omar mourad, hossam heikal, hassan khairat intervention, right or breach of sovereignty

Omar Mourad, Hossam Heikal, Hassan Khairat

Intervention, right or breach of sovereignty

IS IT JUSTIFIED FOR ONE ENTITY TO DECIDE ANOTHER’S FATE?

Analysis of knowledge issue with reference to Syrian situation

Knowledge issue:

Is it justified for one entity to decide another’s fate?

Before beginning:

Why is this topic significant to us?

Why is this topic significant to you?

Why is this topic significant to the world?


Method of approach

• Videos on Syria Issue and analysis

• Brief Background on Syrian issue

• Looking at KI through the Syrian issue

• Look at Syria issue through 2 different perspectives and analyze these perspectives

• Pro-Bashar Stance

• Pro-Intervention Stance

• Relate to other real-life situations

Syrian revolution:

March 2011:

•15- A "Day of Rage" demonstration leads to security forces shooting a number of people dead, triggering days of violent unrest and more civilian deaths.

•100 People died in 8 days.

May 2011:

•5-14 –Army crushes anti- regime protests

•19- US tightens sanctions in response to bloody crackdown on protests. The European Union does the same two days later.

June 2011:

•7- The government says that 120 members of the security forces have been killed by "armed gangs”, more than 10,000 people flee to Turkey.

October 2011:

•Russia and China veto the resolution condemning Syria

January 2012:

•23- The Arab League initiative that calls for the “peaceful departure of the Syrian regime” is rejected by the Syrian Government as interference

February 2012

•5 -UN Security Council draft resolution that endorses Arab League plan for ending violence and calls for the ouster of Bashar Assad in Syria blocked by Russia and China.

Having understood the situation in SyriaSince our knowledge issue is :

“Is it justified for one entity to decide another’s fate?”

It leads us to pose the following question:

“Is it justified for the United Nations to decide what is best for the Syrian people?”

There are a few main ways to answer the aforementioned question

Understand that each individual has different mental maps and will therefore experience confirmation bias


stakeholders


Language

“There is no policy of cracking down, there is a policy of protecting the nation from terrorists and militants.” – President Bashar Al Assad, Syria

“Mindful that stability in Syria is key to stability in the region” – UN SC Resolution

• Terrorists and militants?• Protecting? WHO? HOW? • What is stability?

Ambiguity


language

Labels and Stereotypes

“There is no policy of cracking down, there is a policy of protecting the nation from terrorists and militants.” – President Bashar AL Assad, Syria

• Terrorists and militants?• “No policy of cracking

down.”

“Will we stand with the Syrian people or with their oppressors?” – President Barack Obama, General Assembly Address

• Syrian people? Oppressors?


Language

Emotionally-Laden Words

“There is no policy of cracking down, there is a policy of protecting the nation from terrorists and militants.” – President Bashar Al Assad, Syria

• Nation?• Protecting

“Demands that the Syrian government guarantee the freedom of peaceful demonstrations” – UNSC Resolution

• Freedom?• Peaceful?

“its hospitals have been destroyed, and its women and children are being abused or killed and slaughtered.” – Dr. Burhan Ghalioiun, President Syrian National Council


Reasoning

Special Pleading

Bashar• Why is it justified

for Bahraini forces to suppress terrorists and militants but not for us?

Pro-intervention•Responsibility to Protect: A recently developed concept in international relations that justifies humanitarian intervention on ethical and legal grounds.


Reasoning

Pro-Bashar al Assad perspective

•“It is the fault line, and if you play with the ground you will cause an earthquake -- do you want to see another Afghanistan, or tens of Afghanistans?”

•Bashar Al Assad provides stability to his nation

•The United Nations and the western countries are seeking their own interests in Syria

•The issue is an internal affair and the international powers do not have a right to interfere.

•They perceive international intervention as a threat to national security


Reasoning

Pro-intervention stance•Syria is a member of the United Nations and thus the international powers should interfere.

•Bashar Al Assad is butchering his own people and the Syrian people are helpless.

•Perceived as providing protesters with human security

•It is our responsibility to help and ‘save’ Syria.

•Justification

• Justify claim by saying that they are upholding the values of the United Nations

• Use reason to suggest that since Syria agreed to UN principles, the UN has the right to enforce its principles on Syria

• According to Article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which Syria signed on to:

• Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association


EthicsBashar•Moral Relativism

• Bashar: The principles that the west adheres to aren’t the same as the one we adhere to

•Cultural Imperialism

• Syrian/pro Bashar perceive that foreign intervention is them enforcing their principals on us

•Self-interest theory

• Iraq example

• UN, Arab League, and west have interests in removing Bashar’s regime

Pro-intervention:

•Utilitarianism: the world will be a happier place once Bashar regime steps down

WHAT DO THE SYRIAN PEOPLE WANT?


