In March 2011, the citizens of Syria and some of the government officials began a call for both economic and social change in the administration of the ruling regime. Unfortunately, the calls were ignored by the government, resulting to the escalation of civil unrest in the Southern province of Daras, which spread quickly to the other towns. Consequences of the increased violence were too serious with thousands of people left dead and others seriously injured by the end of the year 2011. These effects have attracted thoughts of a Libyan like intervention in Syria among the international community members to stop the violence (Brown 2001: 254).
The resulting unrest has triggered negative consequences on the country, with calamitous consequences being observed in the state’s economy, while alarming levels of hardship continue to be reported among the civilians. The conflict has restricted the movement of people and goods in the country and prevented them from carrying out their economic activities (Gillespie et al 2000: 34). As a result, goods and food have become scarce in the country following the restrictions and reduced level of harvest. Furthermore, the famine in some regions has taken its toll on people leaving some of them in a very sorry state. Sanctions by the west and the League of Arab states has badly complicated the situation as people can hardly access medical or humanitarian help while the government has neglected citizens to concentrate on the conflict (Gleick 1987: 17)
There are more reasons that support the necessity of the Libyan like intervention in Syria. For example, the resent massacre activities of 100 people in Houla by the pro-government thugs, identified by the survivors of the attacks as Shabiha. Besides that, there are more indications of the state of Syria’s human rights violations, when the government denounces any links with the atrocities committed by the sponsored militia stating it as a “terrorist massacre”. In the attacks, families were killed from house to house in an operation by the ruling regime against the supporters of the rebel groups (Gleick 1987: 22).
According to a statement issued by the US on the massacre, it held the Syrian government responsible for the loss of innocent lives. It described the massacre as the haziest condemnation of the Syrian government’s contravention of its UN Security Council compulsion (Brown 2001: 254). Following those actions, which were believed to have been committed by the Syrian government, some of the EU members’ states exorcised Syrian ambassadors from their countries as a disapproval of the actions of their government (Gleick 1987: 30).
The move was preordained by the international community to warn the Syrian regime that its days were limited, and it should implement the peace agreement or face the consequences. In a move to prevent any more atrocities from being committed in Syria, the UN and the Arab League sent Kofi Annan to President Assad to communicate the great concerns of the international community. He had to further give emphasis to the implementation of the recommended six point plan towards peace by the Syrian President. This would only be possible if the violence in Syria was stopped and the political detainees were released (Stearns 2012: 12).
According to the UN’s high commissioner of human rights, this was an abominable event that took place with an operating government in power. Unfortunately in the incident, some of those killed were women and children shot at close range at their compounds. Among the countries that have withdrawn Syrian ambassadors are the US, France, Britain and the UK among others. Despite all the efforts by the international community to protest, the government of Syria has not taken any serious action to improve the condition (Gleick 1987:17).
The deplorable state of the civilians and their suffering while the government assumes a blind eye on the situation for example, the lack of basic services like health and water is a valid reason for a Libyan like intervention to be done in Syria. Moreover, the government imposed a ban on some social web sites like face book, which are the only viable links between the Syrian population and the outside world. This is evidence that the government is guilty and therefore hiding from being exposed by the citizens to the outside world (Baylis, Steve, Smith, and Patricia 2011: 40).
The evidence of the atrocities being committed in Syria is the major reason for intervention of whatever form to stop the situation. The situation of the country is overwhelming as the environment gets from bad to worse every single day. However a Libyan like intervention may not be possible if due to the following reasons (Gleick 1987: 11).
Currently, the law authorizing such a move has been reentered ineffective due to a lack of agreement by the members of the Security Council, to begin with, the set of guidelines of the duty to protect adopted by the UN in 2005 in a world meeting gave it and the international community, the right and responsibility to intervene in the event that a country ignores or is incapable to defend its people against human rights infringement. This law had been confirmed and used by the Security Council once in March 2011 in the case of Libya. At that time, it authorized the implementation of the law by authorizing a military intervention in Libya (Stearns 2012: 13).
It has however become complicated for the Security Council to use the authority again despite the imperative need for action, due to the desperate state of affairs in Syria. This is as result of the disparity of some of the members of the Security Council causing a division among them. In this regard, countries like Russia and China have used their veto power to protest against the Security Council’s move to deal with Syria using a military intervention the same way they dealt with Libya. This has put the council’s authority and actions at a dilemma making the quagmire in Syria an enigma that is hard to solve (Baylis, et al 2011: 20).
