Introduction
The time has come for all parties – national, regional and international to take credible steps toward a mutually beneficial resolution to the Syrian crisis. The war between Bashar al-Assad’s administration and the rebels has reached an impasse. Neither side has been able to deliver a decision blow and the record on resolving civil wars is clear – until external actors reach some sort form of accommodation, they will continue to fund and arm their proxies, and the war will continue indefinitely. Hence, the UN calls upon the United States of America and the Russian Federation to exercise their influence in the region, cease “destructive competition” and collectively pursue a solution to this crisis consistent with the Geneva Communiqué agreed to and issued on 30th June 2012.
The UN recognizes that the current dispute over Ukraine is likely to take precedence in diplomatic efforts of the United States and Russia. However, in light of the massive number of casualties (150, 000 lives, more than a third civilians from both sides of the conflict, including upwards of 7,000 children and 5,000 women) and ever worsening humanitarian and military crisis, the UN hopes both Russia and US recognize that it is imperative to resolve the Syrian crisis and view these two incidents in separate vacuums.
NEGOTIATION AND PRACTICAL STEPS
As permanent members of the UN Security Council with veto powers, Russia and United States wield political power through the threat of enforcement measures (Chapter VII of the Charter). Russia and the United States must use this enforcement capability to craft a compromise that restores peace to Syria.
In addition to threats of sanctions, Russia and the United States must utilize their influence in ...
... middle of paper ...
...lition – elements that have links to anti Russian Islamists.
Russian Role in Iran
Like Saudi Arabia, Iran does not have the capacity to win a long proxy war in Syria. Russia should pressure Iran to search for a political instead of a military solution to the Syrian conflict. Such a settlement could bring peace to Syria while still protecting Iranian core interests – ensuring its connecting with Hezbollah and Lebanon while staving off Western control of Damascus.
The Way Forward
Civil war history has shown that in conflict resolution, nothing is possible without genuine compromise from all players. The stalemate means that all players must shift – the Syrian government, the rebel alliance, regional powers such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, as well as international powers such as the United States and Russia. For the sake of the Syrian people and combating al-Qaeda,
SUMMARY: The Syrian Civil War between the Syrian government, and the insurgents, as well as the Free Syrian Army has been escalating since early 2011. The United States, and our allies have faced difficulty in sending aid to Syria, and continue to deal with obstacles in sending even basic medications to Syrian civilians. However, the United States and its allies have also contributed to the lack of organization and the disparity in Syria by sending aid and artillery to individuals based only on political connection, and ignoring organization, local alliances, and without a true understanding of the reality of the Syrian localities to best protect the Syrian protestors. The question addressed in this memo will be defining the viable options to be pursued in Syria, how to pursue them, and assessing the most beneficial path of least resistance when offering aid, funds, and artillery to specific groups in the country. The recommendation will be that although the best alternative action item would be to choose a Syrian group with the least oppositional values comparative to the United States to fund, supply with arms, and train; that the United States should do nothing for the time being. Given the physical and financial risk involved with the Syrian Civil War, it would be prudent for the United States to simply observe how the war progresses over the next several months, as well as complete some research to truly understand the state of affairs in local areas of Syria to determine the extent to which the United States could identify a group to provide aid to, as well as the extent to which the United States involvement would be within Syria.
In order for a state to be allowed intervention into a conflict on the international sphere, they must first gain approval from all the members of the United Nations Security Council. Through this it is assumed that the reasoning for intervening are assessed, and legitimate. It should be noted however that This however has been proven to be a cumbersome mechanism to adhere to the right authority aspect as permission has never been granted by the UN Security Council to intervene in the conflict of a sovereign nation. The international community is largely hesitant to label a conflict a ‘humanitarian conflict’ as this would imply the necessity of international intervention.
The Syrian fate in the next few months and maybe years will be in the hands of big powers like U.S. and Russia that have yet to decide on a peaceful attempt that can, not end the war, but give the Syrian people who primarily need extensive humanitarian and economic assistance, a ray of hope, “as the longer battle begins to build a viable and democratic post-Assad Syria at peace with the region and the world.” (Boot, 2012)
For the past several months the United Nations’ Security Council has debated on whether or not to accept the U.S. proposal to force Iraq to comply the new and former resolutions. The new resolution calls for complete disarmament of Iraq and the re-entrance of weapons inspectors into Iraq. If Iraq fails to comply, then military force would be taken in order to disarm Iraq. This proposal met opposition from council members Russia, China, and France. They thought that the U.S. proposal was too aggressive and that the U.S. should not act alone without U.N. approval. For weeks they refused to believe that the only way to make Iraq disarm is through the threat of force and the fear of being wiped out.
An attack on the Syrian state would fall within the boundaries of the international concept of the responsibility to protect. The crisis in Syria has escalated by protests in March 2011 calling for the release of all political prisoners. National security forces responded to widespread peaceful demonstrations with the use of brutal violence. The Syrian President Bashar al-Assad refused to stop attacks and allow for implementation of the reforms requested by the demonstrators. By July 2011, firsthand accounts emerged from witnesses, victims, and the media that government forces had subjected innocent civilians to detention, torture, and the use of heavy weaponry. The Syrian people were also subjected to the Shabiha, a largely armed state sponsored militia fighting with security forces. Al-Assad continually denied responsibility to these crimes and placed blame on the armed groups and terrorists for these actions.
