December 2013


Issue Home >>

The civil war in Syria that had its genesis in peaceful, non-violent protests against the Assad regime in 2011 has degenerated into what is now recognized internationally as the “Syrian Crisis.” It has been a period marked by death and displacement of the Syrian people, the decimation of their property; disregard for international law allegedly by the Syrian government in its use of chemical weapons against its people; and the disunity between the two “veto power” factions of the Security Council of the “United” Nations (UNSC)—allies and adversaries of the US.

Fate or fortune might have led to the termination of US President Barack Obama’s planned attack on Syria against the wishes of Americans and civilians across the globe and without the approval of the UNSC. His seemingly politically wise decision to pursue the route of diplomacy—facilitated and proposed by his Russian counterpart—sent a strong message to the global community that even in the face of strong political and ideological differences, diplomacy and co-operation might be playing a very important role.

The non-resident Russian Ambassador to Trinidad and Tobago, Nikolay d. Smirnov, at a recent ‘diplomatic dialogue’ on Syria—held at the Institute of International Relations (IIR) at UWI’s St Augustine campus—speculated that there might have been the possibility of Syria’s chemical weapons getting into the hands of Al-Qaeda, had there been a military strike on Syria.

What might have been the implications of this? Might the war have spread to other countries in the Middle East? Might this have affected the ‘political conscience’ of countries of CARICOM, the European Union, and other world leaders who were not providing the ‘political and diplomatic’ support that Obama sought for his proposed military strike on Syria, and might they then have provided military support? What role might the UN have played in preventing the ‘Syrian Crisis’ from transitioning into a ‘Global Crisis’?

The averted negative impact on the fragile global economy (slowly recovering from the Global Financial Crisis of 2007-2008) vis à vis the increase in the price of oil had there been a military strike on Syria must also be considered as a benefit of the diplomatic approach. While we speculate on what might or might have not have been, the humanitarian crisis evolving in Syria worsens daily. Britain’s Ambassador to Trinidad and Tobago, Arthur Snell, at IIR’s ‘diplomatic dialogue’ on Syria, admitted that there is a sectarian conflictual element to the political unrest in Syria that is fuelling the crisis; it has added to its complexity because of their varying perspectives on what should be the outcome. Resolution and relief might be on their way, but it’s difficult to predict when they will arrive in Damascus.

The attempt to address the chemical weapons issue in Syria via diplomatic means might be viewed as a triumph for both multilateralism and collective security. Effectively, the UN—by virtue of the UNSC’s resolution (Resolution 2118 (2013)) that has initiated the ongoing mission in Syria to destroy its chemical weapons stockpile and production capability—has avoided another incident that might have further eroded the confidence of the international community in the legitimacy and credibility of the UN. It also might have led the international community to question the usefulness of international law.

Were the US to have attacked Syria without the approval of the UNSC, it would have once again acted illegally in its use of force against a sovereign state, essentially, it would have violated the Charter of the UN because as pointed out by the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, “…the Security Council has primary responsibility for international peace and security, the use of force is lawful only when in exercise of self-defence in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter and or when the Security Council approves such action.” The US on the other hand, was spared further acrimony from its global detractors in relation to its ostensible interventionist foreign policy, especially when it acts unilaterally or without the sanction of the UNSC.

Critics contend that Syria is of strategic interest to the US. Besides its resource wealth, Syria is geographically situated between various disputing nations and can be useful as a buffer zone and a strategic point for ideologically promoting “peace in the Middle East” by the democracies of the West. Syria has strong military alliances in the Middle East: Russia, which provides it with military assistance and access to the global market via financing; Iran, offers tactical advice on security measures while purchasing Syrian oil to replace European demand and ensures its other Arab allies (Iraq and Lebanon), defy the Arab League’s trade embargo on Syria. Syria’s allies are predominantly anti-US states with strong military forces such as Venezuela, North Korea, China and Iran; in some cases nuclear forces that can threaten the US claim to hegemony. Herein lies the context for the determined actions of the US to ensure that this crisis is contained and ultimately the Bashar Al-Assad regime is defeated.

This “security dilemma,” created by alliances as they seek to maintain the balance of power, and political divisions that are still pervasive although the Cold War has ended, will continue to render the United Nations inequitable, inconsistent and ineffective in the fulfillment of its peace and security mandate, and subordinate to the political will of those members of the UNSC who have the privilege of absolute veto power: USA, China, France, Russia and Great Britain. History has proven that the use of the veto in the UNSC stymies timely action by the Council. What is required is a reform of the UN Charter to either eliminate the veto or find a way to lessen its use (neither of these will be easy, given the formula for amendment of the Charter).

Can the UN provide the solution to alleviating the plight of the Syrian people? The spotlight continues to be on the UN’s capability to peacefully and speedily resolve this issue and other international crises of varying complexities using mechanisms for which the Charter provides; history will soon arbitrate on the sufficiency of those mechanisms.

This was a project of the class of INRL 5005: Political Economy of Development and International Organisation, at the Institute of International Relations, The UWI, St Augustine. The project was led by Luanna Guerra, and the group comprised Rowena Remy, Darryl Sammy, Candia James, Jesse Cooper, Shanaz Ghany, Amanda Ramdeen, Jamilah Garcia, Heather Woodroffe, Nicole Samuel, Nadine Noel, Renee Miller, Kenisha Thom and Dwayne Haynes.