(Note: This story was written by Kevin Costello ’16, a student intern with the Peace and Conflict Studies Program)
One of the most valuable components of the student experience at Colgate is the direct access that undergraduates enjoy to leading experts and thinkers in academia. This is especially important in the complex and often bitterly partisan world of international conflicts. The Peace and Conflict Studies (PCON) program at Colgate has been successful in utilizing this connection to further student understanding about the complications of geopolitics in the context of human conflict.
The most recent example of this connection took place Thursday, September 12, when students packed into the Ho auditorium for a panel on the recent developments in Syria, co-sponsored by the Middle Eastern Studies and Islamic Civilization (MIST) Program and the PCON program.
The panel was moderated by Professor Andy Rotter (PCON/History) and consisted of Professors Noor Khan (History/MIST), Bruce Rutherford (Political Science/MIST), Dan Monk (PCON/Geography), and Tim Byrnes (Political Science). Bearing in mind the use of chemical weapons against Syrian citizens on August 21st, the plethora of rebel groups already active in Syria, and the Russia-Syria relations, the panel’s discussion was centered primarily around if and how the United States should intervene. The four professors, each with his or her area of expertise, were able to provide different perspectives, which eventually led to some interesting dialogue and student questions.
Professor Khan, an expert on Middle Eastern history, provided information about the history of civil war in Syria, Syrian cultural and religious demographics, ideological factions amongst rebel groups, and the political and social history of the al-Assad family. Amongst Professor Kahn’s contributions was skepticism of President Bashar al-Assad’s actual power in the administration; she expressed doubt as to whether al-Assad is personally responsible for the chemical attacks used against the Syrian people.
Professor Rutherford weighed the potential arguments for and against intervening in Syria, citing both America’s responsibility to act when the international community either can or will not, as well as the notion that the U.S. will be perceived as unfairly intervening in a complicated, internal conflict as valid arguments. He also posed the importance of upholding international law as a possible reason for intervention.
Professor Monk was perhaps the most convinced that intervention was necessary. He cited U.S. hegemony, deterrence, and humanitarianism as reasons for the United States to intervene. He also argued that because Iraq has historically functioned as a buffer for Syria, the U.S. has an obligation to act, since it bears some responsibility for Iraq’s inability to do so now.
Professor Byrnes examined the predicament in a legal context, accusing both President Obama and Russian President Putin of touting international law only in instances of self-interest. He also spoke about the constitutional irony of President Obama’s decision to consult Congress in the matter, given his past expansions of executive power in the context of drone strikes and the assassination of American citizens.
Anna Proios, Class of 2016, perhaps summed up the panel’s effectiveness best. “I love that whenever a major event surfaces, Colgate is so quick to put together a panel to better educate students on the topic,” Proios said. “With such easy access to these established scholars, you can really see a more energized student body.”