Syrian Internal Conflict

[Equinox]

Yes so true and so right.
Question anno 2012 would it be possible to get a international law to effective stop geno, mass or any form of grand scale systematic murder? and what would be needed to get this law active?

Because as you said it just does not work that way however i think that every member on this great forum would agree that anno 2012 with all the smart heads on this world we must be able to come to some sort of HARD agreements to prevent this in the future.

Anyway guys sorry for the hassle i put up on this topic.
But it gets to me alright? I just find it really hard to swallow that this can happen and probably will happen in 2012 and beyond that.
With all the efforts made world wide to provide people with freedom and so on this would be a issue that has priority and should be solved.

I've never studied International law, so I couldn't properly answer you. But as far as I am aware, there are already multiple treaties and conventions that address things such as genocide. The (probably) most important being all the R2P (Responsibility to Protect) stuff that emerged post-Rwanda. I don't believe any are actually binding agreements, but I wouldn't expect them to as it might force a country(s) to intervene when it shouldn't. Not to mention that no country would want to put something into law forcing others to 'intervene' in their country because of a bunch of subjective words in a treaty, they'd never allow the hole that would put in their sovereignty.

oeps i forgot

I am a little confused about your statement on the Chinese and Russians though. You say it's not their territory, so they shouldn't have any say etc, but then what about the rest of us? It's not our territory either, but you are saying everyone else should do something, that we should all have a say? I doubt that would go down well with the Russians or Chinese...

Lol is there anything that would go down well with the Russians or Chinese?
I personally see economic interests as a lesser thing then standing up for human rights specially inn a case like Libya and Syria.
And yes if it comes to Economic considerations from a Russian or Chinese pov then they just can take a back seat.
However on a general way each nation IMO should have a say IF and only if there is a serious need for it.
Obviously you are not going to go around and dictate what a nation should do.
We need to respect sovereignty however in clear cases like Libya and Syria international law should overrule that and NO other nation should be able to VETO the right of protecting the people against its own government.
Now note i am not saying that this is a tool like heey i do not like the way you handle your people lets step in as in that case it would justify anything and could be miss used.
But perhaps some grand council or some big law agreements like the war court should be able to force a government into submission to stop mass killing.
Simple said: If i kill a person on the street i will go to court and jail this should be the same for a nation leader.....

Yeah, they'd probably be pretty happy if the West butted out and stopped being so self-righteous.

Economic interests are very much entwined with the well-being of human rights. It's no coincidence that the most stable countries are developed and the most unstable, developing. You also need to remember that China and Russia are major world players. Their agreement can mean a hell of a lot of difference in how things are done. Spit in their face and you are going to have issues at a later point in the future, on perhaps a more important issue. The Russians don't like what's happening in Syria anymore than anyone else (if for different reasons), better to work with them than tell them to shut up, their opinion doesn't matter, and we're going to do what ever we want anyway..

No one is going to go for an agreement that means others can march into their country just because they have a nice little rebellion going on. The Taliban at the moment are essentially in rebellion against the Afghan government, are you going to support an intervention in the name of preventing their deaths at the hands of their government?

 

[Beatmaster]

Actually it is. Alienate Russia and China to save a few thousand Syrian civilians, and next time they'll veto an arms embargo on a country like Sudan, which is killing on a bigger scale, with no international intervention in sight. Russia has sacrificed some of their own interests to allow the intervention in Libya. They are not willing to let the same happen to Syria. When you combine this point with my previous one, you end up with a very questionable situation. Is it really worth it?

Yes i understand that very well, if this is how you say it is then my question is why does the UN not delete the VETO right from the chapters?
As from my point of view the VETO right has its uses i will not deny that however i cannot recall a single event where a VETO was used in a positive way (Not saying it never happened but i cannot recall any)
So if this VETO right is only being used to stick a diplomatic finger up to the west (Or east for that matter) then why is that VETO right still active?
Now put aside the whole intervention thing and the risks of it.
My point here is that the UN is now a organization without balls so even if this was a clear case of super genocide then still there would be no action possible because there might be one who VETO's it.
So if i rap this up then this means that the UN is just tea time and a chitchat club.
Or am i putting this to harsh?

 

[exPrivate]

Well, isn`t it obvious that the VETO is in UN charter because of the countries that could exercise it? They won the last World War and they designed the UN charter. In many most official documents they are proud to explicitly declare that they have it and that they could "stick the diplomatic finger" to anybody else. To abide to the UN charter and international law you have to persuade everyone of the 5 governments to voluntary give the VETO up. I don`t see that happening for sure.
Still we had to keep in mind that the 5 permanent members were almost equally divided on the Syrian matter - 3 to 2. There could be no more equal division and that means that there is sth rotten in the resolution. Others may ask: what is the population behind that division? :

 

[Feanor]

Yes i understand that very well, if this is how you say it is then my question is why does the UN not delete the VETO right from the chapters?
As from my point of view the VETO right has its uses i will not deny that however i cannot recall a single event where a VETO was used in a positive way (Not saying it never happened but i cannot recall any)

The only people who can get rid of the veto powers, are the same people who have the veto power. And why would they give it up? This includes the US. The UN is not particularly strong actor in and of itself.

