A discussion held by Abdul-Jalil Bala Daba, Adah Udehchukwu[Udeh], and Sonubi Tobi on the necessity of an intervention in Syria, and what procedures should be followed. They suggest what the goals of an intervention in Syria should be. They also debate on the legitimacy and credibility of such intervention, and who should lead it, among other things.
Bala: The crisis in Syria has gone far beyond what the government of Al Assad can control. A selfless humanitarian and military intervention is what is needed in Syria. Such might be easily achieved if it is led by the Arab League. The Arab league, in which Syria is a member, is an organization that represents similar culture, belief, resources and historical antecedent. It could effectively relate with the troubles of the Syrian people more than any other regional body.
Unfortunately, it is unlikely that the Arab league would do so, particularly now that it is weakened by the after effects of the ‘Arab Spring’.
Udeh: I want to state here very clearly that a military intervention would most likely be the ruin of Syria as we have always known it. Besides, I do not see anything like a ‘selfless humanitarian and military intervention’.
Tobi: I agree with Udeh that any military intervention, from Iran, Israel, the U.S.A, Turkey, France, China… would destroy anything know about Syria in the last 50 years.
Bala: I quite disagree with Udeh on the possibility of a selfless humanitarian and military intervention. The Nigerian experience suggests that states are capable of selfless humanitarian and military intervention. Nigeria has taken lead roles in series of relatively selfless humanitarian interventions all over Africa, and especially through the ECOMOG. Nigeria’s intervention in the Liberia crisis is a case in point. Today, Liberia can boast of relative internal stability.
The massive trend of human disaster in Syria, which is the biggest point in that region today, should not be left unchecked under the guise of a lack of international community [consensus]. I do not expect to see the Arab League acting decisively soon as it is further weakened by divisions along competing national interests. Should the UNSC, which I believe is the best option we have, reach an amicable consensus and order a joint military intervention, a lasting solution to the Syrian crisis may be in view. Such intervention should have three basic goals, namely, “flush out the rebels in Syria; oust the the government of Al Assad; and jointly ensure the establishment of a popular government for Syrians” in order to rebuild relative stability and calm.
Tobi: I think these is still the viable option the UN helping the Syrian government and the rebels reach a consensus and a ceasefire. I am proposing this based on the fact that the U.S and its allies have not presented convincing evidence that the chemical attacks were in fact ordered by Al Assad. This seemingly simple omission may result in grievous calculations in the case of a military intervention.