Today, enjoying the idleness of my summer slothhood, I was surfing through the daytime programming of news networks - something that as a college student who spent the majority of time dissecting assigned readings for class, that I rarely got to indulge myself with. Not that my colleagues and I had any interest parking ourselves in front of some biased news guru who was essentially a talk-show host that at best toted a fancier vocabulary and at worst threw around hyper-generalizations about, well, almost everything. No thank you. Generally speaking, at the very least Willamette students grabbed the headlines of the New York Times everyday, and we'd often find ourselves gossiping over hot lattes and Bistro cookies what was going on in the world (along, of course, with that Willamette bubble "what so-and-so-did-at-that-party" chit chat, etc)
That being said, it's amazing to me what news slips through the cracks on a regular basis. A prime example? Syria.
So what is going on with Syria anyways? Despite knowing more about Egypt and Jordan than Syria, I'll try to sum it up as well as I can. It all started March 18, 2011 during the Arab Spring when a group of school children were arrested and reportedly tortured after writing on a wall the well-known slogan of the popular uprising in Tunisia and Egypt: "The people want the downfall of the regime." Peaceful protests and demonstrations of dissent erupted in the town of Deraa, but strict repression from government security forces soon followed. With the killings of protesters, Syrians responded with anti-government protests in Baniyas, Homs, Hama, and the suburbs of Damascus. These districts however were also brutally suppressed, and by mid-May, the death toll reached 1,000. Yet, protesters kept pouring into the streets demanding democratic reforms from President Bashar al-Assad, who offered little but token gestures and continued violence.
As months passed and protesters splintered into rebel forces and oppositional groups, clashes between government and resistance forces became more brutal. What had originated as anti-government, pro-democracy clashes escalated into a conflict involving systematic bloodbaths with hundreds of people, mostly civilians, being killed in their villages during army assaults on rebel "strongholds."
As of March 27, 2012 the U.N. estimated that over 9,000 civilians had been killed. And the numbers continue to rise.
The massacres of innocents, especially children, and the leveling of whole villages have been documented. When UN monitors entered the village of Qubair today, tweets from Paul Danahar of the BBC Middle East Bureau described the lingering stench of burning flesh, and upon inspection of the village found it completely deserted. Danahar further recounts seeing large pools of blood and scraps of brain and flesh hanging from the inside of homes, yet eerily the victims bodies were no where to be found, stating that "attempts to hide this atrocity are calculated and clear"
The evidence of this attempted "cover up" proves significant. Testimonies from witnesses from other villages regarding this most recent massacre suggest that it may not have been an attack directly mandated by the Assad government, but rather a nearby Alawite community, a minority sect of Shi'ah Islam from which much of the Syrian leadership is drawn. The assertion is an ominous one, especially when considering history. In ethnic conflicts such as the Rwandan genocide the Hutu majority slaughtered the Tutsi minority who had been imposed rulers since the period of Belgium colonization. Inherently, this minority-majority tension reflects an imbalance of power. When we review the demographics of the Syrian populace we see a similar tension: 74% Sunni, 16% Shi'ah (also, 10% small Christian sects). Essentially, just as in Rwanda where the ethnic minority held greater power than the ethnic majority, the Syrian religious minority - or Shi'ah - holds the greatest influence over national affairs, at the oppression of the Sunni majority. Moreover, given the nature of Assad's oppressive rule, there's even more reason to worry about Syria's rapid disintegration into sectarian strife, especially with reports of privileged minority Alawites potentially enacting violence independently of the Assad government. If this proves to be true, the Assad's massaging of Syria into sectarian violence may echo ghosts of self-serving-power-mongers past. Similar to Milosevic's manipulation of national tensions to gain power through inciting a war between Bosnia's three prominent ethnic groups, Assad's fueling of religious war may cause his country to burn but leave him largely above the bloodshed and negate any previous threats to his power. A simple divide and conquer strategy.
The one thing I keep coming back to grapple with however is the role of the international community throughout all this. My idealistic notions of justice crave for the U.N. to sweep in, seize Assad for crimes against humanity, and stop the violence before it becomes... (I don't want to say it...) genocidal. My intimate study of the aftermath of the Bosnian war and corresponding ethnic cleansing have made me realize how impossible it is to piece together peace after such deep schisms have been so horrifically carved - schisms that still, after twenty years, make grown men and women choke up when they attempt to recount their stories. In my opinion, both retributive and restorative forms of justice hold significant limitations...Retributive justice perpetuates violence by putting another name on it, and restorative justice, through tribunals for example, requires the cooperation of all parties involved and can offer only so much consolation. As I've learned from the Bosnian families that I stayed with last summer, really all that can heal the devastating wounds of war is time...and even then bitterness and hatred remains to taint and infiltrate the memories of the next generation...
