That's right. I'm talking about Syria. The economy has been (almost) completely destroyed since the Arab Spring and the beginning of Syria's internal violence. Assad's government is relying on aid mostly from its allies Russia and China. Did I mention that the Assad family has been in power for fifty years? The Baath party took over when France relinquished its hold on the colony in the mid 1960's. The problem is that Syria is run by a minority group that comprises less than 12 percent of the Syrian population. (Something tells me this government might not relate to its population well). As if things weren't bad enough economically and socially, the two year long civil war has made Syria the world's 2nd largest
producer of refugees with two million displaced Syrian citizens seeking
asylum in neighboring countries. According to the New York Times, there are an additional four and a half million Syrian citizens who are internally displaced.
Oh! And now this stuff about chemical weapons used on Syrian citizens by their own government. According to Le Monde, sarin gas was used on the Free Syrian Army as early as May of 2013. The United States is more interested in an attack that occured on August 21st. In this attack chemical weapons were used on thousands of Syrian civilians. Now a red line has been crossed and U.S. President Obama is calling for action.
But does the United States, or any foreign government for that matter, have any moral obligation to intervene in Syria?
According to Gram Slattery, the United States all too often attempts to dump a ready made batch of republican democracy on struggling governments' heads expecting an ideal self-representation-based society to form in a couple of months. Slattery analyzes John Stuart Mill's interpretations of government and government-making in relation to the United States eminent actions in foreign policy. "To put his ideas crudely, Mill claimed that many societies were fit for representative government, but others, in their present state, were not; those peoples truly bent on self-rule, he claimed, would successfully fight for and achieve it", (Slattery, paragraph 2).
So, does the world simply wait and watch as rebels fight to achieve self-representation?
Do international organizations simply establish relief funds for affected groups but steer clear of the source of these groups' problems?
Can foreign governments even afford to look further than their own backyard when determining foreign policy?
What is, or should be, the moral obligation for observers as Syria spirals ever out of control?
(Will you ever forgive me for this slew of rhetorical questions?)
It may not be the economically "smart" way to think about this conflict, but I believe there should be something done. It is grandiose to assume that by sweeping into the rescue about 2 1/2 years after a complex conflict's outbreak that a fifty year old (corrupt) governmental order will about-face overnight. Slattery puts it lightly by calling it over-ambitious. But surely something can be done to lower the ridiculous numbers of victims in this war.
To close, here is a quote from Mill, ironically found in A Few Words on Non-Intervention:
"[The] only test … of a people’s having become fit for popular
institutions is that they or a sufficient portion of them prevail in the
contest, and are willing to brave danger and labor for their
liberation."
I think the Syrian people have proved themselves willing to brave danger and labor, don't you?
And to keep this light and educational, here's a vlog from Hank Green to his brother John.
Amanda: I really like how you brought up the point of previous accounts of use of chemical weapons before August 21st whenever the event seemed to go viral. Even though the conflict in Syria has been going on for a while it seemed that it wasn't until the global laws were violated and that is when a lot of people were informed about Syria. It is going to be interesting to see what happens because so many people have asked if destroying the weapons is enough...
ReplyDelete"Can foreign governments even afford to look further than their own backyard when determining foreign policy?" - Amanda
ReplyDeleteYes, and according to Smith, it would be in the public's benefit to look beyond it's own borders for political and economical incoming blessing or burdens. For an economist's point a view, I think that intervention might be the vein of gold, i.e. a catalyst needed to boost our slowly recovering economy. Let's face it, the United States' Dollar is loosing its value. The British Pound has always been superior and other rising economies (e.g. China and Japan) have their currencies' value raising at a high exponential rate. For the benefit of the people, it would be well worth it to invest in solving the issue. History has it, except for the current "War on Terror", that wars boost the power of the U.S. economy.
Now the moralist in me says we should intervene for more humanitarian reasons, but you already know that...
Steven
Many would say that the question of moral obligation is itself a deeply selfish one today: that it is the way in which the US deludes itself into believing that it is virtuous by masking its international maneuvers in the language of humanitarian concern. Even if one does not fully believe this, it seems troubling that sympathy generally follows politics: we tend to sympathize for victims of enemy governments. Maybe this is inevitable, and maybe we should accept the inconsistency as itself unavoidable. But I wonder if you think that it is problematic that our sympathy seems to follow such a predictable pattern.
ReplyDeleteI do, think, that it is hard to avoid sympathy even if it is not fully impartial. Once we know of an atrocity, it becomes almost impossible not to want to punish it. That is all that Obama is really talking about, though, because there is very little support for even a punitive military strike, let alone an attack designed to oust Assad.