A Necessary Intervention

A Necessary Intervention

When mass atrocities occur in today’s world, humanitarianism is often vital to the situation in order to promote human welfare.  In Syria, a large group of people is facing mass destruction during a deadly civil war and intervention is necessary to stop this injustice and human suffering. In a case as extreme as this, it is the United States’ moral obligation to provide aid to the innocent suffering civilians in Syria, and do whatever is necessary to end the mass killing in the region.

            Military force should never be the first option in any case similar to this, however in Syria, it may be essential. In opposition, Ed Husain claims that military intervention is ill conceived, counter productive, and likely to increase, instead of reduce, killing of innocent cvilians.  I don’t believe this is particularly true, as the killings will only increase if we just become bystanders waiting for things to pan out, while innocent people are getting gassed to death and murdered by chemical weapons. We must not intervene to show our power in the Middle East or for our own self- interest, however it is necessary that we aid the refugees immediately and ensure that the mass killings and injustice come to an end. As mentioned by Shadi Hamid in his article, no one is arguing for an Iraqi- style invasion with thousands of boots on the ground, as this will only make matters worse.  However, it is critical to establish safe zones to ensure humanitarian assistance and safety for the civilians.

 It is the United States’ moral duty to protect innocent lives that are threatened every day by the deadly civil war taking place in Syria and it is essential that we do everything in our power to end this.  I don’t understand how we can consider sitting back and watching the mass murdering of tons of people by a dictator. If the problem doesn’t “resolve itself”, how many more people have to die before we decide to step in and take action. While the support of other countries would greatly contribute to the resolution of the problem, we can’t rely on others to step in and do what must be done.  A joint coalition of nations to aid the people of Syria may be the best option, but if this is not a conceivable plan, then the United States must take it upon themselves to step in and end the mass suffering.  Right now, American intervention is the best way to put an end to the crimes against humanity and suffering in Syria.

Integration of a Power

For years, the United States government and public have speculated about China’s likely rise as a global power in the near future. The thought of the United States losing its status as the lone superpower often brings contempt towards the rising state. As G. John Ikenberry argues in his article The Rise of China and the Future of the West. Can the Liberal System Survive?, the United States can ultimately decide the outcome of China’s inevitable rise in one of two ways: push the state away, offering no aid and expecting their demise or integrate them into the Western Order. In order for the United States to remain powerful, they should aid this power. Helping China rise and incorporating the state into the western world will either give the United States the chance to take a back seat or continue to be most powerful if integration fails.

            Giving aid and support to China as a rising superpower and integrating them into the Western Order will presumably end in the United States becoming the second most powerful state in the order. As Ikenberry states, “the rise of China does not have to trigger a wrenching hegemonic transition” because China faces “a Western-centered system that is open, integrated, and rule-based, with wide and deep political foundations,” (Ikenberry). China’s rise will not result in global tragedy as the rise of states in the past has because the politics of today’s international world have changed. If the United States allows China to surpass them within the Western Order, they will simply be second in line of an order that will continue to deeply depend on them due to location. Though it is possible for China to become more powerful than the United States within the Western Order, the United States will always have some power over the western world due to their location; they are in the west while China is in the east. This will allow the United States to take a step back from international disorder. In recent history, the United States has usually been expected to deal with problems that arise within less stable states simply because they are seen as the leader. An example of such a situation is the recent struggle with Syria. Most states can agree that there are problems in Syria and that intervention or other aid is needed to bring the country to order. However, the United States remains seemingly unwilling to enter such a situation and other states continue to look to them to do something. All in all, letting China take over as a superpower could allow the United States to focus on problems at home.

            Attempting to integrate China into the Western Order is the best option for the United States when dealing with this rising power. The attempt could fail, resulting in the United States remaining the sole superpower. However, the attempt could also be a success; China could become the most powerful state in the Western Order. If this were to happen, the United States would be able to take a back seat when dealing with international problems. Although the façade of the United States as a force fighting for good would remain, they could allow China to rise as a superpower and become such a force as well. Additionally, the United States would not lose complete superpower status because of their location. The majority of states in the Western Order are, in fact, located in the west. Therefore, the United States could still remain a regional power due to location since China is located in the east. Having China become a superpower will not be detrimental to the United States and could even help the state focus on the interests of its government and citizens.

