Originally published on the CGS blog on June 18, 2013.
I distinctly remember feeling relief when I first heard about President Obama’s decision to arm Syrian rebels – finally there will be a stop to all this bloodshed. Research has led me to think otherwise, however, and I am now skeptical of the President’s decision.
David Rohde of Reuters calls Obama’s decision to arm the rebels the “best of several bad choices in Syria.” He supports his claim by explaining, “Arming one side in a conflict can help produce a diplomatic settlement.” In fact, a study on civil war found that conflicts are shorter when there is military intervention on the rebel side.
Unfortunately, that analysis does not apply to the situation in Syria. Obama’s decision to arm the rebels in Syria means that bothsides of the conflict are receiving foreign military aid, as Russia is currently supplying weapons to Assad’s regime despite condemnation by the international community. In a survey of civil wars that took place between 1945 and 1997, when both sides of a conflict receive foreign military aid, civil wars lasted almost 250% longer than those in which neither side received external support. Arming Syrian rebels will likely only perpetuate the conflict.
What’s more, there have also been findings that link arms transfers to abuse of personal integrity rights, i.e. life and the “inviolability of the human person.” I am hesitant to trust that the weapons we send to Syrian rebels won’t fall into the wrong hands. Just last week, a group of rebels reportedly killed dozens of civilians in a mostly Shiite village. Furthermore, in the 1980s, we supplied anti-aircraft missiles to the Afghan mujahedeen to help them resist Soviet occupation, and after the Soviet withdrawal, many of those missiles resurfaced in the hands of non-state actors in locations such as Bosnia, Iran, Kashmir, Tunisia, and the Palestinian territories. How can we be sure that this will not happen again?
President Obama’s decision poses the risk of both prolonging the war and increasing the incidence of civilian casualties. It also ignores the most important issue facing the international community with regards to Syria: the need to protect the thousands of civilians who are dying as a result of the war. Therefore, I believe that arming the rebels is not the “best” solution. Determining a better option, on the other hand, is an entirely different issue.
I think that I can speak for many in expressing my frustration with Russia’s repeated veto of any UN action that attempts to address the Syrian conflict. As our President and CEO, Don Kraus, explained in his blog from May, now that Syria has crossed the red line, the next step is “a massive international intervention with four clear goals: halt the fighting, secure the chemical weapons, allow free access for humanitarian aid and workers, and create a space for a political settlement of the conflict.”
The failure of the UN to take action in Syria demonstrates the need for the organization to be strengthened. The US needs to engage more frequently with the UN in order to build the institution’s effectiveness and its ability to respond to crises. In the meantime, it is our responsibility to protect those who are dying as a result of the Syrian conflict. Arming the rebels, however, will not achieve this outcome.
