The massacres in Syria shame the United Nations

11 June 2012

Anthony Tucker-Jones argues Russia and China's stance over Syria has rendered the UN completely impotent

The international community is flailing around like a beached whale as Syria continues to drift inexorably towards all-out civil war.

Following the recent civilian massacres at Qubair and Houla, Kofi Annan's UN-sponsored six-point peace plan lies in tatters. His 300-strong UN monitoring mission is powerless to stop the killings in Syria.

The monitors took 36 hours to get into Qubair near Hama where they saw what appeared to be tank or armoured personnel tracks. Some 78 villagers were butchered there on 6 June, while 108 were killed in Houla near Homs at the end of last month. President Assad's regime blames the massacres on 'terrorists,' yet eye witnesses state they were perpetrated by the Syrian Army and the hated government-backed militia known as the Shabiha.

Tragically these attacks are nothing new. Last April in the town of Taftanaz the Syrian Army killed 56 people, 39 of them from the same family.

While Britain and America may secretly want to walk away from the Annan plan they do not want to be castigated for failing to give peace a chance. Annan is now proposing an international contact group to comprise the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and regional powers such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia, but not Iran. Quite frankly it is hard to envisage this as little more than another talking shop.

The rebel Free Syria Army is critical of the support they have received from the outside world, saying it has been just enough to keep them fighting. They fear keeping Assad weak is viewed as better than replacing him.

In reality the West has little leverage. A dozen nations have symbolically expelled their Syrian diplomats; a fat lot of good that does. Some are now arguing it is time for a Turkish-led NATO military intervention similar to that which helped unseat Colonel Gadaffi in Libya, but Russia has made it clear there will be no Security Council Resolution authorising outside intervention in Syria. Russia and China have the casting vote on this and they remain resolutely in favour of leaving Assad in place. While they were persuaded to exercise their veto over Libya, they will give a resounding 'no' to any outside meddling in Syria.

Russia's Putin makes no secret of his dislike for the West, and his country has no intention of abandoning its last Cold War Arab ally. While sanctions may or may not be biting, Moscow has extended Syria's line of credit to help it continue importing Russian arms, which are thought to amount to some $400m a year.

At the same time Damascus enjoys support from Tehran, having served as a long time weapons conduit for Hezbollah, Iran's proxy militia in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley.

Nonetheless the head of the Arab League has asked that the Security Council consider the violence in Syria as a threat to world peace and security under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. This is applicable, particularly when you consider violence has already spilled over in Lebanon and Turkey and threatens Iran, Iraq, Israel and Jordan. But how can NATO's military muscle bolster Annan's diplomacy without ultimately replacing it?

Optimism that Russia can be brought on board seems absurdly ill–founded. Should Putin now abandon Assad it would signal that Russia is purely a fair weather friend.

In the meantime parts of the city of Homs have come under artillery fire, proving the government never completely pacified the FSA. Fighting has also been reported in the Damascus suburb of Kfar Souseh, while demonstrators have once again taken to the streets in Aleppo and Deraa.

While the FSA remain ill-equipped, if there is one thing Assad's regime is not short of it is weapons - thanks to the Russians. If the international community does not act soon Assad will continue to preside over the bloody disintegration of his country and the deaths of innocent civilians.

HAVE YOUR SAY

11 June 2012

If the UN will not endorse military intervention in Syria, then the alternative is to do it in a way that is ostensibly not military intervention as such.
Following the example of Libya, the US and the UK could formally recognise the resistance movement in Syria as the legitimate government, or perhaps as an element of the legitimate government, and then take action to protect it and to promote a peaceful political transition from a regime which puts Russia's interests above the lives of the Syrian people, to one which does the opposite of that. "Peaceful" in this context is of course relative.
The Russians never seem to have much difficulty finding a suitable premise when they decide to take military action, whether it's in Afghanistan, Georgia or Chechnya.
In a moral sense, I would question whether the west can continue to tolerate the kind of scenes we're seeing in Syria now. I also don't think it's good for international relations generally for the UN to be seen to be discredited by events in this way.
J. Southworth - University of Hull

11 June 2012

The Syrians give Russia its only Mediterranean port which they are not going to risk with 'regime change'.

The Russians will support Assad indefinitely. The UN has always been susceptible to national self interest of its members in the UN SC which has always limited its value.
Graham - High Wycombe

13 June 2012

The problem faced by UN is whether the Free Syrian Army are native rebels trying to overthrow an oppressive govt, or radical muslim insurgents masquerading as freedom fighters. Personally, I am not too sure what they are.

Last thing UN wants to do is get rid of a legit (if very nasty) regime for one that will require military action to restore stability to the region because they turn out to be something other than 'rebels'.

One final aspect to note, is Syria borders Israel and the Russians will not want any US-backed expansion of Israel into Syria on the pre-text of regional stabilisation. Any military invention has to be Arab-led and Arab-manned.
AW Employee - Yeovil

29 June 2012

It's perhaps worth recalling how in 1991 and 2003, US intelligence went to great lengths to contact key figures in the Iraqi regime and military with a view to persuading them to come over, or failing that, at least dissuade them from using chemical weapons against coalition forces. Under the right conditions, and with the right technology, it's possible to take over the enemy's (or the potential enemy's) communications net and use it for your own purposes, while at the same time preventing their messages and orders from getting through where necessary.
It seems likely that any US or NATO intervention in Syria would have as a primary objective, the avoidance of armed conflict with Syrian forces where possible. The objective would be a political transition rather than the forcible overthrow of the present regime, or the destruction of the Syrian armed forces. I don't think anyone expects or wants to see a repetition on a larger scale of what happened in Libya. The memory of the Libyan intervention is actually a problem for the US and NATO in the present situation.
J. Southworth - University of Hull

19 July 2012

I think we have to ask why the Russian Government are supporting the Assad regime to the extent that they are, what their strategic objectives are in doing that, how this fits in with their other strategic goals.
One thing they would definitely like to do is to engineer a split within NATO, between the European NATO nations and the US. That would obviously have the effect of enhancing their influence in Eastern Europe. And it may be that they regard the situation in the Middle East as the potential means of doing that. If so, that would help to explain quite a lot; the well organised and clearly well financed political agitation against Israel by organisations like the Stop The War Coalition and the Socialist Worker Party in the UK, for example. Such agitation also helps to divert publicity from the Russian government's actions in Chechnya, Dagestan and other places.
The main strategic role of Syria in the recent past has been that of a provider of support to Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon, and a "cut-out" through which they can receive military supplies from Russia, Iran and other countries. Apparently the Russian government still considers this role to be important, perhaps now even more so than in the 1970s when they used Syria to support the PLO and PFLP.
It may be that the Russian government are hoping that a NATO intervention in Syria will cause a split in NATO. In that case, it might seem possible that the atrocities being committed now by the Assad regime, with the encouragement of the Russians, are themselves intended as a means of provoking such an intervention. But it is more likely in my view that the situation is getting out of control and that the regime is resorting to desperate measures in an attempt to impose order.
Ultimately, Russia has little to gain from a military confrontation with NATO in the Mediterranean, for obvious geographic reasons. There are only three exits, the Bosphorus, the Suez Canal, and the Straits of Gibraltar, all of which can be sealed off quite easily. So while the Russians could deploy a significant naval force in the Eastern Mediterranean, it might end up being trapped there if the situation escalated as a result of that move.
J. Southworth - University of Hull