The Rise of China

The Rise of China

The United States’ combination of military power and wealth grants it hegemony in the current international system. However, a new hegemon could be emerging before our eyes as China’s economy continues to grow at a rapid pace. According to John Ikenberry, “The United States’ ‘unipolar moment’ will inevitably end. If the defining struggle of the twenty-first century is between China and the United States, China will have the advantage…” (Ikenberry 2008). Ikenberry suggests that the rise of China will undoubtedly pose as a threat to the current dominance of the United States but predicts that it will not affect the dominance of western civilization as a whole. Ikenberry holds the belief that the United States’ leadership of the Western Order gives us an unquenchable amount of power over China and in fact encourages the assimilation of China in to the Western Order. Ikenberry feels that opening the Western Order’s arms to China will encourage integration in to western policies and will prevent an overturn of power. Realists such as Mearsheimer feel as if this is an extremely threatening situation and the United States must take all precautions necessary to ensure that China’s economy does not continue to grow. Given that China is a crucial trading partner to the United States, boycotting all economic ties with them does not appear to be in our best interest. Naturally, Mearsheimer’s followers believe that inviting a potential revisionist power into our system of world order is like entering the lion’s den.

While I agree with Mearsheimer’s theory that the growth of China must indeed be contained, his suggestion of thwarting all trade with them negatively effects the US economy as well. However, I am also not completely sold on Ikenberry’s theory of integration. It seems to me that bringing a growing world power into a system that spoon-feeds it an increased sense of leadership and influence along with connections with prosperous partners may actually spur even greater growth for China. Ikenberry claims that the Western Order is a rule-based system making it, “…easy to join and hard to overturn” (2008) and that once integrated into the Western Order, China is likely to become a leader of the WTO, thus increasing its power and influence in the international system. Providing a socialist nation with increased influence and leadership in the world order does not bode well for the hopes of a democratic future. As rising power entering a powerful system, China will surely want to exhibit its newfound power and leadership and will express a desire to, “…reshape the rules and institutions in accordance with their own interests” (2008). As a democratic nation that yearns to see the spread of democracy, is a world order in which the rules are geared toward a socialist perspective what we want? Therefore perhaps it is best to deprive China of any influence in the current world order.

The rise of China is an inevitable threat to both the hegemony of the United States and the preservation of a democratically ruled Western Order. While we cannot simply cut ties with China as their economic prosperity is crucial to our survival, I also do not fully support welcoming a rising socialist power into the world order with open arms. While China’s growth cannot be prevented without damaging the growth of the United States, the preservation of a democratically dominant international system can be assured if China is not granted additional influence in the Western Order. China will undoubtedly surpass the United States economically, however the potential spread of socialist policies and institutions can be prevented if China remains excluded from the Western Order.

Humanitarian Efforts in Syria

            The earliest days of September 2013 were standard in the United States; schools opened, neighborhood pools closed, and the American public assumed the traditional hubbub of a schedule lacking the luxuries of summertime. Yet by mid-September, as the news of Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons spread like wildfire through American media, the attention of the American public was held captive and questions regarding the United State’s response began to arise. The alleged “red line” had been crossed, and it was clear that Obama was set to intervene in Syria. Some hailed the idea as heroic, while others bemoaned the proposition as an invitation for a second Iraq War. While I understand the need for action in Syria, I would argue that the United States lacks the authority to intervene in a civil war which does not pertain to them. As Americans, our obligation is not to act as an overarching authority which polices the use of warfare, but rather, to reach out on a humanitarian level to help those who have been victimized by the war.  

            The assertion that America should rush to action on a military level has several inherent faults, mainly in its ignorance of the reality of the Syrian situation. For example, while proponents of military intervention would offer that the United States needs to take an active stance against the breach of conventional norms, that chemical weapons are not to be used in times of war, is a militaristic intervention the only method of achieving diplomacy? Exploring other options in which the United States is involved on a level which does not involve a war is an entirely viable alternative, especially considering the exponential cost and bloodshed which our involvement within Syria could unleash. There also remains the fact that following our involvement in Syria, more political instability could ensue, which begs the question of just how involved we should be. Rather than open Pandora’s Box for the sake of upholding our reputation as an enforcer of international law, I believe that the United States should become involved on a less militaristic level.

