The Problem with Syria | Eilís O' Keefe
Twenty months on, there is still no end in sight for the Syrian crisis. Eilis O’Keeffe examines the progression of Civil War to humanitarian crisis and the lack of international response.
According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights the death toll for the conflict in Syria has surpassed 30,000. The UN Commission of Inquiry on Syria reports that approximately 408,000 people have been forced to flee their homes leading to claims from Turkey and Jordan that their refugee camps are close to breaking point.In addition to this humanitarian crisis is the stark fact that war crimes are undoubtedly being perpetrated on both sides of the conflict. Amnesty International has recently reported on the rise of the use of extrajudicial and summary executions against civilians as well as members of rebel groups by Syrian government forces. It appears that rebel forces are also guilty of war crimes through their use of weapons such as catapults which do not discriminate between civilians and government forces. Also, the UN have declared that a recent video appears to show a war crime in process as captured Syrian soldiers are executed by rebel forces.In addition to this long list of potential war crimes is the accusation by the Human Rights Watch that Syrian government forces have used cluster bombs in their battles with rebel forces. This is particularly worrying due to the particular threat posed by cluster bombs to civilians due to the fact that they have a wide area of effect and have consistently left behind large amounts of unexploded ordnance which can remain dangerous for decades after a conflict has come to an end.Twenty months on, in the midst of a humanitarian crisis, we may question the lack of a coherent international response to Syria. Herein lies the fundamental problem with Syria – a lack of willingness on the part of international players to take a strong stance on Syria. The Syrian conflict highlights the weaknesses of the UN as once more, echoing what happened in Rwanda and Srebrenica, the world stands by as atrocities and war crimes are committed.Unfortunately, the options available to the UN are limited. They have already attempted a peacekeeping mission, which was perhaps destined for failure. We hear about the rebel forces and perhaps romantically imagine an organised group of revolutionaries, united in their convictions. However the harsh reality is a disparate group of undisciplined factions united by nothing more than their opposition to the leadership of Bashar al-Assad. This reality, along with the control of the movement of the peacekeepers by the Syrian government provoked the failure of the United Nations Supervision Mission in Syria.In terms of a military campaign there is little international appetite for a NATO-led campaign similar to that in Bosnia where almost 60,000 troops were required to implement the Dayton Peace Accords. More recently, comparisons have been drawn between the different international response to Libya and Syria. To many it seems strange that there was a NATO-led intervention in Libya while in Syria there has been none. There is currently no sign of any NATO response to a situation where the violence perpetrated against civilians has reached such levels as to be considered by many, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, to constitute war crimes.Syria has strong allies on the Security Council, China and Russia, who have blocked attempts to acquire the mandate required by international law for the UN to intervene. Feelings of being duped into supporting a measure to protect civilians in Libya only to see it being used in the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi have resulted in Vladimir Putin declaring that Syria will not be another Libya. Even if the UN were to secure a mandate a coalition of the willing would be required to lead the military response. Unlike in relation to Bosnia, there is a lack of willingness on the part of the US to lead a NATO force. Added to this is the lack of capacity of the EU, in the midst of financial crisis, to gather the resources required for a military intervention. However, perhaps with the Obama administration securely ensconced in the White House for the next four years there may be more American willingness to tackle the situation – hopefully Obama’s “Bosnia moment”, as it has been declared by Bill Clinton, has not yet passed by.There are no easy solutions to the conflict in Syria. Is military intervention even a desired option? “Violence begets violence” according to Martin Luther King and therefore could military intervention simply prolong the conflict, lead to greater loss of life and perhaps, as prophesied by Assad, “cost more than the world can afford”?Meanwhile, as the West struggles with its conscience, the death toll in Syria steadily rises. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reports that on Friday 9th November 2012, 5 defected soldiers, no less than 53 regular soldiers, 28 rebel fighters and 83 unarmed civilians including 6 children were killed. Approximately 180 Syrians killed on one day. Whether you agree or disagree with military action it cannot be denied that an effective international response is urgently required. For every day we wait, perhaps another 180 people lose their lives.