In another case, the coalition of twenty two Arabic speaking countries who adopted the Arab Charter on Human rights (ACHR), which advocates against persecution, unreasonable arrest and inhuman treatment in accordance to the respect of the right to liberty, safety and a honest and just trial. Unfortunately, this agreement has been immobilized by its lack of enforcement mechanisms such as, a court of law and the absence of well formulated policies that are enforceable and binding by the law for any states that violet the rules. As a result, the violations of human rights in Syria continue with the civilians suffering in the most unthinkable way (Gillespie et al 2000: 34).
Another complication that holds back the international community from taking similar action as it did in Libya is the actions of some of the EU member countries towards what is happening in Syria. For instance, Iran giving a hand to military in preparing of government aided militia while Russia goes on selling ammunition and other weapons to Syria. This is a counter action to the progress of cease fire and peace campaigns by the international community, as these actions advocate for a continued unrest and war activities in Syria (Baylis, et al 2011: 30).
Considering the population of Syria, there are more people in Syria than in Libya who are in support of the current president. Furthermore, the number of rebels is much less as compared to the government army. The army is also made up of professional and well trained soldiers. Bearing in mind the position of the country and the distribution of the population, it will be difficult for the attacks to be carried out without hurting most of the population (Uchman 2006: 26).
Similarity between the Libya unrest and the Syria situation
In this case, there are some similarities on the nature of unrest in Syria as it was in Libya. First of all, in both cases the unrest resulted from the simple protests against the state on both economic and social change in the administration of the ruling regime. However in the two cases, the governments failed to address the needs of the people leading to the change of the calls to demands for the resignation, which turned to conflict that has rocked the country for sometime know (Stearns 2012: 10).
In both countries before the protests, the government had put in place tough rules and bureaucratic laws that oppressed the people and opposition in parliament. The regimes administration was one of dictatorship amongst its people; this was seen in Syria where the government even restricted the citizens on the use of some social sites in the internet. Those who violated those oppressing rules were taken through dehumanizing experiences. This state of affairs had choked the people leading to the uprising and rebellion against the government. Unfortunately, the law has been ignored and the people are tortured by both the rebels and the government militias. The atrocities have been so rampant leading to mass migration of the citizens to neighboring countries searching for asylum.
In the two cases, the level of human rights violation has been rated at an alarming level resulting to calls from the international community to act by the rebels and those who are supporters of the EU in Syria. In the two unrests, the UN has made reports on the death of huge numbers of innocent people who are just civilians and worse of all killings of women and children. The calls from the international community for the violence perpetrated by the government against the civilians to stop have been ignored by the government (Uchman 2006: 56).
Like in the Libyan case, the state of unrest has left the economy of the country at a standstill as the government as well as most of the people neglect economic activities to concentrate on their safety and the conflict. This has badly affected both countries socially leading to civil unrest among some civilians. Unfortunately, those who suffer the most are the citizens who have to undergo torture, harassment and even rape among women in the hands of both the government and rebel militias. The resulting scenario is one of dehumanizing scenes that no human being is supposed to go through. Sadly, due to the stalemate among the members of the Security Council and the ACHR, the citizens continue to suffer while the atrocities go on as if there is no one cares for humanity anymore (Stearns 2012: 14).
Difference between the Libya unrest situation and the Syria situation
To begin with, the population of Libya were more dispersed and well located away from the military fields that were used in attacking the government soldiers. This was used to the advantage of NATO attacks on the government in carrying out successful attacks without causing more casualties among the innocent civilians. Unfortunately, in Syria this is not the case as the position of the civilians does not guarantee any safety in case the attacks are perpetrated due to their proximity to the military arena (Pettinger 2012: 5).
Considering the lack of consensus by the Security Council, there cannot be any action unless there is a unanimous agreement between most of the members. To date, the debate has created a rift among the member countries while Russia and China have publicly declared their opposition of the move to carry out a Libya like attack in Syria. More to these, China has facilitated military action in Syria while Russia keeps on selling weapons to Syria. In Libya, the members of the Security Council unanimously and immediately supported the military intervention (Uchman 2006: 26).
