Why the U.S. Shouldn't Unilaterally Intervene in Syria

My desire to comment on the crisis in Syria has been creeping up gradually over the last few months. With increasing calls for intervention in Syria since the discovery of a chemical weapons attack against civilians, the United States and some of their allies have made a call for a military intervention. While measures, sanctions and possibly a military intervention is needed to end the civil war in Syria  the U.S. and their allies should not act alone. Here's why.

International Law
Under the United Nations Charter a state can only use military force to defend itself or to respond as part of a U.N. sanctioned mission to an act of international aggression. In order for the use of force to be legal under international law the United Nations Security Council must pass a resolution justifying the use of force. Such a resolution has not passed and is unlikely to pass due to opposition from China and Russia. 

There is precedent for a unilateral intervention from regional defense organizations including the NATO Intervention in Kosovo, however such action undermines the ability of the U.N. to function on an ongoing basis and could have significant political and diplomatic consequences given the opposition of China and Russia to a strike. However, the U.S. looks like it is positioning itself to act alone for which there is no precedent. The U.S. cannot justify an invasion under the U.N. Charter because it has not been attacked and the nature of the human rights perpetration committed by Syria are not international acts of aggression. 

Another legal reason the United States may not be the best state to intervene in Syria unilaterally is the fact that it has not ratified many of the major humanitarian laws including the 3rd and 4th Geneva Conventions. Further, the U.S. has shown an increasing and ongoing lack of respect for other international legal norms including territorial sovereignty and legal rights (such as the right to a fair trial) through the use of drones to attack targets in the Middle East. Lack of adherence to these conventions could contribute to negligent and excessive loss of life, poor treatment of prisoners of war and increased civilian deaths.

Impact on Syrian Civilians

A military intervention in Syria is likely to worsen the suffering of civilians in Syria already affected by the actions of Al-Assad and rebel groups. Some civilians would be likely to die as a result of military strikes that missed their marks or that were targeting officials hiding in civilian areas. Many more civilians would be affected by a loss of critical infrastructure including a loss of electricity, water and phone lines as a result of an attack. Depending on the length of the intervention civilians might also have difficulty leaving their homes to find food and go to work dramatically worsening an already tense humanitarian situation.

What is more worrying is the potential impact of an impending or full-attack on the action of Al-Assad. If, as media reports suggest, Al-Assad has used chemical weapons against his own populations there is nothing stopping him from doing it again. It is possible that if the U.S. decides to strike before exhausting all other options that Al-Assad may launch further chemical attacks. This risk is also present with interventions led by an international contingent but somewhat less likely if Syria's allies are involved in the intervention. 

Diplomacy and the United Nations 

There are many alternatives to a unilateral use of force by the U.S. to end the crisis in Syria. If the UN concludes that a chemical attack has occurred several steps can be taken to remove Al-Assad and protect civilian populations. The U.N. Charter also includes provisions for peacekeeping missions which, if given a Chapter 7 mandates such as what is currently in place in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, has the capacity to use force not only to protect civilians but also to disarm aggressive forces.  

A softer approach might include the use of political or economic sanctions, the indictment of Al-Assad by the International Criminal Court for War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity and also negotiations. 

Not only would a U.N. sponsored approach protect civilian lives it would also reduce the risk of raising global military and political tensions between China, Russia and the U.S. It would also strengthen the role of the U.N. in international peacekeeping measures and increase their effectiveness. 

If this is an issue that you're concerned about you can always contact your MP to express your concern. If you would like to contribute to efforts to help civilians in Syria or the over 2 million refugees created from the civil war, consider supporting MSF or the International Red Cross.