It is now clear that in Syria the Assad regime has employed nerve gas against the civilian population and has committed other atrocities in its willingness to pursue a civil war. For example it is documented that government forces last year went into villages and conducted wholesale slaughter.
In Syria the human misery is intense and agonising to watch. With over 2 million Syrians forced to take refuge in neighbouring countries, displaced from their homes and livelihoods, we are witnessing a huge humanitarian disaster.
In Britain some say they are ashamed their country is standing aside from this suffering thus ‘allowing’ the horror to continue: and that for evil to succeed it just requires the good to do nothing. Others feel that punitive military action by the Western powers would be ineffective in stopping the civil war and actually make matters worse increasing the refugee flow, alienating Russia and its regional allies, and infuriating a newly moderate Iran.
Are there any ethical principles that can throw light on this dilemma?
Syria and the value of punishment
The use of punishment is used in our courts of law against convicted criminals and by professional bodies in relation to unethical conduct. Other than corporal punishment, it is also used in schools and home to discipline children. An ethical principle is that some form of punishment is often needed to deter bad conduct until individuals learn self-discipline.
Social evil like rape, pillage, and murder often happens in a social context of breakdown of law and order as is the case in civil war in many parts of Syria. Those caught up in vicious hatred are undeterred from behaving very badly because of an absence of punishment. In times of peace at least a benevolent dictator with full control of a country can ensure some sort of order for people to lead their lives. This may be less than perfect but at least it is not a state of social anarchy.
If a military strike is employed as a punishment, Assad may stop using gas or the strike may not cause sufficient damage to his forces to deter him. The trouble is once the West bombs Syrian targets, it will be difficult to know when to stop military action if it has only little impact on the regime. There are also risks that if chemical dumps were targeted that some chemicals could be dispersed into the atmosphere instead of being incinerated.
Love
The most important ethical principle is love. This is felt by us when experiencing pity for the horrendous suffering of others we see on our television screens. Love is more spiritual in so far as it goes beyond the love of self and one’s own kith and kin and is felt for those from whom one cannot expect any reward. Action to stop the human suffering in Syria would be mainly self-disinterested. There is no oil supplies for the West from the Middle East being threatened in Syria as was the case when Saddam Hussain invaded Kuwait. This love for humanity is altruistic and inspiring.
In my view such a love does not mean pacifism but it does mean not exulting in the overthrow of the enemy nor in any sense of honour in winning a battle. Instead it delights in the bringing about of peace and protection of vulnerable people from ruin and suffering.
The opposite of love is hatred. Sectarian hatred feeds on itself over generations. If the West does invade and succeed in removing Assad, other brutal factions like Hezbollah or a Sunni supremacy within the country could fill the power vacuum. Rebel groups might be able to seize and use rockets or shells with chemical warheads as they turn from fighting the regime to fighting each other.
Egoistic motivation
Egoism afflicts dictators like Assad who love to get their own way. However it also afflicts Western politicians. I suspect the Islamic dislike of the West is fuelled in part by the way the United States and its allies have been seen as arrogant and self-important as shown in my opinion by the irresponsible rush to war by Mr Blair and George W. Bush. Are we paying for the days of unilateral imperial action trying to show the Arabs who is boss in Iraq and Afghanistan? If the West were to use military power in Syria, this may further feed anti-western sentiment in the Middle East and the defiant attitudes of terrorists.
We might ask whether sending in cruise missiles is merely a gesture to allow some western politicians to strut tall and feel good? Does it amount to massaging their macho egos?
Whether this is a fair assessment will perhaps depend on how effective the American military plan is likely to be. Arguably, the only way to destroy Syria’s chemical arsenal would be a ground operation to take control of bases, secure them, and begin the slow process of destroying the weaponry. To my mind, only using planes and missiles, sounds like an ineffective soft alternative to tactical bombing in close support of forces on the ground.
Moral stance over Syria
To take a moral stance against Assad’s crossing a red line in using nerve gas is difficult given the point that the West itself has used other weapons in other wars that afflict civilians such as phosphorous and depleted uranium shells and delayed-action cluster bombs. The Western governments said nothing when Iraq, as an ally of the West between 1980 and 1988, used gas weapons against Iran.
You cannot police people without their consent and at a minimum this requires the moral authority of the United Nations. I feel no one country like the US can act as police force for the whole world without further alienating large parts of the Middle East causing resentment and antagonism.
The problem of serious breaking of international law in theory could be solved with the United Nations sanctioning military action. However, most commentators agree the U.N. is not functioning properly. Russia’s self-interest in their naval base in Syria – the only one they have in the region – is a factor as is Chinese and Iranian opposition to Western initiatives. What right has a single country to impose its national interest through a veto on the Security Council at the expense of the rights of humanity?
Doing nothing is not the only alternative to bombing Syria. A behind the scenes political and diplomatic slog, building alliances with non-western powers to try to stop each side being armed, could be embarked upon. This would not obviously be vote-winning for politicians who feel they need to be seen to be doing something dramatic. I imagine, if the support of Middle Eastern countries like Iran are to be gained, this will mean the United States no longer giving unthinking support to Israel’s building settlements on Palestinian land.
Copyright 2013 Stephen Russell-Lacy
Author of Heart, Head & Hands Swedenborg’s perspective on emotional problems