Views on the News: Syrian war crimes
On Sunday, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government attacked the rebel-held town of Douma--a suburb outside of Damascus--killing around 100 civilians, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Between January and June 2015, Assad’s government carried out 60 attacks in the region killing 500, according to Amnesty International. On July 27, Turkey and the United States agreed on establishing a “safe area” for civilians on its border with northern Syria. The area would be policed by Syrian moderates to prevent attacks by the Assad government and Islamic State fighters. However, United Nations humanitarian chief Stephen O’Brien expressed concern on August 17, urging states who support the safe area to “accept responsibility” for civilian protection. The UN safe zone of Srebrenica was infiltrated by Serbian nationalists in 1995, allowing 8,373 innocent boys and men to be slaughtered. Do you support an establishment of a safe area, and what do you suggest the international community should do to thwart war crimes in Syria?
Lubayed Aljundi HS ’15
Last week it was the second anniversary of the chemical attack on Easter Ghouta, a suburb of Damascus. More than 1,400 civilians have died, mostly women and children. The U.N. Security Council failed to produce a resolution to protect Syrians. To understand the regime’s goal of such tremendous atrocities, it is better to look beyond the direct military purposes. The regime’s famous slogan, from the early beginning of the peaceful uprising, is “Al-assad or we will burn the country.” The real threat to the regime is to let the people build their own civic administration in liberated areas to produce an alternative governance module to harsh totalitarian regime. The regime aims not to kill rebels and civilians in liberated areas but to kill life itself and to force people to choose between coming back to the government-control area, leaving the country, or simply die. A safe area, or no-fly-zone, will give Syrians the chance to start building up their livelihood. Depriving Al-assad of his air force superiority will force the regime to negotiate a political settlement.
Connor Wahrman ’17 is the editor-in-chief of Brandeis International Journal.
Amina Fahmy ’17
It is easy to want to support the “safe zone.” In theory, it creates a potential haven for millions, while weakening ISIL and the Syrian regime. However, as the facts stand, I do not support its creation. The proposal’s biggest flaw is the dependency on Syrian moderate fighters. Though I believe that moderate Syrian rebels do exist, the U.S. has not found success in identifying and training them. In fact, a Pentagon program designed to do so has only managed to vet and train 60 fighters. Entrusting the safe zone to an unreliable military force could potentially result in catastrophe for Syrian civilians at the hands of either ISIL or the Syrian regime. I believe it is the responsibility of the international community to relieve the Syrian people of both a government and extremist forces that, together, have taken over their country. In order to be successful, a more substantial effort is necessary.
David Alpert ’16
I support the establishment of a safe area. However, I fear the regions surrounding Syria are less enthusiastic about the idea. If the safe area does not receive enough support from the surrounding regions, then the safe area would simply be vulnerable to violence from Assad’s government. With that being said, I do not have a solution to the conflict, though I suggest that the U.N. and the international community provide incentive for the surrounding countries to support the safe zone. If the international community can support the regions surrounding the safe zone, there may be an opportunity to protect hundreds (and even thousands) of civilians in the future.
David Alpert ’16 is the treasurer of Brandeis STAND, the student-led movement to end mass atrocities.
Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Justice.