The decision by the United States government to use force against Syria as an intervention to deter Syrian government from using chemical weapon against civilians is timely and highly welcome. It is a factual that for a military intervention to be considered legal, there is always a need to get the approval of the United Nations Security Council as stated in the United Nations’ Charter.
Two permanent members of this Security Council, Russia and China, have already given their disapproval for a military intervention. This means that basing the argument on what the United Nations’ Charter states on when and how such intervention should be made, the United States does not have a legal mandate to make this intervention.
However, there is need to take a keen analysis of what is going on in Syria before making a judgment on whether or not the United States has the right to intervene. This study will look into some of the cases where the United States failed to act to save humanity and the result of such moves. The study will also look at cases where the West acted and the result of their move.
The Rwandan genocide in 1994 will be a clear point of reference for those who are still opposed to military intervention in Syria. In Rwanda, Prunier (56) observes that the United Nations did not find a legal ground to make a military intervention in the war against the Hutus and the Tutsis. The argument then was that genocide was a civil war that did not necessitate United Nations military intervention. The world watched as millions of Tutsis and Hutus died in the hands of the government and militia forces.
It is estimated that the Rwandan genocide resulted into massacre of about 20% of the country’s total population (Annan 67). The United Nations did not take any action because some members thought that military intervention was not necessary. Another catastrophic scenario is the Darfur War, which has dragged on for years registering loss of life. The United Nations has not made a move to end this war. The region remains volatile.
The United States has a responsibility to protect humanity. It is a fact that in the current world, military intervention into a sovereign state may be considered as barbaric. However, it is important to protect humanity from a possible destruction at all costs. The government of Syria has the responsibility of protecting its citizens.
If this government turns against the people it should protect, then it fails to act in the interest of the Syrians (Landman 89). In such a case, the government’s legitimacy is questionable. Russia and China will always want to appear special by opposing any decision of the West, especially if it is proposed by the United States.
This is a selfish move given that these two countries do not act in good faith to protect humanity, but to attract sympathy from corrupt and oppressive governments so that they can find larger markets for their produce, especially government tenders. The United States should act to save Syrians from a possible destruction by its own government (Teitel 79).The need to protect humanity should supersede any bureaucratic law. This means that the United States is justified to make military intervention in Syria.
Works Cited
Annan, Kofi. The Media and the Rwanda Genocide. London: Pluto Press, 2007. Print.
Landman, Todd. Protecting Human Rights: A Comparative Study. Washington, D.C: Georgetown University Press, 2005. Print.
Prunier, Gérard. Darfur: The Ambiguous Genocide. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2007. Print.
Teitel, Ruti G. Humanity’s Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Print.