A Historical Approach to the Syrian Conflict

Shiran Zecharya

GVPT200

Response Paper 3

            As political turbulence and sectarian conflict continue to shackle the unitary Syrian Republic, the United States, the American public, and the international community remain in discord in terms of how to put an end to the humanitarian crisis and ensure geopolitical stability in a post-war Syria. Some tend to sympathize with the Syrians’ suffering but maintain that it is not the US’ duty to take on the role of a global policeman. This isolationist perspective, while popular, is not novice in foreign policy and has been employed and proven unsuccessful in the Rwandan Genocide when President at the time, Bill Clinton, was reluctant to respond to the massacre of the Tutsi minority because of the US’ failed intervention in Somalia the previous year. As the number of Syrian refugees and casualties continues to multiply, world leaders cannot afford to repeat their old mistakes; they must learn from their failures, hold on to strategies that have benefited them and discard ones that have not in order to improve their ability to respond to international crisis and maintain consistency in addressing issues of human rights.

            International Relations Scholars often draw historical parallels between the Syrian Civil War and the Rwandan Genocide in terms of US response. In both cases, the United States has rhetorically opposed the aggressors, Hutu Rwanda and Assad’s Syria, but has failed to definitively protect the victims of brutality. Most attribute US leadership’s lack of action in Rwanda to their failure to instill peace in a war-torn Somalia the year before; since intervention was unsuccessful in Somalia, the US did not want to invest their resources in ending a conflict that they believed would end the same way. Similarly, the American public is unwilling become involved in the Syrian conflict following unpopular interventions the decade before in both Iraq and Afghanistan. While there are key differences in the two situations, such as the sophistication of weaponry used, analysts often classify US foreign policy in addressing the Rwandan Genocide as a major failure for not only the Rwandan people, but for the promise of human rights as a whole. Furthermore, although it is not the United States’ job to directly intervene and protect human rights wherever violations exist, history does not tend to favorably portray powerful leaders who fail to act when dictators, such as President Assad, relentlessly massacre innocents and children by means of conventional and chemical weaponry for over two years and face little to no consequence.

            As the plea for democracy continues to resonate in the wake of a new century, it is the duty of society to apply pressure on their leaders to aid individuals who suffer at the hand of oppressors. The solution to peace in Syria is not black and white; there are many courses of action that could bring about unintended consequences such as arming the rebels and unilateral military intervention, and conversely, many policies that could facilitate progress in the region such as working in collaboration with other influential actors to exert smart power, supporting countries who take in refugees, ensuring that goods and services get to innocents in volatile regions of the war-torn country and maintaining a strong international presence in the region if and when Assad falls and political instability ensues. It is the hope of future global leaders to stand by human rights not only in rhetoric but also in meaningful action.