            Our nationwide concern with the welfare of Syrians was only recently sparked, following the news of chemical weapon use, while more than 100,000 Syrian casualties had been reported prior to the contraband weapons were even introduced to the scene. Our attention was held by the murmurs of torture, pain, misery, and suffering on the part of the Syrian people, and while it is difficult to differentiate between the combatants and the noncombatants, a primary fault which makes the concept of war unjustified, innocent victims are now fleeing the country to escape the hell which they previously called home. If Americans are inflamed enough to go to war for the rights of these people, I do not believe it is too idealistic to consider a humanitarian option in which we send financial aid to countries surrounding Syria for the support of refugees. Rather than sitting idly by and wondering what we should have done surrounding the Syria crisis of 2011-2013, I believe that we should find a way to ensure that these Syrians are not forced to suffer even more in countries that are overwhelmed by an influx of immigrants from the war-torn Syria, and whether we do this unilaterally, or with the help of other nations, I think that we have the potential to make a difference.

            While the United States as an entity possesses the power and influence to make a difference in the world, I believe that these assets would be better suited in Syria in the form of refugee assistance and humanitarian aid. While congressional leaders and a minority of Americans may argue for a military intervention in Syria, I do not believe that this war would be justified on our part or that we have the authority to intervene, and our efforts are best suited to help those who have been victimized by the civil war. 

The Growing Conflict in Syria

Analyzing the growing troubles that plague the country of Syria it is becoming clear to many nations that the alleged atrocities that are being committed must be stopped. The level at which the international community, and for that matter who in the international community should aid, should come to the help on behalf of the Syrian people is undoubtedly up for debate. I take the position that intervention is needed in Syria but it should be done for human rights and not military, in addition the intervention force should not be solely from a state such as the United States but a joint coalition of countries.

            While many parties agree that intervention should be done with the purpose of helping the people of Syria that are being put through a Civil War, there are those who believe that military intervention from a third party is necessary. I disagree with this view for the last thing the United States needs is to be embroiled in another conflict half the world away. Looking at the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan these were decade long wars that resulted in thousands of American soldiers deaths and billions of dollars on a war that was not our own. If the United States were to be involved in another war similar to that of Iraq and Afghanistan the consequences could be dire.  While intervention in Syria for humanitarian reasons is absolutely necessary military intervention from the United States is an option that should be ruled out for the potential cost is too much. The viable option would be a joint coalition force with the goal of aiding the people of Syria. Through this option no one nation would be forced to bear the full burden of assisting a whole nation of people suffering through a tumultuous civil war.  

            It has been widely accepted that through the Syrian Civil War its innocent people are suffering. I believe the correct course of action that can aid the people of Syria without any escalation of conflict is to create a joint humanitarian effort through many of the major nations. 

Hard Power vs. Soft Power

Alexia Deleers

Every single country on this planet has wondered which way would be the best way to handle the International Relations of their country. Politicians have been torn attempting to figure out which kind of power to exert on foreign countries; hard power or soft power. Some writers will argue that hard power is crucial in International Relations because soft power shows weakness. On the other hand, many others believe the opposite. In his short book, Power: A Radical View, Lukes gives us different Dimensional Views of Power. One of the views that Lukes fails to mention is one in which hard power and soft power coexist to make a balanced way to deal with international relations.

Hard power is often exerted through military forces as well as economic force. Being within a country that exercises a great deal of hard power, many say they feel safe and looked after. In case of conflict, many States resort to using hard power to deal with their issues. In Lukes “One Dimensional View” he writes: “Conflict is assumed to be crucial in providing an experimental test of power attributions”. Numerous nations around the world believe that conflict is necessary in order to have power. They believe it is critical to experience conflicts in order to show the rest of the world what kind of power they can actually bring to the table. But in this case, I see a problem; where are the moral values that States hold? Are these to be ignored completely just to show off? Will Nations do anything in order to show off their power?

As a great deal of Nations prefer the use of hard power when dealing with International Relations, other favor soft power. The use of soft power within the world of International Relations deals with attracting people through the means of persuasion. Rather than using a military or an economy, States who favor soft power chose to put their moral values and their reason ahead of any violence. Instead of using coercion, soft power Nations will seduce foreign countries with factors that make their country seem attractive such as rights, jobs, freedom, and such things. The countries in which soft power is used prefer not to use a military force as they would rather not force anything on anyone and have people come to them by their own will. Now in this case, I see another problem; what if the soft power Nations were to get attacked? Would they be able to protect their people in the same way a hard power country could?

