• About
  • Editorial Board
    • Staff Writers
  • Advertise
  • Join Us
  • Archives
The Wellesley News -
  • News and Features
    • The Wellesley (COVID) 100
      The Wellesley (COVID) 100
    • In memory of Professor Rebecca Summerhays
      In memory of Professor Rebecca Summerhays
    • Trans flag controversy: College power washes staircase after trans flag is painted over Harry Potter spray paint
      Trans flag controversy: College power washes staircase after trans flag is painted over Harry Potter spray paint
    • News
      • News in Brief
      • Nation & World
      • President’s Corner
      • Senate Report
    • Features
      • Alumnae Spotlight
      • Eye on Science
      • Faculty Focus
      • LGBTQIA+ Column
  • Opinions
    • The News in Conversation: Wellesley Against Mass Incarceration
      The News in Conversation: Wellesley Against Mass Incarceration
    • Editorial Board calls for keeping up trans flag murals
      Editorial Board calls for keeping up trans flag murals
    • No, Elon Musk’s Twitter will not restore free speech
      No, Elon Musk’s Twitter will not restore free speech
    • Staff Editorial
    • Letters to the Editor
    • The Elephant in the Room
  • Arts
    • Be/longing Centers Connection and Care
      Be/longing Centers Connection and Care
    • No image
      Birds Falling Upwards: Wellesley College Theater’s The Moors is a Must-See
    • No image
      Sometimes you just need to read a YA “Groundhog Day” to feel something
    • Arts In The News
    • Reviews
    • Music Peek
    • Books Before Boys
  • Health and Wellness
    • February Student Athlete of the Month
      February Student Athlete of the Month
    • Athletics Update
      Athletics Update
    • Victoria Garrick Speaks on Mental Health
      Victoria Garrick Speaks on Mental Health
    • Athlete of the Week
    • Boston Sports Update
    • The Vegan Digest
    • The SHE Corner
  • The Wellesley Snooze
    • Wellesley News Leadership Changes Completely Peacefully Without Any Suspicious Disappearances At All
      Wellesley News Leadership Changes Completely Peacefully Without Any Suspicious Disappearances At All
    • Solve Your Connection Problems With Wellesley Insecure
      Solve Your Connection Problems With Wellesley Insecure
    • Mayhem strikes Wellesley as paper towels removed from campus
      Mayhem strikes Wellesley as paper towels removed from campus
  • Miscellanea
    • President’s Column: The Butterfly Effect
      President’s Column: The Butterfly Effect
    • Administrators shocked to learn that students dislike being left in dark
      Administrators shocked to learn that students dislike being left in dark
    • 50 Lies You Tell Yourself in Order to Survive Until Graduation
      50 Lies You Tell Yourself in Order to Survive Until Graduation
    • The Dose
    • The Olive Branch
    • Multimedia
      • Galleries
      • Infographics
      • Videos
By Fati Ntavelou-Baum OpinionsOctober 9, 2014

Counterpoint: US airstrikes in Syria remain illegitimate despite moral justifications

Padya Paramita '18, Assistant Graphics Editor

No matter how much one can doubt the strategy or effectiveness of the air strikes against the Islamic State, at least Obama is doing what is morally right: He is protecting civilians from a violent organization. We know that the Islamic State is bad — even the non-interventionist Pope Francis called for the organization to be stopped. Although, according to recent polls, up to 50 percent of Americans support the air strikes, there are more questions to be asked about this interventionist policy. While military intervention is the right thing to do to protect human rights, intervention is still an illegitimate act that violates national sovereignty.

This act of military intervention is undoubtedly illegal. There are three possibilities under which a country can legally commit acts of aggression on another country’s territory. First, the Security Council, the U.N. body that is charged with the maintenance of peace and security, must authorize the intervention. Second, the intervention must constitute self-defense. And third, the country must have requested military assistance in defending itself. The case of the Islamic State meets none of these requirements.

The U.N. Security Council has not authorized the airstrikes. Next, U.S. intelligence agencies are not clear on whether the Islamic State is a direct threat to the United States. It is not an unreasonable case to make, but the legal grounding is shaky to say the least. In a New York Times article, Daniel Benjamin, the former leading anti-terrorism adviser in the State Department, called the public discussion of the Islamic State a “farce” with “members of the cabinet and top military officers all over the place describing the threat in lurid terms that are not justified.” The president admitted in a Sept. 10 speech that intelligence agencies have not detected any specific plans directly targeting the United States. Granted, the videos that the Islamic State published include threats made towards the United States. But if this is the only evidence that the United States is being targeted, intervention cannot possibly be justified under self-defense.

In regard to the third possibility that would legalize intervention: While Iraq has requested help to deal with the Islamic State, which legitimizes Obama’s decision to intervene, Syria has not. It is true that the Islamic State is a large problem on both sides of the Syrian-Iraqi border — but a border is a border. Iraq has absolutely no right to direct military action within Syria’s borders. One could argue that Assad’s regime is not legitimate, therefore it is permissible to violate Syria’s sovereignty to protect that of Iraq. Assad is neither a benevolent ruler as he was convicted of crimes against humanity and election fraud. Based on these facts, Obama does have a case to bomb the Islamic State without Syria’s permission.

How do we decide who is to intervene? Although there are concerns about the legitimacy of Assad’s regime, the United States is not in a position to unilateraly undermine his regime. Let us not forget — the United States is powerful but still just a country, not an international authority that can determine the legal status of other regimes.

According to U.N. Charter, the United States is currently violating international law: The Security Council has not approved the air strikes, Syria has not asked for help and there is no immediate threat to the United States. It is, however, what seems to be morally right and, at the end of the day, human lives are worth more than upholding the law. The problem is, the airstrikes are not very effective in diminishing the threat. The most they can do is destroy artillery and kill some leading officials, if they are lucky. In fact, the Islamic State troops are advancing to the border of Turkey. While Obama is trying to do what is morally right by violating international law, the end does not justify the means, especially since this strategy is not working.

Share on

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • Google +
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
Previous articleCounterpoint: United States has right and responsibility to intervene in Syria
Next articleRape culture, not drunk females, poses biggest threat to fraternities

You may also like

The News in Conversation: Wellesley Against Mass Incarceration

Editorial Board calls for keeping up trans flag murals

No, Elon Musk’s Twitter will not restore free speech

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Email Newsletter

Sign up to receive our weekly digest in your inbox

* indicates required

Top Articles

Sorry. No data so far.

Recent Tweets

Tweets by @Wellesley_News

The independent student newspaper of Wellesley College since 1901.

Sign up to receive our weekly digest in your inbox

* indicates required

  • About
  • Editorial Board
    • Staff Writers
  • Advertise
  • Join Us
  • Archives
COPYRIGHT © 2022 THE WELLESLEY NEWS
Back to top