Illustration by: Rini Bahethi
<strong>Mediating</strong> <strong>or</strong> meddling? Syrian conflict thrusts debate over ‘responsibility to protect’ back into public focus Savannah Wooten, Staff Writer “America is not the w<strong>or</strong>ld’s policeman,” spoke President Barack Obama in his nationwide address on September 10, 20<strong>13</strong>, “Terrible things happen across the globe and it is beyond our means to right every wrong. But when, with moderate eff<strong>or</strong>t and risk, we can stop children from being gassed to death,” he continues, “I believe we should act.” This was President Obama’s final entreaty to the American public and members of Congress f<strong>or</strong> supp<strong>or</strong>t f<strong>or</strong> potential U.S. military action in the ongoing conflict in Syria. <strong>The</strong> President spent much of the preceding month presenting pro-intervention arguments, deeming Syria’s chemical weapons usage a “crime against humanity” and a “violation of the laws of war”. This call to action places the nation in a position of global influence and responsibility. It presents America as the possess<strong>or</strong> of both the tools and auth<strong>or</strong>ity to resolve the dispute, whether <strong>or</strong> not military action is in acc<strong>or</strong>dance with international law <strong>or</strong> exacted with the permission of the United Nations Security Council. President Obama’s w<strong>or</strong>ds are reminiscent of President Bill Clinton’s near-identical appeal f<strong>or</strong> supp<strong>or</strong>t in the United States’ intervention in the Balkan Conflict after the breakup of Yugoslavia. “America cannot and must not be the w<strong>or</strong>ld’s policeman. We cannot stop all war f<strong>or</strong> all time but we can stop some wars,” argued Clinton. “<strong>The</strong>re are times when America and America alone can and should make the difference f<strong>or</strong> peace.” In the following years, the United States went on to make a significant impact in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Although many argue that American aid came far too late to save a significant number of lives, the United States facilitated the signing of the Dayton peace acc<strong>or</strong>ds between the warring nations and maintained a watchful presence along with the United Nations and NATO in the recovering, post-war nations. In recent years, the United States has upheld a reputation f<strong>or</strong> monit<strong>or</strong>ing the global situation and attempting to maintain global hegemony. F<strong>or</strong> better <strong>or</strong> f<strong>or</strong> w<strong>or</strong>se, the public and the international community fix expectant eyes on American policymakers during times of international crisis, particularly in situations where a state compromises <strong>or</strong> violates the human rights of its International own citizens. Furtherm<strong>or</strong>e, American political interests are key to the international peacekeeping agenda, largely due to the fact that 28 percent of the annual United Nations peacekeeping budget, the largest sum paid by any one country, is paid by the United States. <strong>The</strong> financial and military strength that the United States holds in the United Nations is the primary enf<strong>or</strong>cer behind the warnings issued to violating states <strong>or</strong> <strong>or</strong>ganizations. <strong>The</strong> American tendency f<strong>or</strong> global policing places it at the head of the negotiation table when new crises arise. Much of the w<strong>or</strong>ld has adopted the UN initiative “responsibility to protect,” in which citizens should be protected by the international community against atrocities committed by their own leaders. Gareth Evans, co-chair of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, gave a speech in 2006 addressing the shift in perspective. “What we have seen…is the emergence… of a new international n<strong>or</strong>m…the evolution away from ‘humanitarian intervention’ towards an embrace of the new concept ‘the responsibility to protect.’” Part of this ideological shift is due to the advancement of technology and the speed at which news is relayed. <strong>The</strong>se two fact<strong>or</strong>s have sparked a deeper awareness of w<strong>or</strong>ld events and humanitarian crises. Increasingly connected global citizens have pushed governments to intervene on the behalf of victims across the w<strong>or</strong>ld because of the inf<strong>or</strong>mation they receive through the media. President Bill Clinton was strongly urged towards involvement in the Balkan Conflict when American citizens witnessed constant, nightmarish war rep<strong>or</strong>ts in the media. <strong>The</strong> quick turnover times f<strong>or</strong> breaking news and better documentation techniques created a greater sense of public accountability and increased public supp<strong>or</strong>t f<strong>or</strong> intervention. However, this shift is not universal. <strong>The</strong>re are many situations in which politicians and the American public alike choose not to address an international crisis. Lack of strategic value and not wanting to become entangled in costly engagements are large fact<strong>or</strong>s in choosing not to intervene, as was the case with the Clinton administration’s decision to ign<strong>or</strong>e the Rwandan genocide. In such cases, proponents of non-action state that while the brutality and disarray of other nations are tragic, the United States lacks the auth<strong>or</strong>ity f<strong>or</strong> “meddling” <strong>or</strong> “global policing.” As a country with a large national debt and cripplingly divided government, many will argue America must first put on its own oxygen mask bef<strong>or</strong>e rushing to help others. So long as these domestic divisions and international skepticism persist, debate will accompany any potential humanitarian intervention. 11
Change language