Some background: Bashar Hafez al-Assad is the President of Syria and General Secretary of the Ba'ath Party. He has served as President since 2000, when he succeeded his father, Hafez al-Assad, who led Syria for 30 years until his death. The party has dominated the Syrian parliament since 1963. The party leads the National Progressive Front, and in all elections has obtained the majority of the 167 parliamentary seats reserved for the Front. In the 2003 parliamentary election, the party secured 135 of the seats. The al-Assad regime is a dictatorship which has a long history or repression of opposition groups, brutality, human rights abuse and massacres (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_massacre )
The differences between Alawites and Sunnis in Syria are important and have sharpened dangerously since the beginning of the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad, whose family is Alawite. The reason for tension is primarily political, rather than religious: top positions in Assad’s army are held by Alawite officers, while most of the rebels from the Free Syrian Army come from Syria’s Sunni majority. Alawites are a Muslim minority group that accounts for around 12% of Syria’s population, with a few small pockets in Lebanon and Turkey. Around 70% of Syrians belong to Sunni Islam, as do almost 90% of all Muslims in the world). Alawites follow the Shiite interpretation of Islam with some special features of their own, which make them a highly suspect sect in the eyes of many orthodox Sunnis and some Shiites too.
The evolution of the conflict: Protests against the regime began in January 2011 in the wake of the demonstrations and uprisings of the Arab Spring in other countries. By March the demonstrations had escalated into a civil uprising and the government had responded with large scale police repression and killings. The crack-down continued and large-scale protests led to the government besieging the towns which were the site of the protests. As the repression continued, opponents of the regime began to resist and organize themselves. Opposition activists established a “National Council” to “lead the Syrian revolution” in June and protests spread to Damascus. In July the formation of the “Free Syrian Army”, composed mainly of defectors from the regimes army, was announced. However, the opposition groups, moderates and extremists, were and remain extremely divided both politically and militarily, and above all in terms of the kind of post-Assad state they would like to create.
The second half of 2011 saw the uprising take on many of the characteristics of a civil war, according to several outside observers, including the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, as armed elements became better organized and began carrying out successful attacks in retaliation for the ongoing crackdown by the Syrian government on demonstrators and defectors.
During the first months of 2012 an Arab League monitoring mission ended in failure as Syrian troops and anti-government militants continued to do battle across the country. A United Nations-backed ceasefire brokered by special envoy Kofi Annan met a similar fate, with unarmed UN peacekeepers' movements tightly controlled by the government and fighting, as well as acts of violence described as "terrorism" by the Syrian government, continuing despite both parties' nominal agreement to end the violence.
On 12 February the leader of Al Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, released a video where he urged all Muslims to support the Syrian rebels. On the 16th Ban-ki Moon, the UN Secretary-General, said that crimes against humanity had been carried out by government forces. The United Nations General Assembly approved a non- binding resolution with 137 YES votes, 12 NO votes and 17 abstentions. The resolution called for the resignation of Bashar al Assad and a halt to the violence in the country.On the 24th February the ‘Friends of Syria’ meeting took place in Tunis, where 70 Western and Arab Nations gathered to discuss and act on the ongoing events in Syria. It announced the recognition of the SNC as the "legitimate representative of the Syrian people", a step below recognition as the sole legitimate government, and requested that any other opposition groups in Syria rally behind the SNC. The meeting also called for the UN and Arab league to establish a peacekeeping force on the ground in Syria.
Allegedly, military support for the Assad regime has come from Hezbollah and Iran, while Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states have provided arms and money for the rebels.
Over the summer of 2012 the civil war deepened with the military opposition becoming more radical, according to some more Islamist, and, like the regime, accused of having committed atrocities. The Syrian government began to use its air-force more widely in support of its ground forces while rebel forces continued to grow in strength. On 3 December, U.S. President Barack Obama said that there would be consequences if the Syrian government decides to use chemical weapons.
2013 saw the continuation and deepening of the conflict with neither side able to win and the international community unable to broker an agreement, halt the violence or agree on an effective collective response.
Estimates of deaths in the Syrian Civil War, , vary between 118,500 and 180,215. On 22 August
2014, the United Nations put out an estimate of over 191,000 that had died in
the war.
Over this period there has
been a growing humanitarian crisis as ordinary Syrians, faced with blackouts,
food and water shortages, a collapse of medical services, were forced to flee
becoming IDPs. There are over 6.5 million internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Syria (30 June 2014)
http://reliefweb.int/report/syrian-arab-republic/syria-crisis-camps-and-informal-settlements-northern-syria-humanitarian
There are 10.8 million people in need of humanitarian assistance in Syria (3 September 2014)
http://www.usaid.gov/crisis/syriaThere are 3,205,078 refugees (24 Oct 20142014)
the largest
numbers being in Lebanon (1,138,834) and Turkey (1,065,902) (24 Oct 2014)
http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/regional.phpThis is an emergency that international aid organizations are struggling to deal with and that Syria’s neighbors cannot handle. It has also led to growing tensions between Syria and its neighbors and fears that its civil war will spread across its borders.
