Week after week I sat in my public international law class where we discussed and debated the situation in Syria, and what needs to be done. Very rarely a consensus is formed.
I often find it interesting that, international law aside, the general consensus of the class—or those willing to truthfully voice their opinion—believe we, as the Western world, should not intervene. The main reasoning behind this viewpoint—which is valid—seems to be that it is not our problem. That kind of thinking, and the problems associated with it, can be seen on a smaller scale.
An article that appeared in the Huffington Post featured a video where two students acted out bullying scenarios on the University of California, Los Angeles campus and a third filmed to see how other students would react. Only in two or three of the cases did someone intervene, while other students walked on by and did nothing to help the situation. At the end of the video, the experiment was explained and viewers were called upon to raise awareness and resist being a bystander.
One slide in particular caught my eye. It featured a quote by Desmond Tutu, a South African civil rights activist, saying, “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse, and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.”
Recent United Nations evidence points to even the head of state being involved with the crimes against humanity and war crimes that have occurred in Syria. It’s hard to argue that this is not a case of bullying on a larger scale, as a bully is defined as “a person who uses strength or influence to harm or intimidate those who are weaker.”
The people of Syria, in the simplest terms, have been bullied by their government.
By not intervening are we taking the side of the oppressor? For my part, I haven’t yet decided.
