The Obama administration, rightly, has been wary of entering the fray
militarily. Last month, however, a U.S. intelligence review expressed
“high confidence” that the Assad regime had used chemical weapons
against opposition forces several times in the past year—crossing the
“red line” President Obama identified nearly a year ago. Mr. Obama
responded by agreeing to send small arms and ammunition to opposition
forces, hoping it would buy time and provide leverage to bring about a
negotiated settlement.
The American public, with the justifications offered for the war in
Iraq still fresh in memory, should demand clear evidence not only that
chemical weapons were used, but by whom. Not everyone is convinced that
U.S. intelligence is getting it right this time around. In May a United
Nations investigator claimed it was the rebels, not the government, that
had used sarin gas. Ban Ki-moon, the U.N. secretary general, continues
to call for increased access in Syria in order to conduct a “credible
and comprehensive inquiry” into the matter.
What moral resources are available for Catholics to discern the best
path forward in this difficult and complex situation? When a government
fails to protect its citizens, or worse, perpetrates war crimes, the
international community has a responsibility to intervene. This emerging
principle in international affairs is known as the responsibility to
protect. The intervention, however, need not involve military action. In
fact, the Catholic tradition stresses a presumption against using
violent force. Before relying on military action, legitimate authorities
must search out and try all reasonable nonviolent alternatives.
Why is this? When conflicts escalate through direct or indirect
military intervention, the violence can bear bitter fruits: an
increasing number of people wounded or killed, increasingly irrational
actions by warring factions, crippled public infrastructure resulting in
the spread of disease and the planting of seeds of revenge. Instructed
by past experience, the public should be skeptical about a nation’s
stated reasons for entering a war. War is often justified for selfless,
humanitarian reasons, but states typically do not intervene unless there
is some compelling self-interest.
So what should be done in Syria? Some Catholics favor the Obama plan
to send small arms and ammunition to the opposition. Others support more
decisive military intervention, including the creation of safe zones
for Syrian refugees in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey or the bombing of
airfields in Syria that Russia and Iran use to send arms to government
forces.
We believe these military options, which can be reasonably defended
by people of faith, are the wrong choices at this time. The risks are
too great, and there are too many unpredictable factors. Also, U.S.
military action would not have U.N. approval, an important benchmark of
credibility but not an absolute one because Russia and China will
continue to veto any U.S. proposals in the Security Council,
irrespective of their merits.
Many believe the choices in Syria are limited to military action
(“doing something”) or sitting on the sidelines and letting the death
toll climb (“doing nothing”). The United States must reject both
options. The question is not if we should intervene, but how.
First, the United States must join the international community by
continuing to push for an immediate cease-fire as well as negotiations.
Second, the United States should increase its humanitarian investment in
the region to $1.4 billion, comparable to the estimated cost of
enforcing a no-fly zone for one year. Syrians face a lack of essential
services, including access to fresh water. Save the Children reports
that the fighting has left two million young people malnourished,
suffering from disease or traumatized. The United States should increase
support for effective relief programs of the United Nations and the
International Committee of the Red Cross, and should continue to invest
in grass-roots organizations committed to strengthening civil society
through nonviolent initiatives.
Following Pope Francis’ Easter plea for peace in Syria, Bishop
Richard E. Pates of Des Moines, Iowa, and Bishop Gerald F. Kicanas of
Tucson, Ariz., on June 19 called for the United States to abandon the
military option and redouble efforts toward a negotiated cease-fire.
“The introduction of more arms simply increases the lethality of the
violence and contributes to the suffering of the Syrian people,” they
wrote. There should be robust U.S. involvement in Syria, but it should
be peaceful.
Editor's Note: Click here for America's coverage of the responsibility to protect.
