We stand at a pivotal moment as President Obama bids Congress to support a diplomatic — or, if necessary, military — intervention in Syria to halt President Bashar al-Assad’s regime’s reported use of deadly chemical weapons. While we may feel detached from the conflict or powerless to influence the outcome, we, as educated students and members of an intricately connected world, have a duty to be informed about the crisis. If we do not learn about and question events such as this international crisis, we miss out on a vital opportunity to apply the tools of a liberal education.
Brown endows students with a comprehensive liberal arts education, in the hopes that its students will graduate able to think critically and thoughtfully. At the center of this goal is the liberal learning model, whereby each student will become “broadly educated” and apply that knowledge beyond the classroom to “lead a full and engaged life.” It is difficult to become “broadly educated” about Syria, as the facts about the current situation are hazy. Even the world’s leading news sources such as the New York Times and the Washington Post struggle to decipher what is truly occurring. Still, we must work toward a greater understanding of the crisis to determine our individual roles and the international community’s place in the conflict.
Mark Twain once said, “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes.” The current turmoil in Syria is part of a long history that we can understand only if we look toward the region’s past. Syria’s identity has been forged by a legacy of colonialism, joint occupation, partial independence, violent coup d’états and a stake in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Western world has often involved itself in the affairs of the Middle East, despite widespread controversy and questionable success. We must ask whether intervening in President Assad’s regime will yield the same results as the past and how we can diverge from previous results of history.
Furthermore, we should ask why now, after months of violence, Obama has proposed the use of diplomacy — or, if all else fails, force — in Syria. According to the Guardian, the death count in Syria is approaching 100,000 while chemical weapons account for only a small fraction of casualties. It was not until an alleged chemical attack on Damascus that killed about 1,500 that Obama proposed forceful intervention.
The explanation lies in Obama’s “red line” reference. According to the New York Times, Obama said at a news conference in St. Petersburg that “failing to respond to this breach of this international norm would send a signal to rogue nations, authoritarian regimes and terrorist organizations that they can develop and use weapons of mass destruction and not pay a consequence.” Decades of international intervention have established America as the world police. Given that the use of chemical weapons has been banned by international law, Obama’s language suggests it is America’s duty to step in. But is this the role that the United States should still attempt to uphold in the international arena, or has the time come to take a step back from foreign intervention?
We must take advantage of the intellectual atmosphere and the resources at our disposal in order to grapple with these difficult questions, inform ourselves about the situation in Syria and draw our own conclusions. If we seek out these opportunities, Brown offers a forum to learn more about the conflict and share diverse perspectives. For example, our own Middle East studies department offered a teach-in Monday night, examining the crisis in Syria and new developments. Professors should seek to draw ties to Syria and discuss the current events in their lesson plans when relevant, and students should attempt to become active members of the discussion, both in and beyond the classroom.
Editorials are written by The Herald’s editorial page board: its editor, Rachel Occhiogrosso, and its members, Daniel Jeon, Hannah Loewentheil and Thomas Nath. Send comments to editorials@browndailyherald.com.
ADVERTISEMENT
