At the moment Syria is unstable and in the midst of a civil war. It all started a little over two years ago when a group of high school students wrote anti-government words on the walls at school. Ever since then the protests have gotten more and more violent, which has now turned into an all out civil war. A few days ago the current Syrian regime al-Assad used chemical weapons on a civilian suburb outside of Damascus. This has gotten the international community in an uproar, and contemplating on whether or not to intervene. Some but not all participants at the United Nations Advisory Council seemed to have a good grasp about the ongoing situation. The members were split almost 50/50 between getting involved or not getting involved.
The first resolution that they discussed was intervening with UN Peacekeeping troops with the goal of putting a stop to the current civil war and holding democratic elections. Some of the cons that were mentioned was that Russia and Iran are allied with the al-Assad regime and will attack Israel if something was to happen. Most of the comments made on this topic was aligned with that statement. The issue I must raise with their discussion is that Russia is a superpower, meaning they have the ability to veto a UN resolution. So UN Peacekeepers would never be able to be deployed and go to Syria unless Russia had approved of it. If Russia for some reason did approve of this action then there wouldn't be a problem with Israel. But Russia is allied with Syria so it will most likely veto all resolutions put forth by the United Nations. The veto will prevent the intervention of UN Peacekeepers in Syria, so this event would take place. Since no participant brought this point up it makes me question their preparation on the UN discussion.
Another resolution discussed amongst the group was, threaten the current regime with a drone strike and if they do not allow a UN Inspectors into Syria to inspect all weapons stores and seize and destroy chemical weapons. A pro of this resolution that was agreed upon by everyone is that it will be a lot safer than sending in troops and that overall it is a good idea. But the issue still stand that Russia and Iran are supporting Syria and that stops the UN from sanctioning this, meaning the US would have to do it by themselves. If the US acts alone then Russia might attack Israel because they are a close ally to the US in the Middle East.
The next resolution discussed, is the use of economic sanctions against Syria for the regime's use of chemical weapons, and provide humanitarian aid and UN volunteer to the countries receiving refugees from Syria and establish no-conflict zones inside Syria. The participates agreed upon the fact that "no-conflict zones" would be great for everyone but no one knows if the zones will be respected by the government. Al-Assad's regime might attack the zones anyways, we know that its a possibility because they used chemical weapons on civilians. So what is there to stop them from attacking and killing people in the no-conflict zones. Also if there are economic sanctions against Syria then the government might lash out more against their citizens and begin to raid houses and take what they want. Not to mention economic sanctions not only effect the Syrian government but also it people and economy. The participants came to that conclusion and it was clear this is not a viable option.
The last resolution discussed was issuing a diplomatic statement condemning the use of chemical weapons and stating that the UN will take no action against individual countries who take military or diplomatic action against Syria. The grouped discusses the results of military involvement, which included that there will be more violence and more people with die. They also stated that Vladimir Putin is open to military involvement but is not confident in Obama after the events that occurred in Libya. I am surprised to see that against no one brought up the point that Russia would never allow this statement to pass because they are allied with Syria. Of course if Russia does decide to pass then that would mean Putin has come to the conclusion that foreign involvement is necessary. If that was the case, then instead of passing a statement that allowed other countries to act alone with out repercussions, it would make more sense to pass a resolution involving the UN. One of the participant said that if one country gets involved then it alone will have to face the challenges that come along with it and the burden falls upon them. Plus, it will take more time to end the civil war. So it would make more sense to pass a resolution for the United Nations to get involved together and end the civil war faster.
Overall I think the discussion went well, but people did miss some facts that I would have liked to seen be brought up. When they discussed they focused on one issue at a time, where as for this kind of international issue one thing leads to another, so they had to think a few step ahead. But I believe that by the end they all had a new and more detailed view and opinion on what is taking place in Syria.
No comments:
Post a Comment