Why Aleppo Is the Symptom of What Is Wrong with How We Deal with Atrocities
CONFLICT RESOLUTION - MEDIATION, 10 Oct 2016
Patrick T. Hiller | PeaceVoice – TRANSCEND Media Service
8 Oct 2016 – “Never again!” is once again brought to our attention as we are facing killing and suffering of civilians on a large scale. The Syrian city of Aleppo is under siege and the United Nations warns that the city may be totally destroyed in two months. UN Senior Advisor Jan Egeland noted that “we need to be [ruthlessly] honest with ourselves, and there is no doubt that we are failing an increasing number of civilians in Syria at this point.”
Almost simultaneously columnists in the Washington Post and the New York Times suggest that inaction green-lights war crimes and remaining passive has already been linked to the loss of half a million lives in Syria respectively. The columnists Samer Attar and Nicholas Kristof are no warmongers. Quite the opposite, Attar is a surgeon who volunteers with the Syrian American Medical Society and Kristof’s regular commentaries consistently show his intellect and empathy on human rights and social justice issues. Unfortunately, however, both commentaries are symptoms of a broader problem of how our society is caught in a thought trap, that the only choices we have when facing large scale atrocities are either military action or complete inaction.
The conflict in Syria has shown over and over again how diplomatic efforts have failed at different levels. Sitting in our thought trap, the first thing that comes to mind is that all has been tried, now it is time to bring out the big guns – literally. And when we see the images, videos, and tweets of all the suffering, who would argue against saving people? Let me be clear. At a certain time, in a certain place, a certain group of people can be saved through a military intervention. However, military intervention will always make the overall situation worse and the prospects for constructive transformation of the conflict will shrink. Moreover, while lives might be saved somewhere, additional lives will be taken. And we have to face the reality. A military intervention will always take innocent lives.
A military intervention is the introduction of outside military forces into an existing conflict. This takes place through means including the introduction of weapons and arms, air strikes, and combat troops to intervene in an armed conflict. It is the use of deadly force on a massive scale. Intervention by any name—military, humanitarian, coalitional, treaty organization, peacekeeping–is war, and wars are by nature destructive. There is violence, death, and suffering. In other words, when we are talking about a humanitarian military intervention, we are talking about a complete oxymoron: declaring the intention to defend life, while actively taking lives.
It is time to follow a new path. A path that is not informed by some sort of perceived naïve pacifism, but by rigorous analysis of nonviolent alternatives without a so-called military option as part of the picture. The military option needs to be taken off the table, otherwise all the other approaches are facing a counterforce and are directly undermined.
Just consider this non-exhaustive list of viable, nonviolent alternatives that an increasingly professionalized field of peacebuilding offers and which is informed by a maturing academic discipline of peace science: arms embargoes, end all military aid, civil society support, nonviolent actors, sanctions, work through supranational bodies (e.g. UN, ICC), ceasefires, aid to refugees, pledge no use of violence, withdrawal of military, nonviolent conflict workers, transitional justice initiatives, meaningful and creative diplomacy, inclusive good governance, increasing women’s participation in social and political life, accurate information on facts, separation of perpetrators from support base, banning war profiteering, nonviolent civil resistance, public advocacy, conciliation, arbitration and judicial settlement, human rights mechanisms, humanitarian assistance and protection, economic, political and strategic inducements, monitoring, and observation and verification. The list goes on.
Unlike Dr. Attar and Nicholas Kristof I have not seen overwhelming suffering on the ground. Moreover, I can’t speak for those under siege in Aleppo and will certainly not judge those who desperately call for help through military intervention. I also want to make sure that “never again” becomes a reality. I am not making moral appeal. I am part of a community of practitioners and academics who are well qualified and have accumulated tremendous experience in providing evidence that the many nonviolent, yet forceful, alternatives are always preferable to military interventions.
The broader public is not yet well informed about all those possible measures. Research shows that people in the U.S. assume that the use of military force is the last resort and that there is a proven decline in war support when alternatives are presented. Many of them are already being used in Syria at various levels. The International Center on Nonviolent and Waging Nonviolence publish an abundance of news and analysis of nonviolent forms of conflict around the world, including on Syria. When unchallenged, all calls for military intervention continue to drown out the voices calling for the multiple viable nonviolent alternatives. If we don’t use them, it is not because they are unavailable, but because of artificially imposed constraints, lack of interest, or self-interest. While no magical solutions, we know they work better.
_____________________________________
Patrick. T. Hiller, Ph.D., syndicated by PeaceVoice, is a Conflict Transformation scholar, professor, on the Governing Council of the International Peace Research Association, member of the Peace and Security Funders Group, and Director of the War Prevention Initiative of the Jubitz Family Foundation.
This article originally appeared on Transcend Media Service (TMS) on 10 Oct 2016.
Anticopyright: Editorials and articles originated on TMS may be freely reprinted, disseminated, translated and used as background material, provided an acknowledgement and link to the source, TMS: Why Aleppo Is the Symptom of What Is Wrong with How We Deal with Atrocities, is included. Thank you.
If you enjoyed this article, please donate to TMS to join the growing list of TMS Supporters.
This work is licensed under a CC BY-NC 4.0 License.
5 Responses to “Why Aleppo Is the Symptom of What Is Wrong with How We Deal with Atrocities”
Read more
Click here to go to the current weekly digest or pick another article:
CONFLICT RESOLUTION - MEDIATION:
Same as Patrick T. Hiller says: “Kristof’s regular commentaries consistently show his intellect and empathy on human rights and social justice issues., one could say “Obama and his international partners regular activities consistently show their intellect and empathy towards military industrialism, the Human Rights and social justice for military manucacturers and the need to sell.”
Unless we campaign for an end to a militarized world, in 100 years time we will continue to destroy lives and cities.
Patrick Hiller’s article on how to deal with atrocities is a splendid piece and he should be congratulated for it. What is lacking is the recognition that atrocity crimes an be deterred by applying the rule of law. Principal perpetrators of crimes against humanity should be held individually accountable in both criminal and civil courts under principles of universal jurisdiction. As long as we have not created the institutions capable of giving a fair trial and enforcing judgments there will be no other available choice than the violence we now witness around the globe.
Benjamin B. Ferencz, the last surviving Nuremberg War Crimes Prosecutor now in his 97th year
Thank you Dr. Ferencz for your authoritative contribution.
Yes. Let’s stop the killing. What incentives and benefits are there for the participants to change course and stop fighting?
Thought. It may be helpful to list all the participants in this conflict and then layout for each, their desired outcomes in terms of what they want for themselves as well as others (their vision of a peaceful Syria). By knowing the destination as agreed by all parties, then perhaps we can work on an approach and step-by-step process to think critically and being empathetic in proposing solutions and deciding on what is fair and beneficial to all concerned.
Could War Prevention Institute provide a list of all participants with their desired outcomes and a vision of a peaceful Syria?
Brilliant idea Dennis – certainly one of the most relevant and constructive I have seen for a very long time!