Events in couple of week have given series of attention to Syria; a case every one seem before now to be incapacitated about or better still for use of friendly words diplomatically careful. Consider the wreckage in Syria and the continuous threat it has in stock, more thoughts demanding action have tilted its view towards Humanitarian Intervention. In the early years of Syria’s imbroglio, it was perceived as a regime change taking the terrace sweeping the Arab world, the increasing death toll in effect of time annulled the perspective of Syria as been caught in the web of a spring when it should have move to summer.
Managing complex situations such as this considering the level of deterioration seen require some sense of game play. Months back report from the United Nations showed the alarming increase in refugee records. The multifarious party kindling the war within Syria: Bashar Al Assad, Rebel, Radical Islamist and the recent resurrected quest of the emergence of a Kurdish nation. As the global community prepare for Intervention which is a swift response to use of nuclear powered weapon used on civilian by the eastern end of Damascus.
The ground for intervention are questionable on rational position following that the outrage in the nation before now had claimed lives in thousands making recent move to save Syria pseudo and hypocritical. Even if Syria require one at the moment, what will be the justification for such exercise? Who will lead the delegation considering ally sensitivity and what will be the rules of engagement?
According to British Politician and Economist, John Stuart Mill setting a background for intervention:
There seem to be no little need that the whole doctrine of non interference with foreign nations should be reconsidered. if it can be said to have as yet been considered as a moral question at all… to go to war for an idea, if the a war is aggressive, not defensive, is as criminal as to go to war for territory or revenue; for it is a little justifiable for force to be used on other people, as to compel them to submit to our will in any other respect but there are cases in which it is allowable to go to war, without been ourselves attacked or threatened with attacks and it is very important that nations should make up their mind in time as in what this cases are.. To suppose that the same International Customs, and the same rules of morality can obtain between one civilized nation and another and between civilized nations and barbarians, is a grave error..
When America’s President and Nobel prize winner for peace submitted need for Intervention in Syria for debate in the congress, it has raised question of American venturing in a seemingly difficult considering huge spending that yielded low result in Iraq and Afghanistan. In swift response, Russian prime minister, Vladimir Putin has raised a negative position on the American response as aggressive if did will not fully secure the consent of the United Nations as well as its most powerful organ, The Security Council. The British Parliament in her traditional conservative mood thumps the possibility of involvement. As I watched few hours back the interview with Obama in Stockholm which is a calculated move to garner support for Intervention in Syria, the time for moving in on Syria is ripe saying the International Community is responsible to act with nothing to affect his credibility
For the nature of attack, it is vital to intervene now limiting human involvement in order not to increase casualty records. As the congress still debate on the admittance of an action limited both in scope and time, persuasion seem to be the pathway to garner effort to rescue global citizen domicile in Syria. Moving in on Syria is a defining position and has the power to set the tone for future global actions. Will the world watch the abuse of right on grounds of Syria sovereignty? The French Parliament presently sit on this key subject, G20 meet in St. Petersburg where Obama and Putin may reach conclusion valuable for action.