Human Security versus Traditional Security

Explain Human Security versus Traditional Security: Should the west intervene in Syria? Why/why not?

The crisis in Syria is never ending and so is the debate related to the intervention of the West in the security and other related matters of Syria. Regularly, active and variety of arguments are carried on by the pro activists regarding the matter of Western disturbances. Some discussions are very legitimate and hold true values of discussion while the others shows some kind of diplomatic approach towards their view points that force to raise questions on the matter. In the recent scenario it has become vital to intervene in the crisis situation or regional or financial problems of other states. It is due to a diplomatic relationship of the nation states with the other, interfering in the matter of crisis has become a compulsory step of the developed nation towards the nations facing internal crisis. As viewed by Rogers, (2015), there is a difference between military and non-military interventions. The interventions related to financial or social are considered to be really helpful for the nation in trouble but military intervention is something not acceptable by all.
This essay is focused on the legitimate practices of West in the process of intervention in the security matter of Syria. Approaches towards both traditional security and human security will be made. A detail analysis of the various approaches made by the Western countries in terms of providing security to the countries like Syria will be done. On the basis of analysis and evaluation of various facts and figures, an approach can be made on the understanding of the importance or the harmful effect of the military or humanitarian intervention in a foreign country.
An analysis of intervention of West in Syria:
    Humanitarian interventions has been defined by International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) as the perfect time for a state to intervene in the matter of other states for the sole purpose of protecting the state from the current risk faced by the nation. Another concept that has been put forwarded by the ICISS behind the purpose of human intervention in other states or nation is the idea that certain states are not willing to protect their civilian from the human violation that the state is facing (Ahmed, 2013). These human right violations have also been categorized on the basis of certain actions such as genocide, wars or crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. In addition to these, the three stages of actions in lieu of responsibilities towards protecting the civilians have also been declared in the report. These are, responsibility to prevent, responsibility to react (with due permission and sanction from the authorities) and the responsibility to rebuild the nation, if assistance for recovery is available.
As stated by Ignatieff, (2013), there are no hard and fast rules regarding the particular situation where these rules are to be applied. The concept that has been put forwarded by ICISS is not accepted universally and regular shifts towards the concept have been observed in the development of the nations like Libya, Russia and even China. It has also been pointed out by Nafeez, (2013), that there lay no such consensus on the justifications of humanitarian intervention. If viewed legally, it has been stated in the Article 2(4) of the UN Charter banned the use of force in the intervention of the nations. Rettman, (2012) commented that moral justifications have given some moral justification towards the intervention process of other countries in the internal matter of countries where disputes arise. As per the view point of Rettman, (2012), this can be justified by the means of ‘Just-War’ theory. However, it is not any kind of moral approach to risk the lives of the civilians to intervene in the lives of the foreigners. Inconsistent selection of political leaders for intervention process in the state might result in greater problematic issues.
Human interventions have been observed in many cases with varying degrees of success and failure. In this respect, the case study of Kosovo and Libya can be highlighted. Separation of Yugoslavia eventually leads to wars and ethnic cleansing. In fact, the peace-talk in 1999 failed that compelled the government to take action against the air strikes that accelerated the fleeing of Kosovo Albanians to its neighboring countries (Charap, 2013). These situations molded the way of how human intervention has been considered. Thus, the long run debate towards the moral and ethical value of human intervention in a few nation states has been resolved. It was even declared altruistic and human to intervene for better cause. However, in the Western countries these interventions are considered as abuses when NATO failed to provide protection to the civilian lives that was essential for counter humanitarian purpose (Stahn, 2014).
The moral and legal intervention of NATO became the most important issue of discussion while talking about international relationship. In the situations where NATO has shown regular intervention in the name of protecting the civilians of the nation, it has been found that although it had ended the violent attacks but they have failed to protect the revenge killings of many of the civilians that were a result of the nature of conflicts took place in those regions (Aaronson et al., 2014). It was when NATO failed to provide protection to the civilians of Rwanda that resulted in the death of 800,000 people. Same scenario was repeated in Libya in 2011 that raised the question over the intervention capabilities of NATO or other Western forces in the conflicts of the nation states.