“Is it justified for the United Nations to decide what is best for the Syrian people?”

• There exists no right or wrong perspective

• No Absolute truth• Every stance has its justifications• Depending on their mental map –

understanding of the world• Both sides use confirmation bias• Second hand knowledge:

• Authority worship• Cultural tradition• Expert opinion

• Keep in mind no one can fully speak about what is best for the Syrian people?


“Is it justified for the United Nations to decide what is best for the Syrian people?”Analyze the following through the same perspectives:

•Does Arab League have more right than the UN?

•What gives them legitimacy?

•Who has the right to decide Syria’s fate?


“To what extent is it justified for one entity to decide another’s fate?


GCC Intervention in Yemen

BACKGROUND:

•Gulf Cooperation Council

•the President, and his family members, immunity from future prosecution

•The Gulf initiative calls for Saleh to pass on his powers to his deputy, Abd-Rabbo Mansur Hadi, and then for Yemen to hold presidential elections after an optimistic three-month period

•Yemen has currently held successful elections.

Keep in mind:•GCC decision created widespread disapproval among Yemen’s youth•“This law sends the disgraceful message that there is no consequence for killing those who express dissent. The Yemeni government should be investigating senior officials linked to serious crimes, not letting them get away with murder.”--HRW


Yemen’s salah

• Human Rights Watch has confirmed the deaths of 270 protesters and bystanders during attacks by government security forces

• Dozens more civilians were killed last year in indiscriminate attacks by security forces on populated areas

“Failing to prosecute will reinforce Yemen’s culture of impunity and signal to abusive leaders worldwide that there are no consequences

for political murder.” – HRW President

Does the GCC have the right to decide Yemen’s fate?

What gives it this right? Is it a responsibility?

Does the GCC know what is best for the Yemeni people?


Therefore:

• “TO WHAT EXTENT IS IT JUSTIFIED FOR ONE ENTITY TO DECIDE ANOTHER’S FATE?

So: Is it justified for GCC to decide Yemen’s people’s fate?

NOTE: There are several perspectives neither is right or wrong – there is no absolute truth, it is all about how the perspective Justifies their belief


NATO intervention in Libya

• After pro-Gaddafi forces began to bomb civilian targets, NATO decided to intervene in Libya

• The decision was made by the powers to bomb pro-Gaddafi forces and military targets

• It was received by wide criticism on the Libyan people’s behalf

• Many believed that it was for NATO’s interests in defending oil reserves.

• They were afraid that the western people would stay and occupy the country

• Many people in the Arab world believed that it was not NATO’S right to intervene in a non-NATO country.


NATO intervention in Libya

Seeing that NATO intervened in Libya, we ask:

•What gave NATO the right to intervene?

•Utilitarianism: is the world happier now?

•Did NATO do what was best for the Libyan people?


What gives a government the right to decide on behalf of its citizens?

• In the case of a government that is not freely elected, why is it able to make decisions on the people’s behalf?

• This ties back to our knowledge issue as the government, an entity, is deciding its people’s, another entity, fate.

• The people do not elect this government or give it the permission to make their decisions

• Unlike freely elected governments, the people did not choose the politicians because they know better, they simply found them there

• Why do these government officials have the right to make decisions?

• What/who gives them the legitimacy?


Conclusion

• “Is it justified for one entity to decide another’s fate?”

• This question was approached by looking at four different real-life situations:

• Syria (main one): “Is it justified for the United Nations to decide what is best for the Syrian people?”

• Derived the main KI and applied to the other RLS

• Libya

• Yemen

• Governments in general

• Careful consideration of the real-life situations prevented and limited knowledge about the knowledge issue leads us to make certain conclusions.

• Personal opinion on the issue – what should happen?

Discussion questions

• Under Responsibility to Protect doctrine, rather than having a right to intervene in the conduct of other states, states are said to have a responsibility to intervene and protect the citizens of another state where that other state has failed in its obligation to protect its own citizens. Has the Syrian government failed in its obligation?

• What determines when it is right to intervene – one death? One million? Where does the international community draw the line?

omar mourad, hossam heikal, hassan khairat intervention, right or breach of sovereignty

Documents

anothers fate

syria issue

syria terrorists

syrian issue look

syrian regime

syrian government

syrian revolution

breach of sovereignty