. It seems military intervention using humanitarian justification is the best example of the new humanitarianism. (Fox, F. June 2000).
The complex issue of humanitarian intervention is widely argued and inherently controversial. Humanitarian intervention involves the coercive action of states intervening in areas for the sole purpose of preventing or halting the killing or suffering of the people there. (1, 9, 5) It is an issue argued fervently amongst restrictionists and counter-restrictionists, who debate over whether humanitarian intervention is a breach of international law or a moral requirement. (10) Restrictionists argue that Articles 2 (7) and 2 (4) of the United Nations (UN) Charter render forcible humanitarian intervention illegal. The only legitimate exception to this, they claim, is the right to self defence, as enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter. (1-472) This position is contested by counter-restrictionists, who insist that any and all nations have the right, and the responsibility, to prevent humanitarian disasters. (8-5) Despite the declaration of a ‘new world order’, the post-Cold war world has not been a more peaceful one: regional and ethnic conflicts have, in fact, proliferated. Between 1989 and 1993, for example, thirteen new peacekeeping operations were launched by th...