During Mohammad Gaddafi’s regime, disturbances in Libya and mass destruction in the year 2011 that lead to extreme violence created a good scope to the Western forces for intervening in the matters of these nations. The death toll at that time was ascending day by day and as per the data of the World Health Organization, the death toll increased to 2, 000. The Libyan government accounted for only 743 killings (Ackerman, 2013). All these chaotic situations results in the intervention of the West to participate and take a control of the degrading situation. It was being noted that those who were killed were not directly related to the cause of the war but they were innocent civilians of the countries. Questions were raised on the protection of these civilians that definitely called for help for the sake of protection of the lives of the people. In particular, US showed the most intervention in the Libyan scenario. As viewed by Evans, (2014), that the intervention of US in the territory of Libya was only for the sake of gaining territorial acquisition. It was not related towards protecting the nation and their civilians. As argued by Hendrickson, (2013), that it was only due to the intervention of NATO that the recovery was able to make quickly and effective. This has resulted in the reduction of killings that would otherwise have caused.
When it comes to Syria crisis, humanitarian crisis is the most heartbreaking issue that the world is witnessing. As per UN figures, more than 60, 000 people died since March 2011. However, as stated by Anderson, (2013), this number could be more than that is declared. It is not only the Human catastrophic condition that is degrading the situation of Syria, but issues related to geo-political scenario and other strategic crisis are also leading to the worsening condition of the scenario day by day. Due to the sectarian nature of the issues of the conflicts, the affect over these countries are increasing from time to time.
In this respect, it can also be added that not only Syria but other countries like Libya, Turkey, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and many such countries are facing similar kind of crisis and intervention from the West. Since Syria is located central to the Middle East countries, it is most affected than rest of the countries. If the situation of Turkey is observed, it is also prayed by regular border violation that results in raising great terror among the people (Mueller, Martini & Hamilton, 2013). The Kurdish forces in the northeast Syria are a matter of sheer horror to the people of Turkey. Similar to Turkey, Baghdad is also subjected to such kind of terror and horror interventions from the Middle East countries. All these factors are quiet enough to raise the alarm among the developed countries of the world to think of ways to curb these practices and think of a better environmental and social condition for people to lead a terror free life (Paris, 2014).
The power of Iraq and Iran is actively rising. The terrorist groups are much active in their regular interventions in the activities of terrorist attacks or supply of weapons or man force. Assad regime has been actively supported by Iran, the Lebanese Shia Muslim terrorist groups Hezbollah is found responsible for the supply of smuggling fighters and weapons to Syria. These interventions are not for a short time but it results in long term effects (Meyer, 2012). This violence is not limited to the condition of Syria but is affecting the globe brutally.
It was in the year 2000 when president Bashar al-Assad succeeded his father and gained the authority. Within a brief period of his regime, he showed some political relaxation. Debates were raised over the capabilities of the new president (Chandler, 2015). In spite of intense repression, al-Assad was re-elected in the 2007 election. However, the situation was seen degrading and the country raised in protest with the kind of activities that were taking place in his era. The first protest highlighted was the arrest and torture of a teenager due to raising revolutionary slogan in the country.
With the formation of the organization Syrian National Council in Istanbul in the year 2011, requests were made towards providing international protection to the population. This approach was not supported for the military intervention (Reeves, 2014). In respect to this organization, a rival organization was formed that was entitled as National Co-ordination Committee (NCC). However, in later stage it was found that the two groups were united under the same government (Strong, 2015). The president accepted the invitation of the UN-Arab league for a ceasefire but Syrian population did not show their contribution towards the approach made by the president. The Free Syrian Army showed their determination that they would resume their attack if their demands are not adhered (Allison, 2013). There were continuous attacks related to the ceasefire. The scenario lead to the arrest of a few minors and extra judicial executions were enforced in Syria and other bordering countries as well.
The situation was seemed to get worsen day by day with major disputes and rebels related to the crisis situation. There were bombardment situations in the major cities of Syria. A serious massacre was witnessed near Houla in 2012 that resulted in the killing of 108 people. There were external interventions as well in Syria (Pincus, 2012). The state intervention strengthened the opposing sides in the conflict. In this respect, Western and Gulf Arab States came forward with logistic and monetary help. On the other hand, the government stayed stronger due to steady supply of weapons from Russia and Iran. The umbrella organization on the other side acted to resolve the conflict to return peace to the organization (Strong, 2015).
