Moderator’s remarks
The civil war in Syria seems like a never-ending story. Two year conflict has asked its price. Let the numbers speak for a while in the introduction. The UN reckons that 70,000 Syrians, mostly civilians, have died. The true figure is probably far higher: thousands have gone missing or have been locked up. In the past few weeks an average of 5,000 people have fled every day. The UN’s High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) says the number now exceeds 860,000, but many more have left uncounted. The number displaced within the country is higher still. More than 4 million Syrians now lack fuel, electricity, a telephone line and food (The Economist).
Source: Flickr
However, military invasion in support of rebels is still questionable. Syria lies in very sensitive region of the world. Moreover, Western countries (definition in this debate is countries which are located in Western hemisphere with the membership of NATO) are quite reluctant to experience another costly military adventure. Next question is also who these rebels are and whom they are representing. Recently, there was serious discussion about arming Syrian rebels (you can read more in these articles, first, second and one comment). So, which arguments prevail? It is not clear at all.
It is my pleasure to invite two speakers of the debate who are somewhat more-or-less connected with the motion. Affirmative speaker, Sabiha, is studying in Izmir, Turkey and opposition speaker, Anastacia, is Russian and studying in Sankt-Petersburg. Both countries are playing serious role in Syria conflict. Additionally, both ladies are members of IPWG which makes this debate IPWG-oriented. This, however, does not mean that others are not invited to discuss foreign-policy.
Content-wise, ladies covered important points in the debate such as stability in the region and the duties of democratic countries to interfere in foreign conflict. Of course, they came with different results. Sabiha concludes that responsibility to protect is important for Western democracies and intervention will stabilize the region. Anastacia, comes with instability of the region after invasion with future turbulence and, secondly, with relativistic view on different cultures (West vs. Middle East). It is up to you to decide which arguments are stronger and more persuasive. Any comments in this sense are more then welcomed.
Affirmative speaker: Sabiha Kapetanovic (AEGEE-Izmir)
Opposition speaker: Anastacia Petrushkova (AEGEE-Saint Petersburg)
Ivan Bielik, Moderator of the debate
Defend the motion
Sabiha Kapetanovic, AEGEE-Izmir, student of International relations at Izmir University, Turkey.
Democracy explains peace, and peace is absence of war.
(Peace Theory : democratic states are attacking non-democratic ones with aim to make them democratic too, and on that way secure more peaceful world.)
World without war is almost impossible. We are living on Earth, not in Heaven, so we can’t talk about possible Utopia. But still, that doesn’t mean killing innocents, that doesn’t mean that we need reason to help them. We all belong to Human Race and it is our duty to do good to each others, saving and helping without fear and calculations. On that way we enable ourselves to live honourably with all beauties that life is giving us.
Source: Flickr
In my first argument I would like to notice meaning of International Organisations who are formed so they could be above national states, therefore to provide peace and security. Following that notation we have United Nations Security Council (UNSC) which is the heart of the world’s collective security system. NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) has the military capacity needed to undertake crisis-management operations, if diplomatic efforts fail.
“Where the UNSC fails to authorize the use of force, liberal states have a responsibility to act to uphold world order, including in extreme cases through preventive use of force.” (www.palgrave-journalist.com/ip)
Despite their philosophy, Western countries let wars happen. What I want to say is if they do not finally stop the war in Syria more wars in the regions will happen. What is happening in Syria is a Civil War between government of Assad and protesters. War started as extension of Arab Spring that is assuming to be forth wave of democratization. War with more then 70 000 of victims. War where children are being used like Human Shields. War in which people who don’t want it are dying, being used like pawns for unscrupulous, bloodthirsty game played by one in a series dictators.
“Two rockets are falling a minute on average.” (Journal of strategic security)
We are using Western countries for the synonym of democracy. Should not they stay behind their words and fight for peace and human rights?! Yes, they should! Because killing of human beings is something that everyone in the world has an obligation to end. My point is that Western countries have to act, not to wait for more victims to be killed.
