Alexandra DeSanctis, Staff Writer


As the civil war in Syria rose once again to the center of the news cycle, the Kroc Institute hosted a panel to discuss the crisis situation and address possible solutions from both military and legal perspectives.  The panel consisted of three distinguished speakers: Asher Kaufman, Associate Professor of History and Peace Studies; Mary Ellen O’Connell, Professor of Law and Research and International Dispute Resolution; and Michael Desch, Professor and Chair of Political Science, all of whom spoke on September 10 at the Hesburgh Center for International Studies.

David Cortright, Director of Policy Studies at the Kroc Institute, introduced the panel and posed the central questions of the ongoing public debate.  Focusing on the necessity of eliminating chemical weapons, Cortright stressed that the United States’ response to the Syrian conflict continues to be a complicated and multifaceted issue.  Despite Russia’s recent negotiations on relinquishing chemical weapons, Cortright said, there remain numerous considerations to take into account as President Obama and Congress deliberate the best course of action.

Kaufman began the presentation by framing the current climate in Syria and defining the conflict as a regional one.  He stressed that the civil war continues to affect much of the Middle East due to its complexity, and therefore a successful resolution requires an understanding of the various tensions in the region.  He made specific mention of the ethnic and religious communities that are currently struggling at the Syrian borders, leading to dramatic repercussions for neighboring countries as persecuted and afflicted groups seek safe harbor elsewhere.

Kaufman continued, “The civil war in Syria is positioned directly on top of the ongoing rift between Sunni and Shi’ite groups, a cultural factor that must be considered in understanding the conflict.”   We must additionally understand Syria as a weak state that has largely lost the ability to control its own territory, he said.  With this breakdown of power, stronger states in the area have an interest in proliferating the Syrian conflict by supplying arms and lending faction support.  This regional complexity makes resolving the conflict increasingly difficult, as a variety of factors continue to rapidly and dramatically change the face of the situation, Kaufman concluded.

Mary Ellen O’Connell approached the discussion as an expert in the field of international law and, setting aside the regional dynamic presented by Kaufman, explored the central issue of chemical weapons.  Since the Geneva Gas Protocol was established in 1925, the use of “asphyxiating, poisonous and other gasses” was banned and the provisions were “universally accepted as part of international law.”  Because of this international agreement, Obama recently stated he would authorize the United States armed forces to hold the Assad regime accountable for chemical weapon use and try to prevent future strikes.

O’Connell emphasized that any military action, unless executed in self-defense, must be undertaken only with the full support of the international security council.  No attack on Syria, in her view, is legal unless it is subjected to multi-lateral deliberation and approved of by all necessary countries.  Simply because a military attack on Syria would be, as United States UN Ambassador Samantha Power put it, “legitimate, necessary, and proportionate” does not mean that it would be legal.

Desch closed the discussion by analyzing a variety of possible strategies for an attack on Syria, concluding that no military action is advisable for the United States.  He systematically examined the live military options, such as targeted air strikes to eliminate Syrian weapons of mass destruction or ground operations to secure chemical weapons and prevent future strikes.

Desch concluded that, despite his own misgivings, the most likely action that the United States will pursue is to use symbolic, coercive and deterrent force to punish Assad’s regime and to threaten him with further military action.  Desch insisted, however, that despite being able to accomplish nearly anything in terms of military action, it is not in America’s political interest to do so.  He claimed that Obama embraced Putin’s plan of WMD sequestration simply because America does not presently have any better option.

The path forward for Syria is unclear.  According to a Pew Research/USA Today report released on September 8, the number of American citizens who oppose taking military action in Syria has risen to 63 percent. Congress continues to debate a resolution for military action, and Obama explained in a nationally televised speech on September 10 that he has instructed the military agents involved to remain prepared for action as world leaders continue to pursue a diplomatic agreement that will require Assad to surrender all chemical weapons. All eyes are on Syria as the world watches and waits for a resolution of this crisis.

Alexandra DeSanctis is a sophomore Political Science major who goes by Xan everywhere except in class.  Contact her at adesanct@nd.edu.