The Syrian Saga: Time to Forge a Consensus Over Military Intervention in the 21st Century

The structural bi polarity that was the defining feature of the Cold War led to systemic stability. Proxy wars, intra state conflicts and other insalubrious activities were carried out under the aegis of this stability. Similarly, odious regimes, by siding and throwing their lot with either the United States or the USSR could maintain and prolong their rule. Tremendous wrongs were perpetuated under this regime as states maintained the façade of sovereignty and infringed upon the human rights of their citizens/subjects.

 The break up and dissolution of the USSR led to an aberrant interlude in world politics. This was termed as unipolarity- a condition where the United States stood at the pinnacle of its power and had no peer competitor. The neo conservative wing of the Republican Party called for the utility of the unprecedented power and might that unipolarity accorded the United States. Essentially, they articulated a revolutionary paradigm that called for unabashed employment of hard power to bring about regime change in regions that were resistant to democracy and human rights. This paradigm meant discarding and disregarding sovereignty of states and outright military intervention in the target states. September II afforded an opportunity to out this paradigm into practice and Saddam’s Iraq became a test case for this revolutionary experiment. Dictators and odious regimes across the world felt that they would be the targets of military intervention by the United States.

 Given the revolutionary nature of this paradigm and given the European penchant for gratuitous obstructionism and the do good activism of useful idiots, this paradigm met with considerable resistance. The United States, regardless, went ahead, deposed Saddam and invaded Iraq. Whether or not the invasion has produced the desired results, it will be the trajectory of Iraq and the task of historians to dwell on the impact. The question is whether the concept of regime change concentrated the minds of odious regimes and dictators and whether the alternative of respecting the sovereignty of nations and reluctance of employing military intervention encourages odious and foul dictators to harass, murder and main their own citizens.

Syria is a case in point here. The murderous dictator, Bashar Al Assad has been busy killing, maiming and harassing his own people with impunity over the past sixteen months. Over 16, 500 people have been killed in this time period. Surely, this brazen flouting of rules of decency, morality and ethics and outright criminality deserves more than condemnation. The international community is, however, bound by the rules of sovereignty, lack of consensus over military intervention in the 21^st century and the obstructive cover employed by China and Russia to shield Assad’s regime. The United Nations, corresponding to type, watches this orgy of murder and rapine mutely. Is then the neo con vision of regime change and the unabashed use of military might to depose odious regimes right?

Yes and No. Yes, because the accretion of rules and laws developed over years protect odious and insidious regimes and they hide under the veneer of these laws. The Syrian case is again an eloquent reminder of this. Clear cut principles of regime change accord leeway and latitude to powers that be to bring these wicked regimes to their knees. No, because, it sets precedents which could be employed by other states to settle scores, leads to recidivism and perhaps even chaos.

 The question then is what can be done to prevent mass murder like the one committed by the odious regime of Bashar Al Assad? There are no easy answers to this. The contemporary structure of world politics militates against consensus on deposing regimes and employing military intervention to do so. This is overlain by the heterogeneity that defines the international system with the authoritarians arrayed against democracies. Even the much touted Responsibility to Protect(R2P) falls victim to this , among other things. What then is the alternative?

The alternative is to build an forge a league of democracies led by the United States to forge ‘coalitions of the willing’, aggregate power and might and then vigorously define conditions of military intervention in the 21^st century. This then needs to be followed up and buttressed by ‘boots and helmets on the ground’, so to speak. However, conceptual clarity is the first goal and step to be attained. A broad conceptual rubric called pre-emptive multilateralism could be developed and employed to deal with situations like the Syrian one. This would entail clear cut principles and conditions when pre emptive action to depose murderous regimes would be warranted. The league of democracies in place should then be willing to take risks and deploy men and material on the ground. This approach would somewhat bypass the United Nations an skirt over the obstructionism accorded by the veto. NATO could be expanded to welcome new members which should be democracies. This, in the final analysis, may obviate the structural problems that the current structure an system of international politics produce.

Time is of essence here. Neither sanctions-‘smart’ or generic’ nor ostracism by the international community will force murderous butchers like Assas to stop mass murders. It is only action- decisive and clear cut-that will prevent the orgy or murder and rapine in states led by odious dictators. Let the Syrian fiasco concentrate the minds of powers that be and make them fine a solution that prevents genocidal mass murder within states.