It is important to note next argument which is saying that even if we are living in period of globalization, where states still have full right on their sovereignty, but where every problem is immediately connected with region and the world. It is saying us clearly that war in Syria could easily spread to Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, well on whole Middle East and who knows till where. Because of that we must not be afraid to act, to fight for liberty, freedom, life! There are no more excuses for non-invasion! If they need reason, Turkey can be reason. Like NATO’s member NATO has to protect it if it is compromised which Turkey is. Turkey itself requires NATO to act. We must not let history to repeat again.
On the end, to sum up my argumentation I would like to ask from you, readers, to imagine, just on second all that bloodthirsty tyranny, control over your mind, over everything that you are, impossibility to take one breath without fear what will happened next. Can you? There is nothing worse on Earth than war. But unfortunately very less people can understand it.
Against the motion
Anastacia Petrushkova, AEGEE-Sankt Petersburg, is studying Political science at Saint Petersburg State University, Russia.
In my opinion, consideration of an armed invasion of another country should be based on a detailed comparison of the following factors: (1) importance of the expected results for the “target” country and (2) possible risks. Of course, the estimated probability of achieving the positive results should also be considered very accurately.
Does it really worth it to take a risk of getting even more victims, unbalancing unsteady, but more or less stable, current situation in the Middle East, and – as a side effect – tarnishing the political reputation of each of participating Western countries and United Nations, to go there and get rid of the current regime in Syria, passing the power to the opposition which is not even fully supported by the local people?
First of all, let’s have a look at issues connected to the expected results.
Does really the West know what the East, precisely Syria, needs? Are they able to estimate properly which regime is going to serve better? We all know that the current president, Bashar al-Assad is guilty in military crimes, but as of now both sides are aggressive and cruel and both of them are killing. Who is guiltier now? Besides, as Bashar al-Assad pointed out, he wouldn’t be able to keep his place without people’s support. He is also claiming that the uprising against him was initiated by al-Qaeda fighters and foreign jihadi forces, trying to destroy his “stable regime”. The situation is not so clear… And speaking of it in “democracy terms” Syrian people should take the responsibility and decide themselves, which way they are willing to go. The role of Western countries would be to try and organize and then supervise a peaceful dialog between the government and people.
Moreover, the opposition block in Syria is not solid at all. Many players were pushed together by a pressure of “you’re either with us, or against us” principle, when they had to choose between joining the current regime or the oppositions, and decided the issue by simply picking the “smallest” evil of the two. What will keep those opposition players together once Assad is out of the power? Won’t it break out with new, maybe even more destructive, conflicts?
Possible risks
Another thing is that by invading Syria the West would put the whole Middle East region at risk of further destabilization which might become very destructive. Are Western countries, especially in their current state, ready to take responsibility for the whole Near East? Or even just for the situation in Syria?
And the last, but not least – the most obvious point: naturally, there is very high risks of getting even more victims among the local civilian population, as well as among the international troops, without any guarantee of achieving the peace. In any case, violence at no point seems to be a right way to start a democratic regime. At least, as long as there is still a hope of a peaceful resolution.
Loading ...
Nothing justifies not ending the horrors that are going on right now.
Writing: Charalampos Tsakiridis-Palanis, AEGEE Thessaloniki, Law student at Montesquieu-Bordeaux 4 University, France
First of all, it is rather evident that there is no clear-cut answer, or at any rate any answer that would be good enough. It is more or less the same dilemma western countries faced during the civil war in Libya. Invade, and you run up your costs, all the while being portrayed by many as cold-blooded western imperialists. Don’t invade, and you cannot possibly help maintain the façade of the protectors of human rights, global peace, and international and stable democracy.
This collective dilemma finds its way into the minds of not just the officials of the Western countries (those that aren’t otherwise occupied anyway-let us not forget that there is always the elephant in the room called the financial, economic, political and social crisis that these countries are going through, which threatens to shake their core modus operandi to its foundations), but also of the citizens of these countries who are still able to think by looking at the bigger, global picture.