So if this VETO right is only being used to stick a diplomatic finger up to the west (Or east for that matter) then why is that VETO right still active?

Because everyone wants to maintain that ability. Getting rid of it risks complete breakdown of the international system. If say the US Britain and France declare that they are getting rid of the veto, then Russia and China may refuse to recognize the legitimacy of any UN decisions, and will completely ignore any resolutions the UN passes. And unless you think the US will be able and willing to enforce all these resolutions with considerable force, UN resolutions will become meaningless. Again international law, the UN in fact, is a compromise between all parties.

Now put aside the whole intervention thing and the risks of it.
My point here is that the UN is now a organization without balls so even if this was a clear case of super genocide then still there would be no action possible because there might be one who VETO's it.

Now? It always was. And countless genocides or mass murders have occured with minimal UN intervention. That's the way international law works.

So if i rap this up then this means that the UN is just tea time and a chitchat club.
Or am i putting this to harsh?

You are putting it too harsh. The UN is a format that gives legitimacy to certain decisions made through compromise, and a give and take between the various powers. Examples of meaningful UN resolutions include the recent sanctions against Iran. What you need to realize is that Un decisions are not made unilaterally, and can not disregard the wishes of Russia, China, and other veto-wielding members. That's what you need to realize. Just because you think something is right or something has to be dealt with doesn't mean the UN is in a position to do so. Certainly not without at least the tacit approval of veto-wielding security council members. It doesn't make the UN useless, but it does make it a lot weaker. And the US itself is just as wary of giving an international government too much authority.

 

[My2Cents]

Yes i understand that very well, if this is how you say it is then my question is why does the UN not delete the VETO right from the chapters?
As from my point of view the VETO right has its uses i will not deny that however i cannot recall a single event where a VETO was used in a positive way (Not saying it never happened but i cannot recall any)
So if this VETO right is only being used to stick a diplomatic finger up to the west (Or east for that matter) then why is that VETO right still active?
Now put aside the whole intervention thing and the risks of it.
My point here is that the UN is now a organization without balls so even if this was a clear case of super genocide then still there would be no action possible because there might be one who VETO's it.
So if i rap this up then this means that the UN is just tea time and a chitchat club.
Or am i putting this to harsh?

The veto was supposedly the USSR’s price, so that the UN could not be used to oppose their interests, for joining the United Nations when it was created as part of the Atlantic Charter, the document that formed the Allied countries in WWII. Personally I think that the other major powers thought having a veto for themselves was also a good idea, only Roosevelt seemed to have opposed it. The League Of Nations (same idea during WWI by United States President Woodrow Wilson) did not have any veto rights, and in the end the US Senate refused to approve the US joining it.

Still, the UN was a farce from the beginning, just like the League of Nations was before it, because it lacks the means to punish anyone who decides to just ignore any of its resolutions. Probably just as well when you consider that the vast majority of the member nations are not and never were democracies.

 

[Beatmaster]

The only people who can get rid of the veto powers, are the same people who have the veto power. And why would they give it up? This includes the US. The UN is not particularly strong actor in and of itself.



Because everyone wants to maintain that ability. Getting rid of it risks complete breakdown of the international system. If say the US Britain and France declare that they are getting rid of the veto, then Russia and China may refuse to recognize the legitimacy of any UN decisions, and will completely ignore any resolutions the UN passes. And unless you think the US will be able and willing to enforce all these resolutions with considerable force, UN resolutions will become meaningless. Again international law, the UN in fact, is a compromise between all parties.



Now? It always was. And countless genocides or mass murders have occured with minimal UN intervention. That's the way international law works.



You are putting it too harsh. The UN is a format that gives legitimacy to certain decisions made through compromise, and a give and take between the various powers. Examples of meaningful UN resolutions include the recent sanctions against Iran. What you need to realize is that Un decisions are not made unilaterally, and can not disregard the wishes of Russia, China, and other veto-wielding members. That's what you need to realize. Just because you think something is right or something has to be dealt with doesn't mean the UN is in a position to do so. Certainly not without at least the tacit approval of veto-wielding security council members. It doesn't make the UN useless, but it does make it a lot weaker. And the US itself is just as wary of giving an international government too much authority.

