The world has been stung in recent weeks, as the conflict in
Syria has developed into an even more tragic affair. With chemical weapons
being used to inflict excruciating suffering upon civilians, it is hardly surprising
that the West has sought to punish such actions and prevent further use of
these monstrous tools of war through military strikes. I will argue that this
approach to Syria is bound to fail, and an entirely new approach is needed to
international politics, as the current traditions of force and power have
failed to stop suffering ever since the conception of the state.
David Cameron and Barack Obama are brave men. Standing in the
legacy of Iraq, they represent peoples who are vastly opposed to military
intervention in the Middle East. They are confronted by Vladimir Putin, a canny
international operative who will halt at every turn their quest’s against the
Assad regime due to Russia’s influence there. There seems to be little support
for any missile strike whatsoever. Yet they defiantly condemn the chemical
attacks in Syria and propose military responses to Assad’s regime.
The main reason for this politically risky gamble is the protection of civilians across the world. The thinking is, if you allow one chemical attack to pass by unchallenged, then not only will the regime in question continue to implement such vile forces, but other, more deadly opponents might start to use them too. At its heart, Syrian intervention is about international standards. Anti-western countries like Iran and North Korea cannot be allowed to think they can also use chemical weapons scotch free, so the USA, UK and France have all been vigorously proposing neutralisation of Assad’s chemical stores through missile strikes. This will not only defend the West’s interests, but protect individuals from senseless suffering.
However, this approach to the evils of the world will not
change anything. For centuries, people have tried to solve their problems by
hitting them with the ‘big stick’. They have attempted to depose tyrants,
subdue an enemy, destroy corruption and much more by military power. Yet, it
has changed nothing. When one king of woe falls, another rises up to take his
place. The West has deposed countless leaders, only for even more terrible foes
to be born. By removing the tyrant by his own tools (force and violence), we do
not end the cycle of suffering, but only sustain it, we ourselves becoming
tyrannical ourselves. This process of making war to rid an evil never works,
because the evil still persists, and we become part of the problem. This is
best demonstrated by the French Revolution: initiated to help bring economic
stability and prosperity to starving peasants, King Louis XVI was violently
usurped. But it was not Puss in Boots who took the reigns of power. No, it was
a group of vicious men, eventually succeeded Robespierre, the architect of the
‘Great Terror’, gaining rule over the torn people of France. History shows that
all military power does, even when motivated by good intentions, prolongs the
sufferings of the world’s people. Violence has not solved any problems, and
there is no reason to suppose it would in Syria.
It was the great Roman historian Livy who said ‘The outcome
corresponds less to expectations in war than in any other case whatsoever.’ I
can testify to this through playing Rome 2: Total War. Leading the Athenian
people, I had allied myself to Sparta, whose military might I was no match for.
Whilst they were away making war on far off countries, they had left the town
of Sparta relatively undefended, trusting that I would not attack. But they
were wrong. I took my army at Crete and headed north, expecting to crush the
Spartan resistance and claim a great prize. However, on my way, I was
intercepted by a fleet of Barbarians, who just wanted to spoil the party.
Whilst I defeated them, they had killed half of my men, leaving my army rather
depleted. Thus, when I attacked Sparta, whilst my forces fought valiantly, the
enemy prevailed, and consequently besieged Athens herself! What had been
perceived on my part as a potential romp to victory had ended in catastrophic
failure.
If this is the case in a video game, how much more is it
true in reality! Part of the reason why military power never succeeds in eradicating
the structural problems of suffering is because their outcomes often have far
reaching consequences one cannot simply predict. Attacking Syria can unleash
all manner of horrors, igniting the conflict further, inspiring terrorism,
allowing radical groups to ascertain power etc. Those military hawks who desire
aggressive responses to the Assad regime care little for the damaging impact it
may have. Indeed, just as World War One was a major factor in sparking World
War Two, intervening in Syria could make the country even worse. With no way of
knowing what to expect in such a complex, unstable environment, it seems
impenetrable to determine the results of missile strikes, and as such they are
not worth the risk.
