In discussing Syria with my American peers, I cannot help but notice that both sides of the issue, though coming from antithetical points of view, agree on a common premise: that when the U.S. intervenes in other countries, it does so out of “compassion” to fight their battles for them. And Syria is yet another international crisis in which this self-congratulatory ideology clearly presents itself.
The pro-intervention rationale seems to fancy America as the “world savior,” and thus promotes “defending the powerless” by attacking their oppressive regimes. The anti-intervention position argues that an increasingly frail economy and the involvement in two “wars” already may mean that the U.S. should “uncharacteristically” opt out of Syria.
To paraphrase, they think that “while the U.S. is, yes, the world savior,” the argument continues, “perhaps it is more sensible due to the economic crisis to act against its ‘sympathetic character’ this ‘one time’ and decide against a military strike.” This ideology frankly exemplifies what Stephen Walt of Harvard University described as “The Myth of American Exceptionalism.” (A highly recommended read.)
Now that I charged myself with an argument very tough to make, I shall seek the help of history. So let us travel back in time 19 years. It is 1994 now, and the Hutu-led regime of Rwanda initiates a campaign of mass killing and rape against the Tutsi-led rebels in retaliation for the assassination of the Hutu president. An estimated 800,000 Rwandans have been slaughtered in the space of 100 days, except the Clinton administration instructed its spokesperson not to describe the mass killing as genocide to avoid intervention.
Now let us fast forward to 1999. The place is Sierra Leone of West Africa. The Revolutionary United Front (RUF), notoriously known for the mass mutilation of civilians, has carried out what they called the “No Living Thing Operation.” In a message of intimidation to the whole country, the RUF has raided the village of Freetown and raped, killed and chopped off the limbs of the people working in the main diamond field, which they eventually took over. This incident was but one of many others in which – in addition to the killings and mutilations – children were kidnapped and turned into monstrous “child soldiers” in a gruesome 10 year civil war that left more than 50,000 people dead, 500,000 displaced and 27,000 amputated. The U.S., no reaction.
Skip forward to 2004. The Sudanese government has unleashed armed militias who carried out massive ethnic cleansing against the non-Arab Sudanese rebels. The Bush administration did nothing but “condemn” the atrocities of the Sudanese government, ironically at the same time Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib were happening.
And recently in 2011, not one word was heard from the Obama administration on the human rights abuses committed by the Bahraini regime against its own people. The reason is that showing Bahrain in a bad light to the American people does no good to the U.S. naval base (that gives the U.S. access to Iran) there, and may raise the skepticism of American taxpayers whose money goes to empower the very same regime. If this is not enough, then get this: CNN reporter Amber Lyon was fired for her exposé of the Bahraini government.
And as you are reading this article, there is yet another genocide in a country called Burma in Southeast Asia. Rohingya Muslim minority continues day in, day out being at the risk of ethnic cleansing at the hands of the Buddhist majority. The Burmese government is turning a blind eye and a deaf ear, and there is even some evidence of its complicity in the atrocities.
Why didn’t the U.S. intervene in all these genocides?
The answer is simple: there were no U.S. interests involved. What am I exactly saying here? Am I saying the U.S. should have intervened in all these egregious events? Actually no. I am only trying to make you see the flagrant fallacy of this “redline” argument. For if the U.S. really intervenes based on the principle of fighting for those who cannot fight for themselves, then why intervene in some cases, but not others? If the U.S. had no interests whatsoever in intervening in Syria, you probably would not have heard of the story in the first place, just like you were kept in the dark on the other genocides.
When Americans ask, “Should we intervene in Syria?” I feel that what they’re really asking is “Should we sacrifice some of our funds and troops to do the Syrian people the favor of attacking their oppressive government?” This is a question that carries with it a sense of romantic patriotism that fails to realize that simply no intervention ever existed in the absence of national/strategic interests. And the interests here are strategic: a) winning over the rebels who are potentially the new Syrian leaders, and thereby gaining what is now a Russian territory, b) uprooting terrorism before it grows further in the chaos, and c) protecting Israel.
So I say the redline rhetoric isn’t that convincing after all. What do you say?
Ahmed Seif is a graduate student from Egypt.