The Impossible Argument

            In most aspects of foreign policy, the population bases their opinions of the matter on information presented by a higher authority government. This is the direct source; government officials such as various ambassadors and the president are those who deal with other states and powers. This pathway enables the government to present information to their favor and therefore create a popular opinion of the citizens who trust elected leaders. As was the case of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, the government created a perspective that immediately rallied the American people against the exact group they wanted to label as the enemy. In their article Fixing the Meaning of 9/11: Hegemony, Coercion, and the Road to War in Iraq, Ronald Krebbs and Jennifer Lobasz claim that the Bush administration shaped an argument for going to war with Iraq that was almost impossible to refute and therefore creating little to no opposition. This theory proposed by Krebbs and Lobasz is one that I agree with. I believe that in most cases of political decision-making, and especially those following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, information bias is the tool used by our government to implement a popular opinion in favor of what they are arguing.

            The attacks of September 11^th created a new league of terrorism in the eyes of the American people. As stated by Krebbs and Lobasz, “state power was severely attenuated, in which the threat of mass-casualty terrorism suddenly became very real.” An attack such as this seemed so formidable that going to war against the suspected perpetrators was not only an option, it was an unquestionable necessity. This perspective was largely created by the Bush administration to gain mass support for starting a war. President Bush explained to the American population after the horrendous attacks that the terrorists who calculated them were simply “evildoers.” Even the primary opposition of the Bush administration, the Democratic Party, scarcely argued against going to war with an enemy that was labeled as evil. Furthermore, because the administration labeled the struggle as a “War on Terror,” the opposition had no counter-argument to make against an enemy as inherently evil as terror. Krebbs and Lobasz analyzed the neutrality of any resistance against entering a war, stating, “…the post–9/11 War on Terror narrowed the space for sustainable political debate.” The government had painted a picture of the United States going to war with evil, to fight for the values and freedoms that were threatened. This picture tremendously helped persuade everyone, including the Democrats, that entering a war with Iraq was the only choice.

Ultimately, had these attacks not been deemed as a threat to American society and values, there might have been a larger political debate on whether war against Iraq was the right course of action. However, when fighting an enemy as arduous as evil, there is little an opposition can do to make such a war seem unjust. Because of this information, the American population, including both republicans and democrats, essentially made the unanimous decision to enter a war in Iraq, the goal of the Bush administration at the time.

The Rational Decision to Invade

                   For the realist, war is caused by situations in which large amounts power are shifted in the direction of another country or when a state has reason to believe that their security is in peril. According to Alexandre Debs and Nuno P. Monteiro in their article, Known Unknowns: Power Shifts, Uncertainty, and War, the United States’ decision to invade Iraq was no more than a preventative course of action to avoid a shift in power towards Iraq and can be supported by a rationalist framework. Debs and Monteiro argue that the decision to invade Iraq was due to the United States’ focus on three main factors. These include the desire to prevent suspected Iraqi development of WMD, pre-existing suspicion of Iraqi intentions due to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and the US’s possession of ambiguous information regarding Iraq’s nuclear program. When viewing all three of these factors through the eyes of a realist, along with considering the one percent doctrine, it is almost impossible to make an argument against the decision to invade as both the physical and ontological security of the United States was at risk. These factors considered, Debs and Monteiro are completely justified in their argument that the invasion of Iraq was indeed a rational decision.

                   Due to 9/11 the nation was already in a vulnerable state and our ontological security compromised, launching a preventative war seemed the safer and more strategic option as opposed to waiting for another attack. In addition to this, the fact that United States intelligence did not have concrete evidence that Iraq did not possess WMD, makes the decision to invade highly rational. However, not all scholars share this viewpoint and feel as if the decision to start a war was highly unnecessary and irrational. Opponents to Debs and Monteiro’s argument make the valid point that Iraq in fact did not possess WMD and this so called ‘preventative’ war was launched on mistaken grounds. Opponents to this argument thus, have trouble accepting that the decision to willingly thrust our nation into a costly ten year war that was based on mistaken grounds is rational. However, in the grand scheme of things, a nation’s security is not a matter on which to tread lightly. So isn’t it better to take preventative action as opposed to waiting for something to provoke war? Debs and Monteiro argue that, “Specifically, the cost of a preventive counter-proliferation war against Iraq was expected to be orders of magnitude smaller than the expected cost of deterring, not to mention deposing a nuclear-armed Saddam” (Debs and Monteiro 2013). Therefore, all other options considered, invading Iraq appears to be more economical and grants the United States hard power over Iraq as they are acting offensively. According to Hans Morgenthau, power is defined as the control of man over man. Therefore, the potential possession of WMD increased Iraq’s potential power over the United States by having the ability to strike an attack at any moment. Similarly, the decision to invade allowed for a transfer of power back into the hands of the United States. Debs and Monteiro are correct by making the statement that the decision to invade Iraq was a rational decision as it provided the highest level of security for the United States.