Various
commentators warn that the ‘moderates’ are precisely those who chose to flee
and are now refugees. They claim that many of those rebels who remain to fight
are hard-liners not interested in creating a western style democracy. In fact,
in October 2013 Human Rights Watch said that civilians had been massacred by
radical militant rebel forces, some linked to al-Qaida, and argued that countries
providing them with military aid could find themselves legally responsible for
assisting crimes against humanity.
Majority opinion in the West,
in the Arab world and in the UN General Assembly has been generally against the
Assad regime and its treatment of its citizens. However, there has been no
widespread support for military intervention by the international community
against the regime, and no authorization for action by the UN Security Council,
as both Russia and China argue that the conflict is an internal affair and any
resolution of the conflict must be negotiated and involve both sides.
Legal and practical considerations regarding military
intervention for humanitarian purposes: A well-established and basic UN principle is that
countries should not intervene in the internal affairs of another state.
However, in Kosovo in 1999 Bill Clinton won NATO support for the need to
protect large numbers of endangered civilians to justify and launch air strikes
against Serbia. Since then the UN has formally adopted the principle of
‘responsibility to protect’ (R2P) as an international norm that could justify outside intervention in a
country’s internal affairs if that state has failed to protect its population
from atrocities or perpetrated such atrocities (e.g. failed states, Libya,
Mali). R2P, established in 2005, is
strongly supported by human rights NGOs, campaigners and activists and disliked
by authoritarian regimes (including Russia and China) which do not want to see the principle applied to
themselves (e.g. Russia and Chechnya). In fact, R2P requires authorization from
the UN Security Council to be legitimate. However, there is a growing school of
thought that says that when a principle is generally accepted by the members of
the international community, it becomes part of what is called international
customary law (a kind of international common law based on growing precedent).
In the eyes of many human rights campaigners intervention in a country’s
internal affairs could thus be
justified if there are persistent and large-scale human rights abuses and if
the majority of the international community (i.e. in the UN General Assembly)
agree that there is a need to intervene even when there is no mandate from the
Security Council (with the Kosovo case providing a precedent).
For the last 3
years there has been general consensus on the persistent and wide-scale human
rights abuses committed by the Assad regime. However, there has been little
appetite for intervention and involvement in a civil war that intervention is
unlikely to resolve.
On 21st August 2013 an estimated 1,400 civilians were killed in Syria allegedly by a chemical weapons attack on areas of eastern Damascus.
The Obama
administration argued that the international community had to respond to this
violation of the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention. Syria is not a signatory,
but did sign the 1925 Geneva Gas Protocol, and the ban on chemical weapons can
also be considered now a part of international customary law (both Russia and
the US have destroyed their chemical weapons). The US said that it had worked
out plans for air-strikes, not to bring down the regime, but to prevent it from
carrying out further chemical weapons attacks. Unable to get authorization from
the UNSC it appealed for support to its allies and the wider international
community. However, apart from France most of its allies appeared unwilling to
become directly involved in the conflict (e.g. the UK Parliament), and most
Arab League members (except for Saudi Arabia and the Gulf state) were also against US involvement. Meanwhile
Obama continued consultation in Congress with both House and Senate representatives,
but there seemed to be little support for intervention among the US public. The
international community waited for the
report from the UN inspectors sent to Syria to decide if chemical weapons had
been used. The Russians argued that even if the report confirmed the use of
such weapons it could not establish who they were used by. The Americans argued
that the rebels did not have the capability and would be unlikely to kill their
own supporters. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/16/us-syria-crisis-un-idUSBRE98F0ED20130916
Many human rights activists argued that the use
of chemical weapons in Syria was not, and should not be, the main issue since
the vast majority of the victims of human rights violations (as well as IDPs
and refugees) are the victims of atrocities carried out using conventional
weapons. They argued that there is ample proof of such violations, enough to
justify and, indeed, require international intervention. Russia did not dispute
the human rights violations but insisted that they have been committed by both
sides and that this invalidates an intervention specifically targeting the
Assad regime.
US attempts to
build international support and win domestic support for air strikes against
chemical weapons targets had limited success. John Kerry, US Secretary of State
said in a press conference in London that the Syrian regime could avoid US air
strikes if it agreed to hand over all its chemical weapons to international
control. Russia immediately responded positively to this proposal and so did
Assad. Talks between Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, began
in Geneva in order to work out the details of an agreement under which Syria's
chemical weapons would be destroyed or removed by mid-2014, and which would be
acceptable to all parties and could be approved by the UNSC. Some claim this is
a victory for Vladimir Putin, others that it has got President Obama out a
difficult situation (and may have been worked out between Russia and the US at
the G20 summit in Saint Petersburg 5-6th September
2013). On September 16th
2013 UN investigators said a sarin nerve agent had
been used in the August 21st poison gas attack outside the Syrian
capital in a long-awaited report that the United States, Britain and France said proved
government forces were responsible. Russia claimed that it had evidence that it
was the rebels who used the chemical weapons. On 27th September 2013
the UN Security Council agreed a draft resolution calling on the Syrian
government to destroy its chemical weapons, and stating that failure to comply
would have consequences. However, any action based on non-compliance would
depend first on findings of a technical inspection body and would then require
a second UNSC resolution. In its
final report he technical inspection team said that the issue of responsibility
went beyond its mandate.
