Tensions skyrocketed on Tuesday when the UN resolution for an immediate halt to the war raging in Syria was opposed by a dual veto from Russia and China. Of the fifteen member nations within the United Nations Security Council, nine of the countries voted in favour of this immediate action, however, aside from Russia and China’s opposition, the four remaining—India, Brazil, South Africa, and Lebanon refrained from making a vote. Meanwhile, according to Philippe Bolopion, the United Nations director for Human Rights Watch, “After seven months of near complete inaction in the Council… at least 2,600 people [have been] killed, and thousands injured, arrested or tortured.” As the tensions rise in Syria, more violence flares in its streets and rioting and protestors have only resulted in more reports of deaths following the government’s mob crackdown. In addition to the ceaseless seven-month-long offensive from the government of Al-Assad (which has drawn attention for the near certain action against his regime), a group of army deserters called the Free Syria Army has arisen, which asserts that “the regime will likely stay until the last drop of blood… but there can’t be more bloodshed than there already is…. [This regime can only] be brought down with force.” An activist group has also stated that fighting erupted between army defectors and soldiers at a military camp on Tuesday as well. As the violence continues, the inability to foresee a resolution from the United Nations is frustrating many families on either side of the Syrian-conflict fence. As a footnote, the soldiers within the Syrian Army have deserted, many because of the guilt from the blood on their hands. The regime had “strayed from its mission” according to regime leader Al Assa’ad. “They [had] turned… [to] killing people, killing innocents and destroying homes.” However, he has also stated that the soldiers have been “killing because they are forced to. …Many have been executed because they refused to shoot.” Still, Russia and China remain adamant in their reception of the resolution. The ambassador of Russia to the United Nations has made it pointedly clear “an intervention” would convey the wrong message to the international community and also said “some capitals are being overly hasty in passing their judgment about the illegitimacy of the leaders in Syria.” This claim has been further sustained by the Syrian ambassador Bashar Ja’afari who thought that the “aggressive discourse…resorted to by certain ambassadors against his country…reveals the prejudice in certain Western capitals against his country’s political leadership.”
Certainly, the apparent request of the nine member nations voting in favour of the resolution see the harm and violence being conducted throughout the nation of Syria. The immediate action would most likely, in a short amount of time, manage to subdue many protestors and any offensives within the country, rapidly decreasing the rate of casualties. On the other hand, the Russian and Chinese ambassadors have stated that such action would become intervention therefore provoking the wrong message in the global community. This spark most likely stems from the past experiences of the two countries from such intervention or is the response of other motives. In addition to the Area of Knowledge of History, the question of Ethics arises as well. From the nine member countries, such unending violence within the country of Syria is setting a horrid example for other countries in response to the Russian ambassador’s claim. By passing the resolution, many lives can be saved and the initiative to set an example towards ending violent regimes as well as the murder of innocence can be demonstrated. The article also prints the validity of Reason and Logic in bold font, resulting from either side’s claim of potential detriments and benefits outweighing any later propositions. The argument soon travels down a narrow corridor towards whether or not (instead of asking whether Russia and China should have been able to veto the resolution) the nine U.N.-member nations should have intervened and tried passing the resolution.
The abundance of Ethics within the article resulted from the deep insight to Syria’s current, violent state. Obviously the nation is in turmoil from so many casualties and fire-fights breaking out between deserters and soldiers forced to carry out a guilt-act. Although the wave of facts may collide heavily with the opinion of the ambassadors of China and Russia, they are taking into great lengths the broad spectrum of effects Ethics would have on the outcome of Syria. With some 2,365 civilian deaths and 680 army and security forces killed in the unrest, the veto casted by Russia and China can be strongly perceived by member nations as “enabling the Syrian government’s abhorrent repression campaign” according to Philippe Bolopion. Similarly, the Russian ambassador as well as China’s would argue that the ethical extrapolation from such hasty and decisive action would be a “wrong message” to the world. However, with current considerations of the long-term effect it would have on so many lives within Syria and its neighbouring countries, I would have to agree with the nine member states that such a resolution to terminate Syria’s oppression of its citizens. Furthermore, this renewal of a “permission” to continue such unethical behaviour, ie. violence, would only demonstrate (in response to the Russian reason for veto) to other countries such action can sometimes be without consequence or stoppage. History however has proven otherwise, though its repetition is also repetitive in history.
This debate-stimulating topic introduces many examples such as the case of Marisol Valles Garcia who, after being threatened, following her term as Chief of Police in Mexico, had to run to the U.S. and plead asylum because certain individuals had been driving to her house in order to dispose of her. The question only lays as to whether or not the government should deport her back to Mexico when there is no doubt that she will be killed within her first day of return. In this case the American government, by keeping her would maintain that refugee status can gain you entry into the U.S. however, there would indubitably be an enormous increase in applicants. On the other hand, should the United States condemn her to her death? As in the case of the trolley set on its course to kill four individuals with the only human choice of turning and killing one, the United States has been presented with the case and now can either claim to do nothing and deport return her to her country or keep her. There is also the domestic example of whether or not a parent should be able to decide what his/her child plays with as a toy. Would this convey the wrong message because it differs from a norm posed by the majority of society? Or, should the stereotypes be part of the child’s criterion so that he/she can decide whether or not to conform? The aforementioned examples provide ample arguments to sustain claims in the United Nation’s Resolution for Syria: whether or not such a decision should be made when such Ethical issues arise from the lives buried underneath the ceaseless accumulation of rubble, or how the message would be better or worse received from the international audience. The tension from the inevitable tug on one’s heartstrings when hearing the death-toll in Syria can only be a result of personal bias which should ultimately be considered when making a most human decision.