Some say the U.S. should not intervene in Syria, because it is not the U.S.’s concern. However, since 1890 to 2014, the U.S. has roughly intervened in 133 countries. In addition, the United States has already used military intervention once in Syria, in 2008. Most of America’s interventions were carried out in the name of freedom and democracy. Freedom and Democracy is what the Syrian Civil War,
While the term “civil war” seems to be the “preferred term for the ongoing violence in Syria” (Keating, Would You Know a Civil War When You Saw One?), it is evident that the war has seeped out of Syria’s borders as other countries have attempted to intervene. Herbert Wulf writes in his essay, The bumpy road to re-establish a monopoly of violence, that “A characteristic of recent wars is a disruption or loss of the state monopoly of violence, as it can neither be adequately exercised nor can the rule of law be maintained” (Wulf). As much as the violence seems to be contained w...
The Syrian Civil War is a good example of world leaders playing by the rules of realism. The civil war began in March of 2011 as part of the Arab Spring, and by July of 2012 17,000 have died and another 170,000 fled the country (Almond). The United Nations Security Council in February of 2012 had tried t...
Since March 2011, Syria had no longer experienced a situation called peace and harmony. Syrian’s daily life is filled with the events of killing, bombing and torturing of their brothers and sisters. This unresolved conflict began with a revolution to against the government for brook the promise to have betterment in political system (citation). However the government had responded by harsh action. Starting from this point, Syria had slide into Civil War. Based on the brief description about situation in Syria, I strongly believe that the best International Relation theory to describe this situation is constructivism. This is because the Civil War in Syria is socially constructed by some factors which will be discussed deeply in the next paragraph. In this essay, I will emphasize on the two factors that lead to Syria Civil War which are identity conflict in a state and the absence of shared norms of sovereignty; and provide a solution from constructivism perspective which is diplomacy negotiation and limitation to it.
The situation in Syria is not only about the Syrian population now but has become a political arena for the International community. This war has had certain number of negative implications such as the tensions among the West with Russia and China. In a United Nations Security Council meet Russia and China vetoed against a western drafted draft that would allow for a military intervention in Syria if continued military action against protestors. A certain number of cases indicating the use of chemical weapons have been reported. Both the sides have accused each other for the attacks. Four of these attacks have been confirmed with the use of Sarin gas.
Throughout its history the United Nations has sought to preserve fundamental human rights as well as promote social progress and better the standards of life throughout every corner of the world. UN peacekeeping operations are deployed with the consent of the main parties to the conflict. This requires a commitment by the parties to a political process. Their acceptance of a peacekeeping operation provides the UN with the necessary freedom of action, both political and physical, to carry out its mandated tasks. In the absence of such consent, a peacekeeping operation risks becoming a party to the conflict; and being drawn towards enforcement action, and away from its fundamental role of keeping the peace. The fact that the main parties have given their consent to the deployment of a United Nations peacekeeping operation does not necessarily imply or guarantee that there will also be consent at the local level, particularly if the main parties are internally divided or have weak command and control systems. Universality of consent becomes even less probable in volatile settings, characterized by the presence of armed groups not under the control of any of the parties, or by the presence of other
Still inside Syria, there are 7.6 million displaced by the chaos. These last, mainly Sunni Syrians, are especially vulnerable now that Russia, the main ally of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad after Shia Iran, has stormed into Syria and targeted most of its air strikes on non-Isis rebels caught between the regime and the jihadis’ so-called Islamic State. Walid Jumblatt, Lebanese leader, says most of these internal refugees will be permanently displaced, as the war fractures Syria on ethno-sectarian demographic lines. Jumblatt says, “The 7-8 million displaced will never be able to return to their homes and villages”. “They have been ethnically cleansed.” (CNN) Asylum seekers and refugees are running out of places to flee. Many could swell the Syrian migration just as aid turns against refugees. Still others could be driven to seek refuge with Isis, in its self-declared caliphate. This requires a political solution. Without a resolution, the refugee numbers expand and the duration of exile lengthens. The hope withers and refugees become frantic. At the same time, a gradual disproportionate weight arises to many developing countries that continue to host the majority of the world’s refugees. A solution to alleviate the burden on less developed host countries is for more developed nations to take some of the most vulnerable
The conflict in Syria shows how fragile an independent state can be, even though the Syrian state has been established since World War I. Syria has proven that if people witness social injustice, they will speak out about it and the way the government retaliates can set the course for a peaceful solution or civil warfare. The dynamic of a state is delicate and once one peg falls, the rest have the ability to fall too, sending the sovereign state into a state of corruption and allowing for continual violations against basic civil liberties, much like in
In February 2014, the international community witnessed a turn for the worse in the Ukrainian political crisis. Protests in Kiev turned violent and deadly and President Viktor Yanukovych was impeached merely hours after fleeing the country. While Ukraine’s parliament sought a new speaker and formed an interim government, rallies in the disputed territory Crimea quickly gained momentum. Ukraine is on the brink of its law and order completely breaking down, and the United Nations and other world powers are unsure of how to react or handle the situation (Al Jazeera, 2014).
Security Council. United States dominance has only brought bloodshed and chaos in many parts of the world. He criticized United States by saying, ‘We all know that after the end of the Cold War — everyone is aware of that — a single center of domination emerged in the world, and then those who found themselves at the top of the pyramid were tempted to think that if they were strong and exceptional, they knew better and they did not have to reckon with the U.N.’ He also stated that United States failed to learn lessons from the Soviet Union which collapsed because of exporting its ideological preferences to other countries. In the same way United States, pushes it theory of democracy in the form of revolution to many countries in the Middle East and North Africa mentioning about Iraq and Libya. The American initiated democracy in those regions only brought destruction and chaos in the country. It was an utter failure. Only violence, poverty and social disaster prevail in those regions. He squarely asked the listeners ‘who have caused the situation? Do you realize now what you've done? But I am afraid no one is going to answer