Issues were raised against the mal practices and ill approaches made by the country that resulted in mass slaughter of people in the country. In fact, the ambassador of Syria was expelled for the chaotic condition of the state. A consoling role has been played by the United Nations in reminding Syria about their responsibilities towards taking care of the civilians of the Nation. An issue was raised by the Gulf Cooperation Council in issuing the statement in February 2011 (Paris, 2014). When the situation was getting worsen the council showed its effort towards the formation of Arab League. Russia and China enjoyed their Veto power in this respect.
Humanitarian intervention could be of a few major types. The kind of intervention using the military force is one of the reasons of the rising of the Civil war in Syria. The civil war has been going in the state since a long time, dated to be 2011. It might be said in this respect that military intervention in a foreign state is expensive. It has been proposed that the Government cannot agree to war unless concerns are taken from the civilians of the state. However, as stated by Kinsara et al., (2013), the Syrian regime that they have committed various war crimes and are also responsible for violating the domestic and the international laws of the country.
Since, Syria is the neighboring state and bordered next to Turkey and Israel, both being faithful allies of US, air strikes could be easily launched on Syria. In this case, it has to be kept in mind that Syria is also sufficient in terms of defense equipment available from Russia. Russia S-300 PMU air defense system and the Pechora-2M system; these were the equipment resulted as a major obstacle for the flying zone (Evans, Thakur & Pape, 2013). Thus, it was an obvious scenario that would result in the intervention of wars in the state. It was found that two major countries, Turkey and Israel showed their broad support towards the military intervention in Syria. As pointed out by Wong, (2013), Turkey was greatly concerned about the consequences of the civil war in Syria. Turkey finds it beneficial for them to intervene in the civil war of Syria and support the NATO foundation.
It is not that interventions have been made in the countries like Syria but these conditions are seen in case of other scenario in Afghanistan and even in Canada. A wide range of question rises towards the morality of the interventions of the powerful nations in these countries which are not considered as among the developed nations. However, situation does not remain same and the condition of the people belonging to those regions declined. In order to save them, it becomes a responsibility of the nation or the country counted as developed nation to support the civilians and be available at their call (Evans, Thakur & Pape, 2013).
According to the Responsibility to Protect Act, it becomes a responsibility of the developed and the prosperous nations to take care of the nations who are facing some kinds of disputes or challenges in controlling their nation states. As view by Rodger, (2013), if a country is prosperous in own way, it becomes a responsibility of that nation to help other in need. It might happen that the government of the nation does not want any kind of help from the other nations, but the condition of the civilians of the country might not be in a secured and fine position. Thus, for the sake of the life of the civilians of the nation state, interventions are much needed. On the other side, it has also been pointed out by Kinsara et al., (2013) that sometimes the nation in problematic situation needed help in terms of military and other protection forces. In this respect, the countries of the West such as US are sufficient in terms of their military power and number of militants. Thus, in case of chaotic conditions and extreme worse situation intervention of these nations become a responsibility from their part.
It has been widely observed that the Western US and EU powers have been vested in securing the security and confidentiality of Syria. Moreover, approaches have been made towards improving the national security, economic gain and even balancing the regional geopolitical situation of the state. It has to be kept in mind that the Syrian regime is always backed by the state of Iran, the West and the Israel (Eloul et al., 2013). These interventions have greatly stopped the military intervention of countries like Russia and China in the state of Syria. This has also lead to the situation when the other states are intervened to enter the boundaries of Syria. China has shown regular intervention in curbing the military intervention of other countries in Syria.
Conclusion:
By the end of the discussion it can be said that there has been lot of issues that has lead to the situation for intervention of the developed countries, notably the Western power to exercise their power over the countries facing issues related to civil war and other disturbances. Regular disturbing situations of the degrading condition of the peace and humanity in the states of Syria, it has resulted the process of intervention indeed compulsory for the survival of the civilians of the country. However, the intervening countries should also be aware of their intervention capabilities and rights to intervene in some other state. It would be a better idea if a framework is set up for the sake of intervention capabilities and certain fundamental rights for the existing civilians of the state.
