Syria, Intervention, and the UN

By Isaac Sammis

Within Syria, opportunity is not a lengthy visitor and sometimes a push towards the proper path of virtuous democracy is needed. Syria has been given foreign help from multiple nations, the main one of those being the United States. The goal of US intervention is to give the people a “society free from the whims of a dictator” says Hilary Clinton, US Secretary of State. “This means” she continues, “setting Syria on the path of the rule of law and protecting universal rights of all citizens.”

Intervention, however, is not always prudent or even justified. According to Michael Walzer, author of Just and Unjust Wars, “evidence must be provided that a community actually exists whose members are committed to independence and ready and able to determine the conditions of their government.” The society he is explaining must be deserving and willing to create a new political system for itself, and in Syria this will to secede is very apparent. There have been several meetings with the Syrian National council regarding their hopes of pressuring President al-Assad’s reign and according to French foreign minister Alain Juppe, “the Syrian National Council is the legitimate interlocutor with whom we will continue to work.” By forming groups of opposition Syria is demonstrating their desire to create a new, more autonomous government. They even have established the Free Syrian Army, a group claiming to be the true government although unable to exercise their power, also showing that if President al-Assad were to step down they would have a full political and military system established and ready to go.

Although extending a helping hand in organization, the United States has stated that “military intervention has been absolutely ruled out and we have made that clear from the beginning.” This is a wise move for the reasons that the United States has been in conflict for some time with other Middle Eastern nations, they currently have a poor economy, and pushing the envelope of violence would only enrage US citizens. To bring in the words of Michael Walzer for a second time, “when required for the sake of independence, military action is honorable and virtuous, but not always prudent.”

To help resolve the dilemma facing Syria, the UN Security Council set up a vote for a resolution calling on the stepping down of al-Assad, to take place on February 4th. Although all other 13 members voted in favor, Russia and China vetoed the resolution. Chinese representative Li Baodong is noted as saying “to push through a vote when parties are still seriously divided over the issue will not help maintain the unity and authority of the security council or help resolve the issue.” These vetoes come even after yet another bombardment in the district of Homs, killing more than 200 people in the worst night of bloodshed of the 11-month uprising, according to Reuters. This attack included upwards of 99 women and children and by vetoing the attempts for a resolution the UN is paralyzed and resulting in the Syrian National council saying they will head into complete military confrontation, according an article on Financial Times.

Although giving up power peacefully is not an Assad family tradition, the UN’s attempts would have strengthened the efforts of Syrian opposition forces, but now the area is on the brink of complete civil war with frustration mounting more each day. [Update - The UN General Assembly passed its own resolution condemning the violence in Syria on 16 February 2012. (CNN)]