Syrian protestors. Photocredit: Maggie Osama http://www.flickr.com/photos/maggieosama/5662542536/sizes/z/in/photostream/
The Security Council of the United Nations has condemned the actions of the Syrian regime, led by Bashar al-Assad, as William Hague, the UK foreign secretary, calls for an end to the violent repression of civilians by Syrian government forces. These forces are still attacking the city of Hama, where there have been many anti-government protests; civilian casualties are mounting. Government tanks have taken Assi Square in the centre of the city. Reports suggest at least 100 people have died in the most recent fighting. A fourth round of sanctions has been imposed on the country by the European Union. But is the UN’s condemnation enough for the people of Syria? And why is there no military intervention?
- Growing impatience. After three months of the crackdown against protests, and months of indecision from the UN, reported Ed Pilkington in The Guardian, the Security Council has finally passed a statement condemning Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad. Only Lebanon has dissociated itself from the text, whilst Russia, China, India, Brazil and South Africa had been putting up resistance to the statement. It’s less than what the UK, US and France wanted, but it still shows “growing impatience within the international community towards the Syrian crackdown.” The opposition has accused the Syrian regime of “striking hard” whilst the attention of the world is turned to the trial of Hosni Mubarak. But the statement of the UN is “toothless”, since it “contains no provision for sanctions or other punitive measures against Syria, nor does it call for a referral of Syrian leaders to the international criminal court.”
- Syrians need to sort out their own troubles. We were willing to give him a chance, said Ali al-Bayanouni on The Guardian’s Comment is Free. But “Assad’s regime remains unreformed.” The programme he set out has proven to be “cosmetic”, and Assad has shown he has no regard for the blood of his own people, and has “violated the rights of all Syrians.” Syria won’t fall into chaos if his regime falls; history, from 1920 until 1963 has shown that cohesion is possible. We need a “collective national alternative,” without foreign intervention. Syrians want a modern, pluralist state, with equality for the sexes and a civil constitution. “This is what the Syrians want, and what they are on course to achieve.”
- A step in the right direction. Whilst the UN has finally found its voice, said Daniel Scheschkewitz on Deutstche Welle, the diplomatic wording of the statement “distorst the true balance of power in Syria,” practically ridiculing the deaths of the opposition. Though not as weighty as a UN resolution, this statement does mean a step in the right direction. al-Assad will now realise that even Russia, his ally, won’t accept his human rights violations, which might mean that he’ll “answer the phone when UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon calls.” So this response, though weak, has “a certain signaling effect.” A chaotic Syria doesn’t suit anyone, but there won’t be military intervention: its strategic location, alliance with Russia and the problems in Libya all rule that out. So “the commitment of the international community will hardly go beyond this UN Security Council’s statement. For the people in Syria, it’s the bitter truth and the plea from New York only a weak consolation.”