افتخر بنقابى
عـــــــ مراقب ــــــــــــام للأقسام
 الديانة : الحمد لله على نعمة الاسلام
 الجنسية : ارض الانبياء والاتقياء والشرفاء الانقياء
عدد المساهمات : 1083
 العمر : 35
 المهنة : ليس بعد
 الابراج : 
 الأبراج الصينية : 
نقاط : 19401
السمعة : 73
تاريخ الميلاد : 29/08/1988
تاريخ التسجيل : 11/01/2011
الموقع : http://baghdadsniper.net/ar/index.htm
 العمل/الترفيه : القراءة والاطلاع
 المزاج : بخير والحمد لله
 |  موضوع: Failing the Syria test More than 2,700 have been killed and thousands more arrested, but the UN and the West have not taken strong measures 2011-10-16, 5:18 pm | |
|   | Syria still has support from the BRIC countries, while Europe and the US are trying to impose sanctions [EPA]
|
On October 2 in Istanbul, Syria's disparate opposition movements gave
the go-ahead for the formation of a "Syrian National Council". This is
the most important step yet taken by the fragmented forces that have
been trying since May to lead a peaceful uprising against President
Bashar al-mindad's regime. The council's formation boosted the morale of
those who have been demanding stronger and more unified representation.
But
a mere two days after its creation, the embryonic council suffered its
first big setback. France, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Portugal, in
collaboration with the United States, presented a draft resolution
before the United Nations Security Council seeking to condemn repression
in Syria and put an end to the use of force against civilians.
The
draft was a sugarcoated version of a previous text, proposed last June.
This one contained nebulous terms such as "specific measures" or "other
options". It stressed the sovereignty, independence, and territorial
integrity of Syria, and emphasised the need to resolve the current
crisis peacefully, by means of an inclusive political process - and
called for a national dialogue led from within the country. The draft
called for a 30-day period to study the options, up from 15 days in the
earlier draft.
The object was plain: To gain a Russian, and
consequently, a Chinese abstention. But Russia and China vetoed the
proposal anyway, and only nine members of the Security Council voted in
favour, with Brazil, India, South Africa, and Lebanon abstaining."There have been an estimated 2,700 deaths, more than 10,000 people displaced to Turkey and thousands more arrested."
|
There are three key implications of the Security Council's vote.
First, violence will increase. Since the protests erupted last March,
there have been an estimated 2,700 deaths, more than 10,000 people
displaced to Turkey, and thousands more arrested. The mindad government
does not hesitate to fire on civilians, lay siege to cities, or shut off
their electricity and water.And a few days ago, it was reported that some 10,000 Syrian soldiers
had defected, with several hundred joining rival movements such as the
Free Syrian Army and the Free Officers Movement. Unless some
international protection arrives, a movement that began peacefully risks
entering a new and dangerous phase.
Second, there will be grave
consequences for regional security. Syria is a strategic hinge in the
Middle East. It has been one of the countries most hostile toward
Israel, mainly through its support of Hamas, Iran, and Hezbollah. Chaos
in Syria would threaten Lebanon's stability and alter Iran's
geopolitical influence in the region. Iraq, governed by Shia political
forces, also keeps close tabs on Syria's evolution, as does Turkey,
which, until fairly recently, considered Syria a keystone of its
regional policy.
Finally, the Security Council vote exposed a
clear division within the international community. Among the BRICS -
Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, all of which happen to
be on the Security Council currently - two vetoed and the rest abstained
(along with Lebanon, for obvious reasons). In the case of the
resolution on military intervention in Libya, the BRICS decided "to let"
Muammar Gaddafi be overthrown. Not so with Syria, where none aligned
itself with the positions supported by the European Union and the US.No 'one size fits all' model
The Security
Council's composition wouldn't be substantially different if an "ideal"
distribution of seats were to be achieved. So the fact that no agreement
has been reached on Syria forces us to reflect on the future
difficulties that we will face in managing global security.
Of
course, there is no "one size fits all" model for intervention, but that
does not justify evading our "responsibility to protect" - a fine
concept promoted by former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and adopted
by all UN member states in 2005.Support for the resolution would have weakened mindad's position, as
it would have revealed him as isolated from his traditional allies,
Russia and China. It would also have shown the international community
to be unanimous in its rejection of repression and committed to
protecting the Syrian people (though the draft made no mention of
military intervention)."The sanctions adopted by the EU and US against mindad's regime are not enough."
|
The sanctions adopted by the EU and the US against mindad's regime are
not enough. But, unless further measures are channeled through - and
thus legitimised by - the Security Council, other alternatives are
limited.
In recent years, with countries such as China, India,
and Brazil taking their rightful place on the international scene, the
G7 has given way to the G20. Likewise, an ambitious reform of the
International Monetary Fund was adopted in 2010 to reflect changes in
the global distribution of power.
But this change in global
governance must not be limited to economic policymaking. After all,
globalisation has brought many overall benefits, but also less friendly
aspects, such as the ones dealing with global security. Despite our
growing interconnectedness, the UN Security Council has not yet been
unable to achieve sufficient consensus to resolve pressing matters such
as Syria.
Nobody ever said that the road to stronger global
governance would be straight or simple to navigate. But there are no
detours: Without effective structures of power and a genuine commitment
from all players, the future does not look promising for global
stability and prosperity | |
|