So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that the international community should be pursuing a policy of preventative rather than palliative care toward such conflicts. But how can we, as nations interacting in an anarchic order, intervene ethically (aka. intervene without completely disregarding the rules of national sovereignty) when another nation is violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Or even the Convention Against Genocide?
For answers I turn to Samantha Power, the Director of the Human Rights Initiative at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, and author of numerous books and an amazing article titled, "Never Again: The World Most Unfulfilled Promise." Essentially, she argues that sovereignty (and self-interest) is so highly valued that nations - especially the United States - don't tend to intervene in the systematic oppression of a state's citizens at all. In fact, Power argues that irrespective of the political affiliations of U.S. Presidents, the major genocides of the post-war era have "yeilded virtually no American action and few stern words" for three main reasons:
Thus, when considering the lukewarm U.S. and international response to Syria's massacres it is understandable that the conflict is being categorized as a "civil war" or "sectarian conflict" - if it were labeled as anything else, we would be obligated to act. But for now, we continue to pursue only diplomatic alternatives.
Just to back off of my frustration with the international community for a moment however, I must acknowledge that the U.N. did introduce a military intervention resolution against Assad. However, Russia proceeded to veto the UN Resolution sponsoring such intervention and China, holding significant economic interest in Syria backed Assad. This transforms this issue of sovereignty into a much greater challenge. And so, the struggle for Syria in many ways does not so much become about humanitarian intervention, but rather a game of power politics.
The question remains: Will we, as members of the international community, continue to turn away from the killings and violence? Or, can we negotiate with other nations to place humanitarian concerns at the forefront of the international scene?
I can only hope for the latter.
To conclude, I return to today's tweets from the BBC's Paul Danahar, who, while navigating the district of Hama in the UN vehicle, is stopped at a checkpoint.
"And we are through again after a lecture from a soldier," Danahar recounts. "[The soldier demanded] "Why don't you care about the terrorists killing us, aren't we human too?"
I can't help but wonder how Danahar answered such a question.
That being said, it's amazing to me what news slips through the cracks on a regular basis. A prime example? Syria.
So what is going on with Syria anyways? Despite knowing more about Egypt and Jordan than Syria, I'll try to sum it up as well as I can. It all started March 18, 2011 during the Arab Spring when a group of school children were arrested and reportedly tortured after writing on a wall the well-known slogan of the popular uprising in Tunisia and Egypt: "The people want the downfall of the regime." Peaceful protests and demonstrations of dissent erupted in the town of Deraa, but strict repression from government security forces soon followed. With the killings of protesters, Syrians responded with anti-government protests in Baniyas, Homs, Hama, and the suburbs of Damascus. These districts however were also brutally suppressed, and by mid-May, the death toll reached 1,000. Yet, protesters kept pouring into the streets demanding democratic reforms from President Bashar al-Assad, who offered little but token gestures and continued violence.
As months passed and protesters splintered into rebel forces and oppositional groups, clashes between government and resistance forces became more brutal. What had originated as anti-government, pro-democracy clashes escalated into a conflict involving systematic bloodbaths with hundreds of people, mostly civilians, being killed in their villages during army assaults on rebel "strongholds."
As of March 27, 2012 the U.N. estimated that over 9,000 civilians had been killed. And the numbers continue to rise.
