The Conflict in Syria and The Consequences of War

Summary of Arguments

An Islamic state is a militia group responsible for the loss of lives and start of various wars in the Middle East. The propaganda and speculation on who is to blame for the horrors of the nations involved are invalid; rather the question of what should be done has taken center stage. The militia is inspired by medieval beliefs and political aspirations in Syria that are ravaged by war. The effect has come down to destroy cultures which have been present for generations. As witnessed in the destruction of ancient statues by the team members, the world had an option to stand by and watch whatever was to happen. The western nations decided to speak in a bid to protect the artifact. The same case had happened before and as witnessed when the Taliban militia descended upon the Bamiyan Buddhas, an aspect that fueled worldwide uproar, where most calls for the west to preserve the artifacts were made. Contrary to the past actions, the process in Syria is more complicated, with knowing which step to take becoming more of a pain that it should be. Doing nothing or doing something is considered a crime, hence whichever side one chooses, they will be blamed nevertheless. The crisis in Syria is just a demonstration of what war does to any nation and culture. Taking the example of the reign of Adolf Hitler, the artwork that was destroyed during the world wars is massive, and chances of the same case being applied in Syria are a possibility.[1]

To start with, those proposing for the movement of the artifacts hold to the fact that looting is ongoing in the region.[2] The robbery is as a result of the proximity of museums and archaeological sites to the war zone. Whether it is Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan or Egypt, the results of the war always led to museums being plundered by individuals. Syria has been a site for exhibition for years now. To start with, Syria's battle to defend its past presentation took place in November 2016, followed by the Aleppo is our destination Exhibition held in 2016. It is just a small fact of the endeavor the artists have placed in ensuring the success in promoting the culture. According to westerners, all this art should not be stolen or destroyed just because the nation is at war. Preferably, they should be preserved, it does not matter whether it is in another country or not. The claims are well justified and rarely can one argue against them. Archaeologists are like leaders in various fields and it is upon them to notify the world whenever something is wrong, especially when people’s culture is being destroyed. Equally, where one came from matters as it gives them an identity, thus protecting the future generation identity.

Another reason for rescuing the artifacts and transporting them to the west is lack of a legal and working government.[3] During a crisis, rarely does the government consider trivial aspects such as art, as they believe there are far more important issues to be handled. In that belief, any offer that concerns art however outrageous it may be, should be implemented. To citizens, this is a chance for them get somewhere else away from the war front. The sellers of the artifacts belief they are doing justice to the individuals who give them funds however, they can be better prepared to move out. Basic needs are an essential no matter where one is, and according to purchasers, they are giving people a means to survive. This reason is justified by considering the fact that the artifacts will be destroyed, so why not give them away before they are destroyed?

Another reason cited for moving the artifacts is the lack of appreciation to the archaeological findings. Common knowledge asserts to the fact that a prophet is never accepted in their hometown, the same case applies to artwork. While a peaceful nation is home to development of culture, a war-torn state is different such that, only outsiders see the beauty in their artwork. As witnessed from the incident, the people concerned with buying the artifacts are from foreign nations, not Syria as a nation. Due to the war, most have panicked; any piece of artwork is junk that will only cost them their lives should they try to carry it. To the Syrians, it is understandable; after all, survival is necessary. To the westerners, they are right too; they are just taking what is not considered worth from one place to where it is deemed to be valuable, an aspect that justifies their actions.

As witnessed from the unrest in Greece, one never knows where calamity may come from is another reason buyers use to justify their actions.[4] The Middle East has been warring for centuries now with no end in sight. One moment, it is Iraq, the next, Afghanistan, next Libya naming just a few, which serves to put a dent in the belief that the political upheavals will settle down. Instead, buyers have used this as a reason to take and retain the artifacts. Rarely does a year pass without hearing cases of a war starting out in the Middle East. While Syria had Monumental Neo-Assyrian palace destroyed, a similar act would never be possible in a nation like Britain as witnessed by the presence of the same gate in the British Museum. As most individuals hold, why put back something one is sure will be destroyed?

Anticipation and Rebuts

To start with, one may argue that this is cultural imperialism instead of culture internationalism.[5] Being safe is one thing and being accessible is another one. It is where another individual other than those on the ground being decided an act without consulting them. This case is analogous to the colonization of Africa, where European nations had a meeting in Germany discussing on how to divide the continent without the owner's knowledge. To start with, the assumption is that Syrians are weak and cannot afford to protect their artifacts. Hence, some wealthy individual should do it for them. To make matters worse, the objects are mostly bought by private collectors, making it a certainty that the work will disappear from the public for a very long time. If that is the case, what is the difference between its destruction and being hidden away by a foreigner? Furthermore, who gets to decide what is to be taken and what is to be left in cases of artifacts? Just because one is powerful does not mean they ought to make something a particular community considers precious.

Another reason for the move is the preference of culture to people. The world is more concerned about the artifacts. Thus, people dying in the course of delivery does not sound as a big deal. Furthermore, replacement is more natural. Questions of when society lost its ways serve to elaborate this position. While communism has been asserted to be nonessential, capitalizing on the extreme has individuals benefiting at the expense of others. No one should be against individuals willing to sacrifice their lives for a piece of art as it is a personal decision. On the other hand, no one should sacrifice others for a bit of creativity they are unwilling to protect. As witnessed in Cairo Egypt when a young protester secured a perimeter around the Cairo museum. However this was done on his own volition, taking artwork from the Syrians and leaving them to die is an aspect of inhumanity.[6]

The black market does stand to gain, especially when one's judgments are clouded. The position does not matter whether one is for or against supply and demand. Instead, the antiquities revenue is being used by terrorist organizations for sustenance. As claimed by different reports, a funding strategy used by ISIS is the sale of antiquities, which is to be expected considering the bitcoin aspect makes it almost impossible to track the movement of the cash. While abandoning Syrian individuals can be termed in a mild sense not one’s problem, what happens when the terrorists attack the nations one lives in. Recent reports and experiences have witnessed attacks in France, Britain, and Turkey to name only a few. One moment, you are happy as you are in possession of a famous artifact, the next minute, the media is reporting about a terrorist attack on the nation. Common sense asserts that to win a fight against an enemy, cutting off resources is one sure way of doing so.[7] However, when the government cuts off supplies, private individuals and institutions rush in to fund the militia in the pretext of acquiring antiquity, which brings the question, who is the bigger fool?

Personal Position

I am against the idea of not collecting artifacts, after all, that is how life and cultural knowledge has been spread all over the world. I am for the option of taking the artifacts out of Syria considering the downsides outweigh the upsides. However, the objects made should also find their way back to the places they were taken from. Instead of focusing on a life of taking everything one lays eyes on, one should focus on building relationships whether through international ties, loans or agreements. The emphasis lies on a people's culture and that future generations have a right to know what happened in the past including how the actions of their predecessor led to the loss or preservation of their religion. Hence, one may think, by using their cultures. The case is different as the younger generation will not see the kind intentions aimed at preservation of the customs. Instead, they will see a monster that came and destroyed their homeland, and the cycle of hatred will only keep increasing. So, in the name of a peaceful generation in future, I do advocate for taking the artifacts for temporary keeping. However, they should be returned as soon as the country is stable again. One has to have faith that such incidences will not keep happening.