Kryachkov 2!indd

189
Английский язык для магистратуры
M
ight Makes Right?
world. Many Muslims disagree with American values as well as American policies, but that does 
not mean that they agree with bin Laden. The United States and its allies cannot __________ (7) 
Islamist terrorism if the number of people the extremists are __________ (8) is larger than the 
number of extremists killed or deterred. Soft power is needed to reduce the extremists’ numbers 
and win the __________ (9) and minds of the mainstream.
The United States can become a smart power by once again investing in global public goods — 
providing things that people and governments in all quarters of the world want but cannot 
__________ (10) on their own. Achieving economic development, securing public health, coping 
with climate change, and maintaining an open, stable international economic system all require 
__________ (11) from the United States. By __________ (12) its military and economic might with 
greater investments in its soft power, the United States can rebuild the framework it needs to 
__________ (13) tough global challenges. That would be true smart power.
Ex. 32. 
a) Read the following article and identify its topic and thesis. 
b) Think of a possible title.
c) Comment on the ideas of the article.
Over 1,300 Syrian civilians were killed in chemical weapons attacks, in what U.S. Secretary of 
State John Kerry called a “moral obscenity”: “What we saw in Syria last week should shock the con-
science of the world. It defies any code of morality… “
Syria’s deliberate targeting of noncombatants violates international law, as well as ancient mor-
al codes about the use of force, known as Just War tradition (JWT). But would U.S. military strikes 
on Syria is considering, constitute a just response?
St. Thomas Aquinas never imagined a world in which chemicals could kill thousands of people 
in a breath, but these old moral codes can still provide guidance in modern warfare. JWT is a 
centuries-old guide to thinking about when and how it can ever by morally justifiable to violate 
the commandment “Thou shalt not kill.” JWT holds that even during warfare we are still capable of 
moral behavior, and still obligated to protect human life and dignity. JWT stakes out the middle 
ground between realpolitik, which always allows war, and pacifism, which never allows war.
Before entering combat there must be a just cause such as self-defense and the protection of 
human life. Certainly the Syrians have the right to use force to defend themselves against the mili-
tary attacks of the Assad regime. But do external actors such as the U.S., Britain, and others, have a 
just cause to militarily intervene to protect Syrians from their own brutal government?
Beyond just cause, a whole package of JWT moral criteria must also be met. Only a right, public 
authority can enter into war, guided by the right intention of protecting peace and the common 
good. Force can only be used as a last resort, when success is possible, and the harms of war will 
not outweigh the reasons for going to war. During war, force must be discriminate and propor-
tional. Civilians must be protected, not targeted. In discussing potential limited military targets, 
the Obama Administration shows attention to proportionality and discrimination.
The Syrian case is hard because it hits JWT on its growing edge, humanitarian intervention and 
the Responsibility to Protect (or “R2P”). Some just war thinkers propose that expanding just cause 
to include protection of civilians in humanitarian interventions should correspond with restricting 
right authority to only a right, public international authority such as the United Nations, not a de-
cision made unilaterally by a single state alone. The Responsibility to Protect takes this approach. 

---

Д. А. Крячков
UNIT VI
R2P is a new international security and human rights norm, adopted in 2005, to address the in-
ternational community’s failures to prevent and stop genocides, war crimes, and crimes against 
humanity. R2P notes that the state has the primary responsibility for protecting its own civilians 
from atrocities. But if a state is unable or unwilling to protect its citizens, as when the Assad re-
gime perpetrates war crimes and crimes against humanity against its own citizens, then the in-
ternational community has a responsibility to protect endangered civilians. R2P and JWT both 
prescribe non-military means be used first. But if peaceful humanitarian and diplomatic means 
fail, the international community must be prepared to use collective force authorized by the UN 
Security Council. Stipulating an international right authority is good in theory, to restrict states 
from defining military interventions as “humanitarian” that were more self-serving in nature. But 
restricting right authority to the UN Security Council raises the bar for intervention in a way that is 
difficult to reach. In practice it means only civilians in diplomatically isolated or pariah states could 
effectively claim a UN right to protection. For Syrians it makes international authorization near im-
possible, as Russia promises to veto any UN Security Council motion for intervening in its ally, Syria.
Probability of success and comparative justice (the idea that more good than harm will come 
of intervention) are the hardest Just War criteria to meet in the Syrian case. According to Former 
Ambassador Ryan Crocker as well as General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
any military intervention may fail. President Assad is fighting for his life, literally, so he will fight no 
matter what the U.S. does, using every tool at his disposal. U.S. military intervention could make 
matters worse, according to General Dempsey. “We could inadvertently empower extremists or 
unleash the very chemical weapons we seek to control.”
Just War Tradition attempts to limit war, but here lies the problem. Limiting war, however laud-
able and needed in Syria, is not the same as building peace. The U.S. has made this mistake before. 
In both Afghanistan and Iraq, the Bush administration invaded with little attention beforehand to 
the most basic aspects of how they would build peace after invading. Today, the Obama admin-
istration attends to the tactics of war, but not the strategies of peace. They weigh tactical, opera-
tional questions of military logistics, basing, and targeting, the how-to of military destruction. But 
what sort of peace do we seek in Syria? If a U.S. military intervention helped topple Assad, who 
would govern the country and how? Too often the U.S. engages in military magical thinking. Yet 
the overwhelming predominance of the U.S. military power to destroy does not carry with it some 
magical power to easily create new political orders and institutions. Peace must be built, with time, 
trust, and societal participation, as described in emerging Just Peace moral criteria. JWT must be 
married to these just peace criteria. Syria shows how much we need an expanded toolbox for 
building just peace.
(Based on a post by Maryann Cusimano Love at www.huffingtonpost.com)

---