With that latter in mind, I shall make my case against the motion, based on two main lines of argumentation: A) that it isn’t actually possible, or beneficial, for the Western countries to get involved in such an operation right now. and B) that were it to happen, it wouldn’t actually be beneficial to the cause of the Syrians rebels either, not in the long term. But I won’t stop at that, I will try to propose a middle ground-a resolution, if you will-that will provide a chance for the long-sought termination of the conflict.
A)The Western Countries
Ever since the war in Libya it has become rather evident that the Western countries, for all their apparent might, cannot stomach full-time and powerful interventions of the likes of the wars is Afghanistan or Iraq. And when I say stomach, I mean both economically and politically.
The first part could do without further explanation-after all, the three wars mentioned above all but bankrupted the UK, the USA and France, the three main participants. But on top of that, came a crisis, the crisis, with its multiple aspects, faces and consequences.
More than anything, it is a crisis of the banking institutions and their capitalist financial system, the very core of the Western World’s economy, political establishments and society. Now, as all of you might have quite intelligently remarked, both the EU and the US are still barely afloat thanks to some merely systemic technical tricks-as is the Solidarity Pact in the EU or the raise of the credit limit of the US government as voted by the US federal parliament. For some EU countries, namely Greece and Cyprus, but also Spain, Italy and quite possibly even France and the UK, the crisis threatens at presence their very existence as economically and politically independent nation countries. So embarking on a humanitarian crusade in Syria, given the current state of our economies-when a single major in-discrepancy could blow the entire fragile balance off-a crusade that would cost billions at least is not something considerable or imaginable. We are indeed to busy fighting to save our own countries-some of which are themselves on the brink of a social-at the least-civil war, to occupy ourselves with anything else.
Anyway, to pass to the second part, id est the political one, if we were to believe some eminent geopolitical analysts, at least some of the aspects of the crisis, or at least the manipulation of its handling, have to do with many a vast geopolitical plan, centred for the most part around the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East-right on Syrian’s doorstep. If you could imagine a world-wide chessboard and take notice of the strategic moves of the world powers, you would see that for some reason the pieces are moving around that area. Any, and I mean ANY destabilisation has the potential to unleash hell-and such an intervention, no matter which country decides to intervene first, would definitely liquidate the sensitive balances in the region on the spot, providing the pretext for a domino of events whose outcome we couldn’t possible begin to imagine how to predict or control. And if the Western countries can’t stomach actively participating in a minor war, imagine having to hold themselves together in a conflict of a vastly greater magnitude and scale. If anything, any such conflict will first and foremost undo Syria, a country already devastated, a country whose viability in many aspects is dubious even if the civil war was to stop upon completion of this phrase. And that gives me a neat pass to develop my next line of arguments.
B) The Syrian (rebel) cause.
Well, I think that anyone with a reasonable mind and a humanitarian mindset likes to think himself a advocate of democracy. After all, that is why we ordinary citizens face the dilemma I described in my brief introduction, even if our leaders have their own, “mysterious” motives. And anyone who advocates democracy should be, more or less, for the general cause of the Rebels-apparently overthrowing a totalitarian (semi-)military regime and establishing a state based on the will and the needs of its people.
Oversimplified as that may be, it is the governing idea, the basis upon which this dilemma is laid before us, as well as the foundation of our opinions on the subject. So, acting on the presumption that we ultimately would wish to see the Rebels prevail, we must indeed wonder if and how a full western military intervention would help further and support that cause.
The answer, of course, is that it wouldn’t, in any way. If a country is “liberated” by foreign powers, it most usually is obliged afterwards to abide to the will and the “instructions” of those powers. I could recite many historical examples, starting by my own country, but there’s no need to look farther than Afghanistan or Iraq, where in the areas under the control of the official state that was established by them, the invading forces have the first, commanding and most often decisive word. That in itself defeats the purpose of democracy and national self-determination, as the Syrian people would rid themselves of one overlord simply to see him replaced with other, still more powerful and much more faceless overlords. No, the people of Syria must win their freedom and their right to a voice without western tanks and marines rolling and strolling down the streets of Aleppo and Damascus.
