BRICS and NATO – Political and moral motivation for intervention, with special focus on Syria and Iran.

Karabo Victor Mokgatle & Tariq Abid (ACUWC ’11-’13)

The argument for intervention in both Syria and Iran is one presented in such a manner as to appear a question of moral convention, for the longer-term goal of establishing peace. The goal of the past Think Tank session was to discern whether or not the obligation to intervene created by a moral responsibility to end the conflict can be met by the powers to be, either BRICS or NATO; the following is what the Think Tank has explored and resolved:

It was understood that in the status quo, considering the fact that BRICS does not have a coherent military organization and none of its members have shown the intent to intervene unilaterally, the Think Tank could only earnestly consider NATO to intervene within the conflict, either collectively or by some of its members.

At this point in time, any tangible intervention by the powers to be within Syria, mainly U.S. and it’s Western allies cannot achieve the ultimate long term objective of peace, as due to historical baggage and like wise, they cannot maintain the moral credibility and impartiality obligated by a humanitarian mission. Some members also observed that this is further aggravated by the fact that a major consideration in the policy formation of these nations is preoccupied with maintaining Israeli security and possibly furthering its objectives, which will inevitably lead to a digression from the honest pursuit of peacekeeping. Therefore, there remains a plausible chance that in case of such an intervention, the intervening party might fail to remain a purely impartial adjudicator, and instead allied to its own agenda or partially or completely allied to one of the conflicting parties. This would probably defeat the purpose of the peacekeeping intervention, as such a pursuit would lead to the opposite result. For instance, it might simply result in the empowering of one party over another, leading to a suppressed minority and an eventual

The discussion in the case of Iran focused mainly on Iran’s nuclear capability and whether or not the possession of nuclear arms by this country would necessarily result in its use against its adversaries, mainly Israel. Owing to the fact that the Think Tank believed that Israel needs to create periodic military conflict within the region in order to maintain a security by the way of maintaining conventional military superiority; there was an argument presented that Iran’s acquirement of nuclear weapons might act as a deterrent to conflict of this kind. However, the Think Tank did observe that this might lead to the development of nuclear weapons by other regional states such as Saudi Arabia, etc. which might lead to its own ramifications. However for the time being the Think Tank did not foresee a way to prevent the inevitable conflict between Israel, Iran and possibly other regional powers. Chiefly because of the fact that most of the Middle Eastern population remains inherently opposed to Israel and to prevent any consequences of such Israel will be forced to remain on the verge of conflict inside the region.

-United Words Team in collaboration with AC Think Tank-

Tell us what you think!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s