It might also be included in this respect that Syria also operates under an efficient governmental framework. This shows a clear indication of their capabilities to govern their own country. The adverse effect of the civil wars is also known to them and in fact they are themselves responsible for whatever situation they are facing or dealing with. If no such interventions are made then there is a greater possibility of the increaser of the crisis situation in the already affected states. The situation can be brought under control only by the means of the intervention of those countries that have enough military power to support the intervention in a foreign country. In case of Syria it can be said that the civilians are proactive in nature and are quiet aware of the aftermath situation of the crisis and the war. They are quiet aware of the possible outcome and thus it can be easily concluded that the civilians should be left to decide and select their own government or leader who would be responsible for taking care of the situations faced by the civilians.

Aaronson, M., Klune, C., Johns, L., Carment, D., Landry, J., Briscoe, H., ... & Norley, M. R. (2014). Syria and the Crisis of Humanitarian Intervention.Into the Eleventh Hour, 57.
Ackerman, S. (2013). US Military Intervention in Syria would Create ‘Unintended Consequences’. The Guardian.
Ahmed, N. (2013). Syria intervention plan fueled by oil interests, not chemical weapon concern. The Guardian, 8, 30.
Allison, R. (2013). Russia and Syria: explaining alignment with a regime in crisis. International Affairs, 89(4), 795-823.
Anderson, K. (2013). Legality of Intervention in Syria in Response to Chemical Weapon Attacks. American Society of International Law (ASIL).
Chandler, D. (2015). The R2P Is Dead, Long Live the R2P: The Successful Separation of Military Intervention from the Responsibility to Protect.International Peacekeeping, 22(1), 1-5.
Charap, S. (2013). Russia, Syria and the doctrine of intervention. Survival,55(1), 35-41.
Eloul, L., Quosh, C., Ajlani, R., Avetisyan, N., Barakat, M., Barakat, L., ... & Diekkamp, V. (2013). Inter-agency coordination of mental health and psychosocial support for refugees and people displaced in Syria.Intervention, 11(3), 340-348.
Evans, G. (2014). The Consequences of Non-Intervention in Syria: Does the Responsibility to Protect Have a Future?. Into the Eleventh Hour, 19.
Evans, G., Thakur, R., & Pape, R. A. (2013). Correspondence: Humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect. International Security, 37(4), 199-214.
Hendrickson, R. C. (2013). Now that Congress will decide on intervention in Syria, its leaders have moved to support Obama’s plans for military action.LSE American Politics and Policy (USAPP) Blog.
Ignatieff, M. (2013). Bosnia and Syria: Intervention Then and Now. The Syria Dilemma, 51-52.
Kinsara, R. A., Kilgour, D. M., Hipel, K. W., & Martinovski, B. (2013, June). Strategic modeling approach for third party intervention. In Proceedings of group decision and negotiation 2013 conference (GDN 2013) (pp. 45-48).
Meyer, H. (2012). Lavrov Says Qatar Call for Syria Intervention Violates Deal. Bloomberg Business week, March, 13.
Mueller, K. P., Martini, J., & Hamilton, T. (2013). Airpower Options for Syria. RAND Corporation.
Nafeez, A. (2013). Syria intervention plan fueled by oil interests, not chemical weapon concerns. The guardian, 30.
Paris, R. (2014). The ‘Responsibility to Protect’and the structural problems of preventive humanitarian intervention. International Peacekeeping, 21(5), 569-603.
Pincus, w. (2012). Syria intervention isn’ta slam dunk. The Washington Post, 30.
Reeves, S. (2014). To Russia with Love: How Moral Arguments for a Humanitarian Intervention in Syria Opened the Door for an Invasion of the Ukraine. Mich. St. Int'l L. Rev., 23, 199.
Rettman, A. (2012). EU unready for Iran oil ban, Syria intervention. EU Observer, 1.
Rogers, A. (2015). Human Rights Groups Divided Over Potential Syria Intervention.
Stahn, C. (2014). Between Law-breaking and Law-making: Syria, Humanitarian Intervention and ‘What the Law Ought to Be’. Journal of Conflict and Security Law, 19(1), 25-48.
Strong, J. (2015). Why parliament now decides on war: tracing the growth of the parliamentary prerogative through Syria, Libya and Iraq. The British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 17(4), 604-622.
Wong, K. (2013). Aftermath of US Intervention In Syria Would Cost Billions.Washington Times, August, 30.