So if there can be no invasion, what aid could be offered in order to strengthen the Syrian rebel cause and give it a fighting chance?
C) A possible resolution
Lakhdar Brahimi, the UN envoy, said according to the article in the feedback this debate was provided with, that “arming the rebels is not the way to end the conflict. Pouring more arms to the opposition would bring more arms to the government and that will not solve the problem.” He furthermore “urged the international community to increase diplomatic pressure on the regime.”
Well, with all due respect, I beg to differ with the opinion of the honoured envoy-which couldn’t be different anyway, him being a UN envoy and the UN being an organisation striving first and foremost towards international peace (not daring to interfere with conflicts, even if sometimes it was and is the right thing to do, and certainly not daring to disturb much the global balance of power). If the Western countries, which have a vast surplus of sophisticated arms due to their bustling war arming industries (and they are, anyway, actively engaged in arms dealing being the most ardent suppliers), do provide arms for the rebels, no one can risk reinforcing the regime’s armoury without risking diplomatic isolation and world-wide popular clamour as well. We should provide for the Rebels means enough to keep themselves alive and leave to them their manoeuvres and strategies on how to win their war. Still, that would imply a certain level of the unwanted commitment described in the above part but, on one hand, it is much less imposing than tank columns, heavy artillery pieces, Navy Seals,S.A.S. commandos and ultra-modern aircraft and helicopters, and on the other had, the Rebels need all the help they can get, and no aid comes without its price.
I agree with the envoy though, that the international community should increase the pressure on the regime-the sooner the war ends the better. There are only two facts that make this avenue not particularly practically feasible for the time being:
1) The regime seems to enjoy the unofficial support of the eastern powers-nameless the Chinese and Russian governments (Anastacia is surely more informed than me on the matter, so I will leave any more feedback on that subject at her care). So any diplomatic efforts of Western countries, especially via the UN, that would suggest that the regime step down, do not present the potential of being fruitful any time soon.
2)The regime itself is unlikely to give in to external pressure, especially if it is that weak, when its place is not immediately threatened. It’s not like the Rebels are on their final march on Damascus and the moment, the government position is still strong, its army is the most powerful, and as long as there is a good chance that they are going to emerge from this war as victors, they will continue to fight until either them or the Rebels are completely annihilated.
Still, one couldn’t possibly stop trying. The fate of an entire people is on the balance. Let us do what we can, within the reasonable limits of our power-or whatever of it is left anyway.
Thank you for reading my humble opinion and I am sorry if I was a little tiresome or boring.
P.S. Please do not e-mail me, chances are I won’t read your e-mail. It is better to answer here if you wish, both for my sake, and for yours, and for the sake of this debate. Thank you again.
Hi Charalampos,
your comment is quite extensive but I try to react on your arguments. Basically, I more-or-less agree with the line of argumentation that Western countries should not impose their style of governing into regions where democracy is not so much in favour. That is because I see no causation in claim that after foreign intervention, country somehow manages to become democratic. So, democracy needs some pre-conditions to come true. Certainly, there are some countries who recovered after foreign intervention and presence. Namely, post-war Germany or Japan, South Korea too. But it seems that this pattern is not valid for Middle/Near Eastern countries (lacking pre-conditions for democracy).
But, on the other hand, I disagree with argument for arming rebels in Syria. If we just make a quick survey about the composition of Syrian rebels, we will find out that there are not all guys who loves freedom or share democratic ideals. In fact, rebel group, as Anastacia rightly said, is diverse. That means you have there liberals, socialists as well as conservatives and jihadists (there are reports that Al-Quada is involved in conflict as well). It is not clear which affiliation prevails. But after reading some articles about the violence rebels have made and some of their claims about religious and ethnic minorities, I am pretty aware that even if rebels win, Syria will become all but sectarian violence country. It will cause further damages on people’s lives. Therefore, there is no point for me to arm the rebels. The benefits of arming are smaller than future costs of doing it.
