PLANK JUNE 14, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
A front page story in yesterday’s New York Times quoted Hervé Ladsous, the head of United Nations peacekeeping operations, opining that the violence in Syria had descended into “civil war.” The same story, however, points out that “opposition leaders are wary of the term civil war because it suggests that the conflict is somehow an even match”; meanwhile, the Assad regime is still holding fast to its story that the violence is nothing more than the product of terrorists.
So, which is it? Is Syria in a civil war or not?
The answer, it turns out, is maybe. According to Gary Solis, who teaches the law of war at Georgetown, “the problem with civil wars, is that there is no over arching body to say at this point the rules apply. You have this murky middle ground between an insurrectionist group and a civil war.” James Fearon, a professor at Stanford who has written extensively on political violence, tells me that political scientists usually agree that there is a threshold of deaths that qualifies a conflict as a civil war—they just don’t always agree what exactly that threshold is. “Political scientists and sociologists who study civil war tend to use 1,000 killed total as their criterion,” he says. “Either way, the conflict in Syria definitely qualifies and has qualified as a civil war for a while now.” (Fearon does note that one mandatory criterion is that a sufficiently large number of deaths occur on both sides “in order distinguish a civil war from a massacre or genocide.”)
But what’s at stake in designating a conflict as a civil war? The legal implications are murky. One possible outcome is that opposition combatants would fall under the protections of the Geneva Convention. “One hesitates to say with any assurance yes or no, but it could give them a stronger position,” says Solis. “If they were recognized as belligerents, and were recognized at a distance then they would have the rights of prisoners or war if captured.” That said, by Solis’s judgment, the FSA should already qualify for protections under Common Article Three of the Geneva Convention, which covers non-international conflicts.
Ultimately, the most important impact of classifying Syria’s conflict as a “civil war” would be political, by ratcheting up the pressure on the international community to do something. If the rhetoric of civil war gains currency, look for demands for stricter sanctions and more determined resolutions from the U.N. Security Council. In that way, the consistent application of one small phrase could end up leading to one big step in the direction of military intervention.
9 comments
"Ultimately, the most important impact of classifying Syria’s conflict as a “civil war” would be political, by ratcheting up the pressure on the international community to do something." Really? Why is that? When the conflict in the US was classified as a "civil war", did that invite Europe to intercede? Civil wars are, by definition, internal conflicts. Internal conflicts to be resolved internally. Try though he might, Stackpole cannot reinvent language. Or history. Here's the choice: let the Syrian majority (75% Sunni) take back their country from the Alawite-Shia minority (less than 15%) dictator, or convert this "civil war" into a regional sectarian war including Shia from Iran and our ally Iraq and Sunni from Turkey and elsewhere. That's the choice. However Stackpole prefers to frame it.
- rayward
June 14, 2012 at 5:10pm
rayward, Europe did intercede in our Civil War, indirectly it is true but they were involved. There may not have been actual European boots on the ground but they affected the conflict nonetheless, via arms shipments etc; and also, were impacted by it economically and indeed, the American conflict at one point could well have resulted in war with Britain: http://www.civilwarhome.com/europeandcivilwar.htm As far as Syria is concerned, what we don't know is who/what constitutes the opposition to Assad. Isn't that true? We (by we I mean all outside powers) could easily make things much worse over the long run - a war that could last for years; power and advanced weapons in the hands of radicals like Al Qaeda, a devastated economy, etc. And, the situation in Libya hasn't evolved into a peaceful, democratic situation; militias and tribal groups are still contesting power - at one point last week I think the airport was occupied and inoperative. Egypt isn't normal either, women have been attacked en masse and now parliament has been dissolved - so as far as directly interceding in Syria I think major powers including the Arab League and Turkey and Israel as well as Russia and NATO are probably all confused about who the players are and hence would like to see the violence against civilians end - but don't know who or what would replace Assad.
- Sophia
June 14, 2012 at 5:31pm
The goals of an insurgency may be different from the goals of combatants in a civil war. Insurgents may want the present government replaced and reforms instituted. Factions within a civil war may fight over dividing the country into separate countries because of irreconcilable differences. I was thinking of Sudan. Good luck to negotiators trying to reduce the violence. The economy probably depends in large measure on weapons shipments.
- Doug12
June 14, 2012 at 6:27pm
Last I heard, Syria's leaders don't really like us, they like the Russians. Last I heard, the Islamic Fundamentalists fighting Syria's leaders don't really like us either. I'm with Rayward on this one -- who died and made America the world's policeman? Who said we have to stop all injustice in the world? Who said we have to stick our fingers into everyone's pie and make them all play nice? Who even said such a lunatic goal is achievable? Frankly, that point of view can be used to justify extremely expensive American intervention in a lot of places on the globe. And we'll get the same results we see in Viet-Nam, Afghanistan, and Iraq -- a bunch of Americans and locals dead, while the local populace continues to hate us and fight each other. Sure, America should be "the city on the hill". And sure, America should be willing to help where it can, as the Libyan example springs to mind. But that doesn't mean escalating the rhetoric to justify throwing ourselves between a rock and a hardplace.
- AllanL5
June 15, 2012 at 10:47am
Oh stop worrying, everybody. Secretary of State John Bolton will provide President Romney with the same level-headed counsel that has made him such a popular figure among seasoned diplomats over the years. And really, when was the last time the gop... THE party for national security issues, folks... did anything with respect to the Middle East that wasn't clearly in our best interest? We're fine.
- Tristan
June 15, 2012 at 10:54am
Thanks Tristan. I just threw up in my mouth.
- OkiSaru
June 15, 2012 at 4:42pm
:) xoxo
- Tristan
June 15, 2012 at 7:16pm
TrisTrash has opened his mouth. Loves Islamists and condones Muslims killing Muslims.
- JAIMECHUCH
July 9, 2012 at 3:58am
George W helped in getting rid of terrorist Arafat. His body is being exhumed to prove he was poisoned by "radioactive" material. If they fiend he really died of AIDS will Abbas publicize it? TrisTrash will have no opinion. He loves Islamists and condones Muslims killing Muslims. The Palestinians are his pals.
- JAIMECHUCH
July 9, 2012 at 4:07am