Hence, the old responses to suffering are redundant – they
have been for a long time. Without knowing what further evils military action
can bring, combined with the fact it never changes the world significantly
enough to solve the problem of evil faced by billions, would suggest it is time
to take a new approach. The people of the world still believe that might can
make right, but history is against that theory. A new paradigm of international
standards is needed. But what can be offered? What will work?
Instead of threatening those who do wrong, I suggest that we
offer to help the Syrian nation as an incentive for peace. Britain, a very
wealthy country, even if it is economically struggling, has an immense resource
of potential labour, expertise and technology they could offer to invest in Syrian
infrastructure. By proposing to help build hospitals, schools, roads, whilst
training up Syrian people to run these institutions in exchange for peaceful
negotiations, we not only are more likely to stop a war, but develop and help
the suffering people caught in the middle of this war. Sacrificing some of our
own creativity, ingenuity and reserves to stop a blood thirsty war seems
entirely justified. How can we sit by with our Ipads and PS4’s when extra
taxation could provide funds for a project which helps saves lives prematurely
being taken? It is in service to others we offer a real incentive for Assad and
his enemies to stop needlessly killing each other, and it might actually
progress with some of the problems violence does not.
One may object that this approach leaves itself to being
abused: dictators may intentionally make war just to benefit from our
cooperation, in the hope that they can improve their countries well-being.
There are many people in the world who falsely take what is not theirs, and
governments are no less likely to do that than anybody else. Yet why should
this stop us from loving and helping others? If we are serious about tackling
world suffering, then the abuses of the few should not render the help to the
needy unwanted. It is in sacrifice to others we truly show our love for them,
and this is when we are most alive. It mends broken relationships, closes
wounds and resolves conflicts. We can only do so much, but as a nation, Britain
has an immense capacity to lead the world in a radical new approach to evil:
the sacrifice of its own resources and skills to help get closer to addressing
the real problems people face.
As a Christian, I find this to be the example Jesus
presented to the world as how He conquered suffering. In Jesus, God was present
as a man, and through His torture and death on the cross, He fulfilled Israel’s
vocation to save the world through her suffering, came good on His promises to
save His people and renew them in person and announced His kingship over all
the nations. Whilst the Romans and Jews mocked Him, dressing Him up in a purple
robe, putting a crown of thorns on His head and calling Him ‘King of the Jews’,
the irony is that the crucifixion was the enthronement of Christ as ruler and
monarch of the cosmos. He could have smashed His foes with raw power, violently
overthrowing the regimes of the world. However, then He would have just been
another tyrant, inflicting suffering on more people, not conquering death but
supporting it. Rather, He sacrificed Himself, so that His subjects, the people
of the world, may be freed from the cycle of suffering, which He had placed the
full stop on. Whilst it is God alone who can stop suffering, through our
sacrifices and love of others, Jesus uses us to complete His inaugurated
kingdom. The murder of God was His enthronement and victory, with His
resurrection the vindication of His message and His royalty. As we are servants
of the Lord, we too should sacrifice ourselves to stop suffering, as
individuals and nations of God’s Kingdom. It is this radical approach, this
paradigm shift, which I propose to make the greatest impact on the suffering of
the Syrian people.
Drawing the threads of the essay together, I have argued
current traditions of resolving evil in the world are ineffectual and that
offer to sacrifice our resources and talent to improve the lives of Syrian
people in exchange for peace is an example of the model nations should take to
international crises. Whilst war has been the method for fixing problems for
almost all of history, it has done little to nothing to stop the continued
suffering of billions of people. This is because it only enhances and
entrenches the already malignant forces at work. Rather, by placing our
economy, products and skills as means to other countries ends, we not only
truly show our love of humanity (as sacrifice is the visible demonstration of
love) but we also provide an incentive to resolve conflicts and progress as
united peoples together. The ultimate sacrifice of God on the cross is the
paradigm we should follow: as Christ’s suffering brought about God’s Kingdom,
our suffering for others is also used by Him to further His kingdom and renew
creation. This very different response, or something like it, is what is needed to
shake up the current norms of international action. Otherwise, Cameron, Obama
and Hollande will continue to uphold the dark evils of this world.