But as you said, this is real dilemma for Western world. That means we do not know exact answer. We have only slightly bad and bad solutions for this conflict.
P.S. 2
A little correction, in section C, reason 2: not “nameless”, but “namely”. Please forgive any other mistakes I might have made-I wrote a lot and fairly quickly, I think I am entitled to some rush errors…
Hi there,
I am in favor of intervention in general but not in this case and I disagree with the arguments defending the motion. For me an intervention is justified when the people call for help!
When someone who shares your values is in danger, it’s a moral obligation to act and do something.
Haven’t the people there already called for help?
Who are “the people”? The rebells? The civilians? The suppressed and haunted (minorities mostly)? The regime, even? There will always be someone calling for help…
Unfortunately I have to object in one ethical point to Sabiha’s position, namely the following:
“Should not they stay behind their words and fight for peace and human rights?! Yes, they should!”
Well, if the Western Civilisation wanted Assad to fall, they could have done something earlier. He has been a despot all the time, the rebell movement is an outcome of the Arab spring as you said – not at first an outcome of Assad’s way of ruling. Frankly speaking: We tolerated his regime, as we did with Gaddafi and Mubarak – dispossessing him would be, sadly, canting.
Bringing peace and democracy to Syria is more than sending troups, it is sending policemen, teachers, engineers – and a lot of money. “We” did not spend money on bringing peace to any country of the Arab Spring, “we” wanted stability in order to get our economy settled and gain money. Sad but true.
But lets assume “we” would, exeptionally to our behaviour in former conflicts, invade Syria barely for the sake of humanity and stopping the war waging. Whom do we want to rule the country when Assad is gone? Defeating the regime does not necessarily mean that suddenly democracy will pop out of the political void. Democracy is something you have to learn, or it will be for nothing. Using “my” country as an example: Germany was not democratised by just being invaded and bulldozed at the end of WW2, it was a process that needed decades and is, though mainly in details, still ongoing. We received pressure from the most powerful states in the world and support from almost half a continent in order to form the state we are now living in for a long time.
Hence, clearing out Assad would mean either a vacant position for the next despot, or a support process from many countries “we” cannot sustain very long because of “our” own business with the crisis (as Charalampos already pointed out) and is therefore useless, imho.
However I agree with you, Sabiha, that something has to be done – but that is providing refugee relief, food, medical care, and – afterwards – help for rebuilding a ruined country. Democracy comes from the bottom, therefore I would just support the people representing the bottom, hence the ordinary civilians, not the rebells (where I have to agree with Anastacia and what she said about the rebell fractions). Everything else, and maybe even that, is doomed to fail (see Afghanistan).
It should account the fruitful dialogues for long lasting sustainability of Syrians. It is more obvious that growing serious international concern over Syrian politics had allegedly halted the international security & peace and it is indispensable to search the lines of mutual understanding. I personally do not support manslaughter.
To start off I am not in favour of the way this motion was formulated “Western Countries should invade Syria” (it already has a negative connotation) but I believe that we may have long reached and passed a point of no return, and the more we wait the more death we will see and regret not having taken a move to intervene somehow earlier.
I am no expert in military offensives, nor a fan of the military in general but the reign of death and terror should be somehow be stopped alredy. NATO has intervened in the past in the balkans (just to give off one example) when the people started killing each other out of nationalism, religious conviction and other similar reasons. Why is it “we” do not now have the courage to stand up and stop the killings in Syria now? Because it’s too far away? Because it’s still rather unfamiliar to us? Because we don’t know what the other neighbouring countries will do? Because we don’t know what to do with whoever ends up governing their countries afterwards?
But what about the people suffering and the massacres which are taking place as we speak? Somehow I have the feeling “we” are better at always regretting not taking action soon enough than learning from our past and making the hard decisions when it matters…