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.