The massacres of innocents, especially children, and the leveling of whole villages have been documented. When UN monitors entered the village of Qubair today, tweets from Paul Danahar of the BBC Middle East Bureau described the lingering stench of burning flesh, and upon inspection of the village found it completely deserted. Danahar further recounts seeing large pools of blood and scraps of brain and flesh hanging from the inside of homes, yet eerily the victims bodies were no where to be found, stating that "attempts to hide this atrocity are calculated and clear"
The evidence of this attempted "cover up" proves significant. Testimonies from witnesses from other villages regarding this most recent massacre suggest that it may not have been an attack directly mandated by the Assad government, but rather a nearby Alawite community, a minority sect of Shi'ah Islam from which much of the Syrian leadership is drawn. The assertion is an ominous one, especially when considering history. In ethnic conflicts such as the Rwandan genocide the Hutu majority slaughtered the Tutsi minority who had been imposed rulers since the period of Belgium colonization. Inherently, this minority-majority tension reflects an imbalance of power. When we review the demographics of the Syrian populace we see a similar tension: 74% Sunni, 16% Shi'ah (also, 10% small Christian sects). Essentially, just as in Rwanda where the ethnic minority held greater power than the ethnic majority, the Syrian religious minority - or Shi'ah - holds the greatest influence over national affairs, at the oppression of the Sunni majority. Moreover, given the nature of Assad's oppressive rule, there's even more reason to worry about Syria's rapid disintegration into sectarian strife, especially with reports of privileged minority Alawites potentially enacting violence independently of the Assad government. If this proves to be true, the Assad's massaging of Syria into sectarian violence may echo ghosts of self-serving-power-mongers past. Similar to Milosevic's manipulation of national tensions to gain power through inciting a war between Bosnia's three prominent ethnic groups, Assad's fueling of religious war may cause his country to burn but leave him largely above the bloodshed and negate any previous threats to his power. A simple divide and conquer strategy.
The one thing I keep coming back to grapple with however is the role of the international community throughout all this. My idealistic notions of justice crave for the U.N. to sweep in, seize Assad for crimes against humanity, and stop the violence before it becomes... (I don't want to say it...) genocidal. My intimate study of the aftermath of the Bosnian war and corresponding ethnic cleansing have made me realize how impossible it is to piece together peace after such deep schisms have been so horrifically carved - schisms that still, after twenty years, make grown men and women choke up when they attempt to recount their stories. In my opinion, both retributive and restorative forms of justice hold significant limitations...Retributive justice perpetuates violence by putting another name on it, and restorative justice, through tribunals for example, requires the cooperation of all parties involved and can offer only so much consolation. As I've learned from the Bosnian families that I stayed with last summer, really all that can heal the devastating wounds of war is time...and even then bitterness and hatred remains to taint and infiltrate the memories of the next generation...
So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that the international community should be pursuing a policy of preventative rather than palliative care toward such conflicts. But how can we, as nations interacting in an anarchic order, intervene ethically (aka. intervene without completely disregarding the rules of national sovereignty) when another nation is violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Or even the Convention Against Genocide?
For answers I turn to Samantha Power, the Director of the Human Rights Initiative at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, and author of numerous books and an amazing article titled, "Never Again: The World Most Unfulfilled Promise." Essentially, she argues that sovereignty (and self-interest) is so highly valued that nations - especially the United States - don't tend to intervene in the systematic oppression of a state's citizens at all. In fact, Power argues that irrespective of the political affiliations of U.S. Presidents, the major genocides of the post-war era have "yeilded virtually no American action and few stern words" for three main reasons:
- Preservation - That while leaving ethnic conflict alone threatens no vital American interests, suppressing it can threaten the lives of American soldiers.
- Isolationism - U.S. leaders claim that Americans want them to fulfill the American dream of equality and freedom at home before looking abroad
- Multi-national bodies such as the U.N. never received either the commitment of the United States or the teeth for enforcement that the Universal Human Rights Declaration and the Convention on Genocide needed to become "law" in any meaningful sense.
Thus, when considering the lukewarm U.S. and international response to Syria's massacres it is understandable that the conflict is being categorized as a "civil war" or "sectarian conflict" - if it were labeled as anything else, we would be obligated to act. But for now, we continue to pursue only diplomatic alternatives.
Just to back off of my frustration with the international community for a moment however, I must acknowledge that the U.N. did introduce a military intervention resolution against Assad. However, Russia proceeded to veto the UN Resolution sponsoring such intervention and China, holding significant economic interest in Syria backed Assad. This transforms this issue of sovereignty into a much greater challenge. And so, the struggle for Syria in many ways does not so much become about humanitarian intervention, but rather a game of power politics.
The question remains: Will we, as members of the international community, continue to turn away from the killings and violence? Or, can we negotiate with other nations to place humanitarian concerns at the forefront of the international scene?
I can only hope for the latter.
To conclude, I return to today's tweets from the BBC's Paul Danahar, who, while navigating the district of Hama in the UN vehicle, is stopped at a checkpoint.
"And we are through again after a lecture from a soldier," Danahar recounts. "[The soldier demanded] "Why don't you care about the terrorists killing us, aren't we human too?"
I can't help but wonder how Danahar answered such a question.