Human rights
campaigners continue to argue that the chemical weapons issue is a distraction
from the main issue, which remains the widespread human rights violations
committed by the Assad regime and to a lesser extent by the rebels, and the
need to halt the civil war and bring aid to the civilian population.
The timeline of the Syrian civil war, which
started in 2011, is
contained in the following articles:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Syrian_civil_war
http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/chronology/syria.php
see also the timeline of the Arab Spring:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Arab_Spring
for the legality of intervention see:
http://ideas.time.com/2013/09/05/obamas-plan-for-intervention-in-syria-is-illegal/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23847169
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/26/united-nations-mandate-airstrikes-syria
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/aug/28/syria-intervention-force-lawful
http://www.france24.com/en/20130826-military-intervention-action-syria-without-un-violates-law-russia-lavrov
for recent developments see:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/10/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE9880HY20130910
http://rt.com/news/syria-chemical-lavrov-kerry-730/
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/11/us-syria-crisis-russia-usa-idUSBRE98A0S520130911
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/10/syria-crisis-iran-backs-russia-chemical-weapons-plan-live
See also the post on my blog for:
What are the main factors to be weighed when the international community is considering military intervention in response to humanitarian crises?
http://youngdip.blogspot.it/2014/09/military-intervention-for-humanitarian.html
Iraq
In early 2009, US forces
began pulling out of cities across the country, turning over the task of maintaining
security to the Iraqi Army, the Iraqi
Police Service and
their paramilitary allies. Experts and many Iraqis were worried that in
the absence of US soldiers the ISI (the Islamic State of Iraq) fundamentalist
fighters might resurface and attempt mass-casualty attacks to destabilize the
country. There was indeed a rise in the number of suicide attacks, and
through mid- and late 2009, the ISI rebounded in strength and appeared to be
launching a concerted effort to cripple the Iraqi government. In August 2011, Abu
Bakr al-Baghdadi
began sending Syrian and Iraqi ISI members, experienced in guerilla warfare,
across the border into Syria to establish an organization inside the country.
This led to the emergence of the Islamic
State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)
also translated as the Islamic State of
Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and since July 29th
2014 self-described as the Islamic State (IS), a Sunni, extremist, jihadist, self-proclaimed caliphate, unrecognized state in Iraq and Syria in the Middle East. In February 2014, after an
eight-month power struggle, al-Qaeda disavowed any relations with ISIS.Under its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, ISIS has grown significantly, gaining support in Iraq due to alleged economic and political discrimination against Arab Iraqi Sunnis, and establishing a large presence in the Syrian governorates of Ar-Raqqah, Idlib, Deir ez-Zor and Aleppo after entering the Syrian Civil War.
In June 2014, ISIS had at least 4,000 fighters in its ranks in Iraq who, in addition to attacks on government and military targets, have claimed responsibility for attacks that have killed thousands of civilians. In August 2014, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights claimed that the group had increased its strength to 50,000 fighters in Syria and 30,000 in Iraq. It has a strong presence in northern Iraq and in mid- and northern Syria, where it has instituted sharia law in a number of towns. In June and July 2014, Jordan and Saudi Arabia moved troops to their borders with Iraq after Iraq lost control of, or withdrew from, strategic crossing points, which were then under ISIS's command. The Islamic State recruited more than 6,300 fighters in July 2014 alone, many of them coming from the Free Syrian Army, the group formally supported by the US. Many seem to have brought their US-made weapons.
ISIS’s original aim was to establish a caliphate in the Sunni-majority regions of Iraq. Following its involvement in the Syrian Civil War, this expanded to include controlling Sunni-majority areas of Syria. A caliphate was proclaimed on 29 June 2014, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi—now known as Amir al-Mu'minin Caliph Ibrahim—was named as its caliph, and the group was renamed the Islamic State. In July 2014, Boko Haram leader Abubakar Shekau declared support for ‘the new Calpihate and Caliph Ibrahim’. In August, Abubakar Shekau announced that Boko Haram had captured the Nigerian town of Gwoza in the name of the Caliphate.
On Sep. 3, 2014. the Obama administration issued stern warnings to Islamic
State militants. He told reporters in Estonia that the U.S. intends to build a
coalition to “degrade and destroy” Islamic State militants.
However, while the US and its allies seem willing to conduct air strikes
against IS, there is widespread debate and doubt about the desirability and
effectiveness or another military intervention on the ground.
The US would clearly prefer the fighting against the IS to be done by Iraqi
government forces, the Kurds and Arab allies in the area, since support for
further US intervention in the area is low
The large number of recruits to IS,
particularly from European countries is also a cause for growing concern.
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento
Nota. Solo i membri di questo blog possono postare un commento.