You mention the abundance of knowledge issues pertaining to Ethics in the article, but it seems as if you haven’t identified a whole lot of them–at least not directly–apart from the decision-making of the UN vs. the norm set by the international community (tangentially speaking, what is the norm here?). In retrospect, the current situation in Syria would be more of an issue of power i.e. what it means to be a permanent member state. It also begs the question: who gets to decide what is/isn’t a humanitarian crisis, the international community or the UN? If the international community perceives the current situation in Syria to be a humanitarian crisis, can Russia or China state otherwise simply because it is a permanent member state of an intergovernmental organization whose mission is to respond to situations like that in Syria? Your point about the inaction of the Security Council is well taken, but more could be said about why such inaction actually occurs–therein lies the knowledge issue.
ReplyDeleteI am not really clear about how this issue relates with Reason/Logic; you do not provide an example how it does. Perhaps, if one considers the fact that UN is an intergovernmental organization and a government by definition represents the people’s interests, then syllogistically the UN is an organization that represents the people’s interests but that is a superficial point in my opinion. Certainly, the Syrian resolution debacle deals with Ethics and Reason/Logic but only on the surface. Underneath the arguments being made, I perceive this to be an issue of Language. Consider the conflict of the international community and the UN over the situation in Syria; what is the conflict actually centered on? In my opinion, it is centered on the mission of the UN, which is “facilitating cooperation in international law, international, economic development, social progress, human rights, and achievement of world peace” as well as the definition of an intervention. A part of the international community would believe that this includes taking a direct military measure against the Syrian government (e.g. employing a peacekeeping force, no-fly zone) as soon as possible, but others would argue for non-military measures (diplomacy, embargo) taken first. Thus, there is a divergence of opinion even with the ‘international community’ that is supposedly at conflict with the UN. In fact, if you were to focus on Language and the role of power in this article, then you could even (tangentially) expand to the issue of defining/quantifying the international community i.e. who actually makes up this community? Is it truly a community in the sense that it well represents the interests of various groups of people in the world?
This is a matter of perspective, but I do not see the relevance in your examples, perhaps more with the latter (i.e. the toy example) than the former. In what way(s) does the issue of a parent’s choice for his/her child vs. society’s prevalent norms on toys directly relate to the issue of an intergovernmental organization dealing with a humanitarian crisis? Surely, you are not suggesting that the current issue in Syria is tantamount to a child’s plaything? Of course, you are entitled to suggest a plausible connection between the two issues, but I feel more elaboration is needed on your part with your examples. I will play devil’s advocate here: you do not want to send the wrong messages with your examples. Perhaps, a more relevant example would be to contrast this issue with the NATO intervention. Why was NATO much quicker at responding militarily to the civil fighting in Libya than the UN is with Syria? Is it because NATO is not as constricted in its mission as the UN is i.e. because NATO is, explicitly, an intergovernmental military alliance whereas the UN is not? And so on.
As a side note, perhaps I am emphasizing more focus on Language rather than Ethics, simply because we have covered Language in class and therefore more capable of identifying Language knowledge issues than ones with Ethics...
I think that the current state of affairs in Syria and the resolution proposed by the UN is a very interesting and important topic for debate, since similar decisions crop up in many aspects of life. Letting a country manage its own affairs and thus cause a vast loss of life is obviously not at all a desirable outcome, but intervening and thus interfering may indeed, as you say, provoke 'the wrong message in the global community', and set a dangerous precedent.
ReplyDeleteArguably there have already been many notable precedents of this nature, the 2003 US invasion of Iraq being one example. In that case, Saddam Hussein allegedly possessed weapons of mass destruction, and the invasion quickly progressed into what was known as 'Operation Iraqi Freedom'. A similar choice, over whether to intervene and invade or not, was also made, and the end result of intervention was the currently ongoing war in Iraq.
The same kind of moral dilemma also crops up in other vastly diverse areas, one example being euthanasia, and a human's right to completely control their own life. In her blog post at (http://tastok2012.blogspot.com/2011/10/right-to-die.html), Monica Shih discussed the moral quandaries surrounding assisted suicide, and briefly touched on the issue of unconscious sufferers. The same dilemma exists: is it better to let an unconscious patient, who is close to dying, continue to live and possibly cause them extreme pain? Or is it better to end their life?
In essence, these kinds of questions are very tricky to answer correctly---while I personally believe that a UN resolution for Syria would be an extremely good move, it is impossible to tell what may result, and whether lives would be saved overall, or lost.