The Libyan government lacked professionally trained soldiers; however, in Syria the military personnel are professionals and will make it difficult and prolonged attacks for the NATO military action to be successful. To make it worse, in Syria there is no a safe haven to facilitate smooth NATO operations during the attacks unlike in Libya where Benghazi was used. Furthermore, the air military protection in Syria is stronger and able to bring up more resistance as compared to Libya. Besides Syria has more challenging geographical complications that complicate the whole operation as compared to Libya. First Lebanon cares for its integrity among the neighboring countries. Turkey is afraid that if it offers the safe havens it will be punished with increased Kurdish terrorism, while Lebanon is fearful for the increased attacks by the neighbors (Pettinger 2012: 7).
Advantages of the intervention taking place
One of the advantages of the interventions taking place is that, the military intervention serves as an example to the whole world and all the leaders in power against violation of human rights. In many parts of the world, there are those leaders who usually get selfish and greedy due to excessive power. In the process, they don’t even care for their citizens’ well being. In the event of a disagreement taking place in their country, such leaders use excessive power and brutality to maintain their position in power regardless of the cost and the consequences of their actions. When such leaders see this happening to their fellow leaders, they become more careful when dealing with matters concerning human rights.
It further helps to save the local people against human rights violation by the state. This is observed in situations where, the government in power ignores the law and uses excessive power against the local community. The intervention of the international community advocates for the sovereignty of the people rather than the personal interest of the leaders. Furthermore, the move helps to improve international relation between countries for example, when an earthquake occurred in Kashmir the section between India and Pakistan. Which for a long time has been the source of conflict between India and Pakistan, the Pakistan government gave way for the international relief organizations and accepted help from India. This may be the genesis of a long term peace between the two countries (Bajoria 2011: 28).
It also facilitates peace and order in the society, most governments which have faced the intervention of the international community has always improved and done better. For example, the intervention of the international community in the post election violence that rocked Kenya in 2008 was saved from escalating to war. This was after an agreement was met by the leaders to form a coalition government, which saved a lot of bloodshed (Bajoria 2011: 30).Besides, it saves the country in conflict from wasting more resources in fueling the conflict that may have been used in the development of the nation.
Disadvantages of the intervention taking place
It acts as a weakness were the developed countries take advantage of the developing countries to impose rules aimed at the development of their own interest. For example, in the case of the Libyan intervention, it turned out that NATO was more interested in the change of the regime in power than in the well being of citizens. After the destruction of Muammur’s government, which resulted to NATO’s soldiers killing the son of the former president, his nephew and himself unfortunately, they had no apologies for their action.
The intervention involves the use of massive resources by the government of the EU members. This is a major wastage of resources that could have been used by the countries to carry out other development projects. It was observed at Afghanistan in Iraq, where the US spent millions of dollars in war while looking for Osama bin Laden who was apparently never found until later. Unfortunately during that time, the properties of Iraqis’ were destroyed leading to wastage of recourses for both Iraq and the EU countries.
Intervention results to a poor international relationship between the member states. For example, at the time when Lebanon feared giving NATO space for the safe haven in attacking Syria, due to the fear of terrorism. It leads to some of the countries losing faith among the neighboring countries, and in the long run poor international relationships develop between the two countries. On the other hand, some forms of intervention may lead to the interference of the EU member states on the sovereignty of the states under attack. For example, in the declaration of the no fly no go Zone in Libya, which was followed by air attacks from some of the EU member states. Several countries were wondering if the attacks were necessary because at that time attackers’ were supposed to save the Libyan population from attacks by the government.
Works Cited
Bajoria, Jayshree. “The Dilemma of Humanitarian Intervention.” New York Times. 2011. Print.
Baylis, John, Steve, Smith, and Patricia Owens. The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press, (2011).Print.
Brown, Chris. Understanding international politics, Oxford: Oxford University press, 2001. Print.
Gillespie, Paula. A guide to international relations, Boston: Allyn publishers, 2000. Print.
Gleick, James. Chaos: world politics, New York: Penguin publishers, 1987. Print.
Pettinger, Tailor. “Syria Crisis, Libya Unrest.” Arab Springs. 2012. Print.
Stearns, Scott. “Clinton: Syria Far Harder to resolve than Libya.” Middle East Voices. 2012. Print.
Uchman, Dana. Conflict and political unrest:Good and honest administration, New York: Williamson and Sons, 2006. Print.