An international intervention in Syria?

For the past 10 months, unrest in Syria has continued to mount. In the wake of President Assad rejecting the Arab League’s agreement, the debate about international intervention has begun. The United Nations now estimates that the death toll is near 6,000. The Arab League has independent monitors in the country, charged with observing the violence and this weekend they reported to the Arab League on the mission. Although the leader of the mission, Sudanese Lt. Gen. Mohammed Ahmed Dabi stated that the violence was decreasing, noting that there were 136 deaths during the monitoring period, Syrian activists place the death toll at 976 people and reports by human rights group, Avaaz put the death toll over 700 for the monitoring period.

The Arab League chose to extend the reporting/monitoring period for another month and also ordered Syrian President Bashar Assad to cede power to a transitional government that included representatives from the opposition forces. Under the Arab League plan, over the next two months a unity government would be formed in order to prepare for a general election. However President Assad rejected the plan, refusing to delegate authority to his vice presidents for the transition period.

International intervention is still seems to be an unpopular idea, even though the death toll is, by some reports, higher than the civilian death toll in Libya at the time of the NATO intervention. Also, it is not clear which countries would be willing to intervene. Russia has already made it clear that they will veto any attempt on the part of the United Nations Security Council. Steven Cook argues in the Atlantic that it is time for the West to reconsider the possibility that the Assad regime will fall on its own. His reasoning looks at both the Assad’s continuing rejection of any efforts at compromise as well as the rising civilian death toll. On the other hand, Ann-Marie Slaughter, also in the Atlantic, argues that U.S. diplomatic efforts should be deployed to force a resolution creating a buffer zone on the Turkish-Syrian border and the U.S. should begin organizing to provide medical and disaster relief. Slaughter argues that the rising death toll falls under the responsibility to protect doctrine, allowing the world community to intervene.

Under the responsibility to protect doctrine, if the death toll continues to rise, intervention may be a necessary. Although, any intervention should be a last resort, the international community should not turn a blind eye to the Syrian people simply because Assad has allies in powerful countries such as Russia and Iran. If there is an international intervention of any sort, it should not be with the goal of regime change, but instead strictly to protect civilians and allow for a peaceful transition. However, even with that purpose, it is unclear whether the Syrian government is in a position to consider any negotiations. Perhaps the threat of intervention will cause their posture to change and make the regime, authoritarian though it may be, more open to the possibility of a peaceful transition to a more open government.