Earlier this year we know that Syria used chemical weapons upon its people. Many argue that at times like this humanitarian intervention has never looked so easy, but over the recent two years outsiders have missed the opportunities to impact the outcomes for the better. The United States feels as if on an ethical basis they need to prevent further atrocities from happening, and argue that doing nothing carries a bigger risk.

The scenarios that which this situation can play out go as follows. We can do nothing, or we can pursue the second option to change the regime, or finally a third option in which we can use force to stop Syria from ever using WMD again.

We can see in this case, and like other moral ethical dilemmas that there are many options and decisions one must consider, many of them not a perfect option. How do we go about this? Learning from the past, what prevention could have been done then, that would result in what wouldn't have happened earlier this year?

Look forward to getting any feedback on this, thanks.

Tags: &, Ethics, International, Relations

Views: 109

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

From day 1 I have been of the opinion that the US needs to stay away from any form of intervention in Syria and I still stand by that. When I say any form of intervention I mean not even providing any form of logistical or intelligence support to the rebel groups. The only form of intervention should be humanitarian (making sure the people have enough food and clean drinking water). Let me give you my reason for this. The rebel groups are unorganized and weak. It is unlikely that 'little' support from the US will strengthen them to overpower the Syrian administration. This will only prolong the war and the suffering of the common people and I generally believe that 99% of the population does not identify itself with either groups.

Alternative histories are difficult but let me use a analogy here. There was tremendous pressure on Obama internally and from allied states to go after Iran using all the military might available. He resisted all that pressure and today, with the benefit of hindsight, we can say that the Iran issue is on the verge of being resolved, or at least a few steps are being taken toward a peaceful solution. Today we are moving in the same direction with regards to Iran. Had the US intervened this outcome would have been impossible.

The option that seemed most risky of doing nothing proved to be the best option. In general, for future ethical dilemmas too, the best option is minimal intervention (or no intervention) by another state and all humanitarian aid to be channeled through UN.


Carnegie Council

The Coronavirus Pandemic & International Relations, with Nikolas Gvosdev

With the COVID-19 pandemic disrupting all aspects of daily life around the world, what will be the effect on international relations? Will it increase cooperation among nations, or will it lead to more conflict and competition? Senior Fellow Nikolas Gvosdev and host Alex Woodson discuss these scenarios and also touch on how the virus has affected the Democratic primary, in which Joe Biden now has a commanding lead.

Does Covid-19 Change International Relations?

Does a global pandemic change the nature of international affairs? Is it likely to foster international cooperation, or will it promote disintegrative tendencies within the global system? Senior Fellow Nikolas Gvosdev shares his thoughts.

Peace By Poison: How the Coronavirus Could Fix Globalization Problems

How is the COVID-19 pandemic stress-testing the international system? Senior Fellow Nikolas Gvosdev writes that the virus is accelerating a series of disintegrative processes, which could end up ushering in the long-awaited post–Cold War world. This article was first published on March 14, 2020 and an excerpt was reprinted with the kind permission of "The National Interest."





© 2020   Created by Carnegie Council.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

The views and opinions expressed in the media, comments, or publications on this website are those of the speakers or authors and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions held by Carnegie Council.