I might not always agree with you but i am honestly amazed how you explain things +1 for you buddy.
Anyway long story short if you put diplomatics away for a second then its obvious that between written law and resolutions and the actual execution of it there is alot to be desired.
Most governments preach human rights and freedom but non of them seem to be able to sit on the table and actually guard and defend these agreed values.
And thats exactly the point what pisses me off and in regards to those Syrian people they do not care about international law they do not care about economic interest ...the only thing the care about is that they can survive the day under the intense shelling and sniper actions by the Syrian army.
Those people are getting killed while those in power watch.
And that as a fact is just unacceptable from my pov.

In regards to the UN it has proven in the past that it could act and could act with power if all the heads face the same direction.
So the UN in all its weakness has its obvious strengths, on the other hand the UN is virtually the only organization that has and can protect moral and common values but so far they are being nerved on nearly every serious or significant action that would benefit the protection of human rights in general.
And was that not what the UN was originally created for?

The United Nations (UN) is an international organization whose stated aims are facilitating cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights, and achievement of world peace.

So perhaps a revamp of the UN and its standards to today and tomorrows needs would be needed.
Because at this rate the UN will become a relic of the old days (If that is not already the case)

 

[Feanor]

Problem is that the current members with power don't want it revamped, and the ones without can't do it. It takes a major shock to the system for an international order to be brought down. The end of the Cold War was not sufficient to do it. I shudder to imagine what is.

 

[exPrivate]

I just received a link from my friends about the way the world media is presenting the Syrian conflict. Alas it is in Italian, not my best language and definitely not my native. Fake, Fake, Fake!
SIRIA: ECCO LE DETTAGLIATE PROVE DI TUTTE LE MENZOGNE DELLA NATO. « Il Corsivo Quotidiano

 

[lucinator]

I just received a link from my friends about the way the world media is presenting the Syrian conflict. Alas it is in Italian, not my best language and definitely not my native. Fake, Fake, Fake!
SIRIA: ECCO LE DETTAGLIATE PROVE DI TUTTE LE MENZOGNE DELLA NATO. « Il Corsivo Quotidiano

Translated the article, mostly doublethink political bull@#$%

Can we try to NOT use bloggers for our arguments, since there is no one to fact check them they are unreliable at best. Generally when your best argument is there is no violence and its all "do not be impressed by the ketchup used to stage the mortal wounds that are more fake than the hair of Berlusconi"

I find this article very insulting to our intelligence, please in the future refrain from posting conspiracy theorists rantings.

By the way in response to feanor's comment on respecting the syrian governments legitimacy; when he started his while sale slaughter of his people he lost any legitimacy he had. He is definitely in violation of the Geneva Protocol and while what he is doing is not genocide, it is a crime against humanity. Generally this does give nations authority to intervene. Whether this is the right decision, im not sure it is, though things cannot continue the way they are going now. I think strong economic sanctions might be better, or a total ban on Syrian exports.

 

[STURM]

It's funny how countries come up we so many different terms with which to describe the violence that they inflict on others. It's the same with Syria.

Robert Fisk: The regime calls it 'cleaning', but the dirty truth is plain to see - Robert Fisk - Commentators - The Independent

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...eeping-the-assad-regime-in-power-7534769.html

 

[Beatmaster]

It's funny how countries come up we so many different terms with which to describe the violence that they inflict on others. It's the same with Syria.

Robert Fisk: The regime calls it 'cleaning', but the dirty truth is plain to see - Robert Fisk - Commentators - The Independent

Robert Fisk: The fearful realities keeping the Assad regime in power - Robert Fisk - Commentators - The Independent

Its kinda funny to see that in the topic's here on the forum it was said by multiple people that this mass killing does not constitute a genocide.
However after the last docu on the dutch television (Netwerk) which is a very known docu broadcaster and the obvious reports of CNN and other major news agencies it seems that the world cannot call this a genocide because the lack of final proof.
But with the release of first hand video's on the news it seems that its more a genocide then anyone did dare to assume.
Also the international war court in Den Hague has been asked to look into this matter to see if there is a legal ground to arrest Assad and make military intervention / Armed red cross support possible to aid the Syrian civilians.
As according to the UN council a order from the War court will enable the option to intervene in Syria.
Source: RTL News, Netwerk/Nova Netherlands, CNN and several other key news agencies

 

[STURM]

For Assad, it's a race against time. He knows the international community is very divided and undecided as to how to deal with the situation and his main goal is to quell the rebellion as fast as he can. Israel's foreign minister described the situation as being ''worse than any horror movie'', which makes me wonder how he would describe his country's 1982 foray into Lebanon, which led to many, many more dying on top of the thousands already killed as a result of the civil war. Russia's use of the veto is a strong signal to the West of its position again, as a major player in the Middle East and a strong signal that the West can't have it all its way in the region.

Also the international war court in Den Hague has been asked to look into this matter to see if there is a legal ground to arrest Assad and make military intervention

As to whether Assad should be arrested and tried, I think we should not be selective, if Assad is brought to court, the ICJ should also do the same to other 'war criminals' and not just those approved of by the 'major powers'.

 

[Beatmaster]

For Assad, it's a race against time. He knows the international community is very divided and undecided as to how to deal with the situation and his main goal is to quell the rebellion as fast as he can. Israel's foreign minister described the situation as being ''worse than any horror movie'', which makes me wonder how he would describe his country's 1982 foray into Lebanon, which led to many, many more dying on top of the thousands already killed as a result of the civil war. Russia's use of the veto is a strong signal to the West of its position again, as a major player in the Middle East and a strong signal that the West can't have it all its way in the region.



As to whether Assad should be arrested and tried, I think we should not be selective, if Assad is brought to court, the ICJ should also do the same to other 'war criminals' and not just those approved of by the 'major powers'.

Yes however to kick back the ball on this topic, as i have been said by others in this topic:
Its not moral or values that dictate diplomatics.
So if Assad cannot be arrested for what he is doing because he would be a selected/ approved case by major powers then those same major powers would not have to right to morally VETO actions against the same person.
Because if its the way you say then every war criminal should be arrested by the war court and not only the approved ones, this same applies for helping those poor people they should not only help those "approved" ones but also the others.
So here we are again back to those moral values that where told to be irrelevant.

 

[the concerned]

Although i don't agree with what Syria is doing to its people i can't see how we can ''properly help'' without looking at the situation in the area seriously.If and when Assad is removed then you are going to have more problems withn ethnic communities especially the kurdish people. Turkey launches large scale over the top raids on kurds all the time but no one is demanding the Turkish president step down. This needs approaching carefully but i think it is time for the UN,Nato,Arab league to seriously look at implementing a kurdish settlement that they have the power to self rule . If we are going to poke our nose in other peoples affairs we need to look properly at the whole situation.

 

[STURM]

Although i don't agree with what Syria is doing to its people i can't see how we can ''properly help'' without looking at the situation in the area seriously.If and when Assad is removed then you are going to have more problems withn ethnic communities especially the kurdish people.

Assad's removal would benefit a lot of parties, not only the Syrians who have rebelled and are fighting against his government. This is in sharp contrast to the 1980's, when despite the fact that Syria was a Soviet client state and was in a state of war with Israel, America was happy to have Bashar's father stay in power as it kept the extremists at bay - that's why many countries stayed largely quiet when in response to declaration of war by the Muslim Brotherhood, Hafiz Assad and his brother razed Hama to the ground.

Obama has recently said that it's not a matter of 'if' but 'when' Assad is removed from power but also said that the American military will not be involved. Lets see what happens next with regards to Assad staying in power.

This needs approaching carefully but i think it is time for the UN,Nato,Arab league to seriously look at implementing a kurdish settlement that they have the power to self rule.

This would be almost as impossible as hoping for a settlement to the Palestinian/Israeli issue. With the Kurds it's a bit more complicated as a number of countries are involved and all would have to make compromises, which might also lead to other ethnic minorities in other countries to ask for and expect the same.

 

[My2Cents]

This would be almost as impossible as hoping for a settlement to the Palestinian/Israeli issue. With the Kurds it's a bit more complicated as a number of countries are involved and all would have to make compromises, which might also lead to other ethnic minorities in other countries to ask for and expect the same.

It doesn’t help that when you read the fine print on what these minority groups are demanding it is always “a country for me, but not for thee”, with all other ethnic groups either expelled or 3rd class citizens.

 

[STURM]

It doesn’t help that when you read the fine print on what these minority groups are demanding it is always “a country for me, but not for thee”, with all other ethnic groups either expelled or 3rd class citizens.

True but I think it depends on where these minorities live. For the Kurds in Iraq, the areas they live in mostly contain Kurds and not too many Arabs. The next potential hotspot I feel will be Baluchistan.

 

[lucinator]

well looks like the Russian marines are stepping in to help Assad in, guess that makes Syria open season.

Russian Anti-Terror Troops Arrive in Syria - Yahoo! News

 

[My2Cents]

well looks like the Russian marines are stepping in to help Assad in, guess that makes Syria open season.

According to the article it is only a squad. Sounds more like a diplomatic show of support or a consulting/training mission. I think the press is blowing things out of proportion.

Still, if it will get the Arab League concerned enough to finally call for international intervention it could blow back in Putin's face.

 

[Feanor]

well looks like the Russian marines are stepping in to help Assad in, guess that makes Syria open season.

Russian Anti-Terror Troops Arrive in Syria - Yahoo! News

No. The unit is most likely there to help evac Russian citizens in case things get rough. It's far too small to be of any significance, and Russia has been far too careful about getting involved in foreign wars.

EDIT: A couple of pics of Syrian T-72s in the current conflict.

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/183518.html