The ongoing conflict in Syria, which began in March of 2011, has resulted in grave human rights violations, a massive refugee crisis, and humanitarian conditions that continue to deteriorate day-by-day. Entire neighborhoods, even cities, have been destroyed by the Syrian government in an effort to punish civilians in areas where the army has faced conflict with opposition fighters. The New York-based Human Rights Watch has come forward stating that the United States and other world powers have undermined all efforts to bring Syrian President Bashar Assad before the International Criminal Court.
The results of these atrocities have been devastating, with the destruction of much of the country’s basic infrastructure and a death toll amounting to approximately 40,000 civilians. According to the Human Right Watch’s 2013 World Report on Syria:
“Syria’s uprising turned increasingly bloody in 2012 as the government’s crackdown on anti-government protests developed into an entrenched armed conflict. Government forces and pro-government militia known as shabeeha continue to torture detainees and commit extrajudicial killings in areas under their control. Some opposition forces have also carried out serious abuses like kidnapping, torture, and extrajudicial executions. According to opposition sources, 34,346 civilians had been killed in the conflict at this writing. The spread and intensification of fighting have led to a dire humanitarian situation with hundreds of thousands displaced internally or seeking refuge in neighboring countries.”
Actions of the Syrian government, as well as the actions of foreign aggressors, including Hezbollah, Iranian-backed forces, and the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (“ISIS”), clearly constitute threats against international peace and security. Under the UN Charter, the Security Council is primarily responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security. The Security Council is comprised of 15 members: the United States, France, the United Kingdom, China, the Russian Federation, and 10 nonpermanent members. In certain cases, the Charter empowers the Security Council to impose sanctions or even authorize the use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security.
The Human Rights Watch has criticized the UN Security Council for failing to take any actions against the Syrian government. The Security Council voted on a resolution on July 17, 2013, that would have threatened non-military sanctions against the Syrian government for non-compliance with the six-point plan negotiated and agreed upon by both Kofi Annan, joint special envoy of the UN and League of Arab States (“LAS”) to Syria, and the Syrian government. The resolution, however, was struck down by both the Russian Federation and China, who vetoed the resolution. In fact, Russia has used its veto power to strike down all possible efforts to address the Syrian slaughter since peaceful protests began in March 2011. Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, has stated that he believes much of Russia’s actions are based upon its relationship with Syria. In Syria: What Chance to Stop Slaughter?, Roth writes, “A faded power with an economy dependent on the sale of fossil fuels, Russia seemed intent on exploiting its moment of diplomatic significance for all it’s worth, using its veto to protect one of its few remaining allies in the region.”
The Russian Federation is not the only world power hesitant to take action against Syria; Human Rights Watch has argued that the United State’s focus on facilitating peace talks between the countries has diverted attention away from the endless atrocities being committed by the Syrian government. Roth has called for an end to the violence and indiscriminate killing in Syria and for the United Nations to begin dispensing humanitarian aid to the country’s victims. Roth stated, “We cannot afford to wait for the distant prospect of a peace accord before the killing of 5,000 Syrians a month comes to an end.”
The Security Council Report’s February 2014 Monthly Forecast sheds some light on what future actions the Security Council may take. According to the report, the key issue is how, three years into the conflict, the Security Council can contribute toward a solution in Syria that can significantly lower levels of violence and improve humanitarian access.
The report goes on to list several options available to the Security Council in tackling this key issue. First, the Security Council can issue “a statement supporting the peace talks, recalling its endorsements in resolution 2118 of the establishment of a transitional governing body exercising full executive powers and urging swift agreement that could be endorsed by a resolution.” The second option focuses on the status of chemical weapons in Syria. In his latest briefing, Sigrid Kaag, Special Coordinator of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (“OPCW”)- UN Joint Mission, seemed to indicate a certain wariness regarding Syria’s cooperation. The report argues, “If such concerns are amplified in February, the council could issue a statement reminding Syria that resolution 2118 decided to impose measures under Chapter VII in the event of non-compliance.” Finally, the report recommends a more remote option, whereby the Security Council adopts a resolution on humanitarian issues if cross-line access or access to besieged areas does not dramatically improve in the near term.
More recently, on February 22, the Security Council adopted Resolution 2139, demanding that all parties, in particular the Syrian Authorities, allow Humanitarian access across conflict lines in besieged areas and across borders, expressing its intent to take further steps in case of non-compliance. The negotiations surrounding the drafting of the resolution resulted in significant compromises in reference to Syria’s unwillingness to implement the October 2013 presidential statement on humanitarian access, possible sanctions in case of non-compliance, cross-border access and access to besieged areas, aerial bombardment, accountability, and counter-terrorism.
Even though the Security Council was able to agree upon a resolution, they were unable to do so without sacrificing some of the key elements required for the resolution’s success. The Security Council’s inability to address the issues with Syria demonstrates one of the major flaws of the Security Council: its structure. One frustrating element of the Security Council’s structure is that it affords each of the permanent members veto power. The permanent members can use their veto power to block action for any reason, partisan or parochial, even in the case of mass atrocities. With the Russian Federation focused on preventing intervention in Syria, the United States focused on facilitating peace talks with the Syrian Government, and the Security Council unable to take action, Syria’s destruction and death toll will only continue to rise.
Posted April 1, 2014