Syrian Refugee Crisis Analysis

Severe human rights violations that demand international attention are typically perpetrated by the government presiding over the region in which these atrocities are committed. In order to address these infringements effectively and thoroughly, structural changes are necessary, which can only be achieved through some form of military intervention. In “The Syrian Refugee Crisis,” by Nicole Ostrand, she asserts that more countries need to offer support for Syrian refugees in order to protect them and ensure that the financial costs involved are dispersed equally among states. Although providing shelter is admirable and effective in protecting some refugees, these efforts alone do not combat the underlying causes of the human rights violations

David Rieffʻs argument for larger states to establish an extended presence in countries struggling through human rights violations in order to stabilize those societies may be the most feasible and effective approach for humanitarian efforts. This framework that David Rieff proposes indicates that military intervention intended to initiate structural change is both an effective and thorough method, while also demonstrating that any form of military intervention is an indispensable component for successful humanitarian endeavors. According to Nicole Ostrand in the article “The Syrian Refugee Crisis,” Syrian refugees are in need of shelter in wealthier countries because the countries they are currently placed in are not financially capable of providing them sufficient protection and support. In the article, Ostrand states that Sweden, the United Kingdom, the United State, and Germany have all agreed to host more refugees in 2015 than they have in previous years, yet she argues that their efforts alone are inadequate for improving the conditions of these refugees (Ostrand, 268). Throughout the article, Ostrand argues that more countries need to become involved in these Syrian refugee relocation efforts in order to ensure that the

Lamy states that during this time, there was a general shift in public opinion and state policy that valued humanitarian efforts over domestic security (Lamy, 322). While discussing this transition, Lamy also mentions that military intervention pursued by Western states throughout history have been unsuccessful due to the individualistic intentions that thwarted these efforts. One example that Lamy references is the French involvement in Rwanda in 1994, in which the government projected their military intervention as humanitarian efforts, yet demonstrated its motives of revitalizing their authority in Africa. According to Lamy, the French government did not intervene in Rwanda until the genocide towards the Tutsis was coming to an end due to their concern that the success of the Tutsi-led Rwandan Patriotic Front could have diminished their influence (Lamy, 324). Consequently, the French intervention prevented the death of a fragment of the targeted population, yet was insufficient in deterring the genocide that killed hundreds of thousands of them. Lamy then argues that military intervention becomes ineffective when the internal interests of the intervening state surpasses the intention of providing humanitarian relief (Lamy, 324). Although this is a thorough and accurate evaluation of the