Humanitarian Intervention “Case of Syria” Tea Tafaj

What is humanitarian intervention? Humanitarian intervention has been defined as a state's use of "military force against another state when the principal publicly declared aim of that military action is ending human-rights violations being perpetrated by the state against which it is directed."

Waltzer on evaluating humanitarian intervention: 1. What are its occasions? 2. Who are its preferred agents? 3. How should the agents act to meet the occasions? 4. When is it time to end the intervention?

Ocassions The occasions have to be extreme if they are to justify, perhaps even require, the use of force across an international boundary. Every violation of human rights isn't a justification. The common brutalities of authoritarian politics, the daily oppressiveness of traditional social practices – these are not occasions for intervention; they have to be dealt with locally, by the people who know the politics, who enact or resist the practices.

Preferred Agents WHO CAN, SHOULD !! Unilateral action is encouraged. If the possibility of help exists, then there is a moral obligation to help. Waiting for multilateral action if futile and time-wasting. “In the history of humanitarian intervention, unilateralism is far more common than its opposite. One reason for this is obvious: the great reluctance of most states to cede the direction of their armed forces to an organization they don't control. But unilateralism may also follow from the need for an immediate response”

How? “The same rules apply here as in war generally: noncombatants are immune from direct attack and have to be protected as far as possible from collateral damage; soldiers have to accept risks to themselves in order to avoid imposing risks on the civilian population. “ Peace-keeping is an honorable activity, but not if there is no peace. Sometimes, unhappily, it is better to make war.

When is it time to end the intervention? The aim of the intervening army is simply to stop the killing. Its leaders prove that their motives are primarily humanitarian, that they are not driven by imperial ambition, by moving in as quickly as possible to defeat the killers and rescue their victims and then by leaving as quickly as possible

SYRIA Since September 2011, the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic has charted the many violations of human rights in the conflict. In September 2013, it described “the deliberate targeting of hospitals, medical personnel and transport, the denial of access to medical care, and ill-treatment of sick and wounded,” mainly—but not exclusively—by government forces

As of December 2013, 9.3 million people inside Syria needed humanitarian assistance, including 6.5 million who had been forced to flee their homes and faced one of the harshest winters ever in Syria; the number of Syrian refugees in neighboring countries was approaching 2.3 million; 3 million people were unemployed; 3 million children had been forced to leave their education. There is also confirmed evidence of the deliberate targeting of civilians and humanitarian workers. These constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity and are justiciable at the International Criminal Court

The Syrian government and its allies argue that an intervention absent the regime’s invitation and consent would constitute an affront to the principle of state sovereignty and, absent a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force, would violate international law.

The most commonly used aerial weapon is a barrel bomb . The most commonly used aerial weapon is a barrel bomb. Barrel bombs are deadly, indiscriminate, and relentless. Over 11,000 of them have been dropped since the beginning of 2015 and Syrian activists point out that the regime has killed seven times more civilians than Daesh has since that date. They are, however, a very simple weapon – crude unguided barrels filled with TNT and scrap metal – but they are deadly, indiscriminate, and relentless.

How? 1. A successful diplomatic effort to secure a stable and orderly transition from a President Assad-led Syrian government to a national government that includes the religious, ethnic and political diversity of the Syrian population.

2. A coordinated humanitarian response to the devastation and displacement affecting the Syrian people.

3. A military response to defeat Isis, with ground forces drawn from the region (not the US or UK) with the international community providing relevant support – not air borne, to avoid casualties, but actual military forces that provide protection for the citizens from both the oppressive government and IS 4. A major program of reconstruction to help the Syrians rebuild their country.

Arguments against intervention: The intervention might be for ulterior, selfish motives. “Is there a military option that can improve conditions for people in Syria? Put in other terms: is there an achievable humanitarian purpose?” Furthermore, a military option may detract from multilateral and non-military solutions.

My Opinion: Help because of ulterior motives would be better than no help at all. Instead of refusing the idea, guidelines and regulations on intervention should be put into order. Ex. As Waltzer stated, when a new non-murderous regime is into place (not necessarily democracy), the intervening forces should retreat.

Considering the situation it would be too optimistic to expect that a peaceful approach will bring about an effective solution. There is immediate need for humanitarian aid and “time”, at the moment, is being count by civilian lives. It is illogical to expect an agreement between all the member states of UN as well as a multilateral response, to happen in time. While discussions are being held, “the neighbor's house is burning down”.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION