Foreign Powers Should Not Intervene in Syria's Civil War

I am going to focus my debate around four key points that I believe will make it tough to argue for foreign intervention. 1. National SovereigntyA very key factor in our global system is the idea of national sovereignty, or that countries have a right to govern themselves within their recognized borders without interference from outside forces. If we look at the Syrian conflict from the perspective of someone merely concerned with national sovereignty we see that there is no right for any foreign power to intervene here in this conflict. What we see is two sides, a government entrenched and defending itself and an unhappy population trying to rebel and establish their own government. This is clearly a Syrian problem. Assad obviously has supporters and a means to fight and so do the rebels or else there would be no conflict at all. So what foreign organization has the gall to say that they have a right to intervene? This is a struggle between people and we have no right to pick sides.Some people will argue that there are certain situations where national sovereignty should be violated usually in the battle cry of human rights. But I will go on to show how this situation is not one of those cases and how national sovereignty should be respected in this instance at all times.2. Human Rights and Picking Sides First of all, this conflict is not an issue of human rights. There is no widespread removal of people's rights going on, unless you want to affirm that all people have a right not to be at war (but that is a separate debate). These people are stuck in the middle of a conflict but we have no right to intervene in said conflict. No rights are being violated. The only (hesitant) right that might be in jeopardy is the right for civilians not to be targeted during wartime. But the firmness of this right and the organizations that uphold it are in question here. The conflict itself, has no right to be touched. If you intervene in an inherently political conflict you would have to pick a side to win in order to stop the killing. But picking a political winner in the name of stopping death sounds silly at best and dangerous at worst. So one cannot use human rights as a rallying cry for intervention in this case, it just doesn't work.Secondly, say even if we do claim that a civilian's right not to be targeted during wartime is being violated, both sides are violating the right. So how do we pick sides? Do we say that one side has done less of the violating than the other and in the process support a group that violated human rights? Or do we stay out of it?With national sovereignty at the forefront, a group would have to have a very compelling argument to violate said sovereignty but if we look at the two sides of the Syrian conflict there is none. Both the rebels and the Assad regime have been accused of and verified of using chemical weapons against each other. [1][2] The rebels have been accused of associating with terror groups, being anti-Christian and targeting civilians. [3] Looking at this debate using the upheld norm of national sovereignty while stripping away political bias such as the US's foolish habit of jumping at the sound of the word "freedom" no matter who utters it and Russia's oil-ally in Assad we see a conflict in which both sides are accused of violating UN charters, human rights and perceived wartime norms. In order to intervene in the war, you have to pick sides but I see no grounds for anyone to pick sides. National sovereignty must be respected.3. Stability, Freedom and UnpredictabilityLet's look at the other major point that one could argue in favor of intervention: promoting stability or promoting freedom. Again, I would argue that neither of these things are powerful enough to outweigh national sovereignty but lets humor them nevertheless. First of all, I want to point out that we do not have the ability to see the future. As many students of history will be apt to point out, intervention in conflicts by powers usually does not have the intended consequences. We have no way of seeing if our actions will actually produce good. We can only speculate. Intervening in a conflict actually undermines stability. Say we let the Syrian civil war play out to its own ends. The side that has the most means to win and will to fight will naturally emerge victorious and are therefore assumed to have been in a stronger position. Thus the stronger position will reassume control of the country and will be the most stable. If we intervene however, and promote a group that does not have the means and capability to win and govern a nation then we will create less stability than would have occurred naturally and could very easily lead to instability. If we look at Libya, we put a group in very ill equipped to lead a country and now the capitol is being run by militias. [4] Same thing with freedom. Without foreknowledge of an event's certainty we cannot in good faith promote freedom because we don't know if promoting freedom will even create freedom. Take Egypt for an example, the US provided moral support and information to the uprising to promote "freedom" but now the country has ousted its democratically elected president (who was accused of hoarding power) in favor of a military technocracy. Was freedom promoted? Will it stick? We don't know and if it doesn't stick we intervened for nothing.This example can be applied to Syria, if freedom or stability do not come to fruition we violated, killed and intervened for nothing which should then be considered a tragedy. 4. Intervention in WarMy last point is relatively simple, in order to intervene in war one must usually use force. Given the aforementioned points I see no right for a foreign power to use force to kill or destroy anything on either side. Neither side has a moral high ground and intervening might not bring about the desired results. By adding more war into a war, we run the risk or prolonging the conflict (by denying one side a victory) or racking up casualties to ensure a victory for a chosen side. There are no grounds to do either of these things as I have shown. In ConclusionThere is nothing here to give any organization the right to breach national sovereignty in this case. Both sides have committed wrongs and intervention might not even bring about the desired result. It is best to let this conflict run it's natural course as that will protect Syrian sovereignty and allow the dominant and more stable side to win. Muddying the waters in this situation has no strong perceived benefit and therefore cannot override national sovereignty. Thank you.[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [3] http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [4] http://www.foxnews.com...