More Global Cooperation Required to Fight ISIS and Bring Peace to Syria

On  24th November, a Russian Su-24 jet fighter was shot down by the Turkish military on the border between Turkey and Syria. This is the first time a Russian military aircraft has been in an incident over the skies of Syria, since began its operations in support of Syrian government forces, against Islamic State and other rebel groups in September.

This shooting down of a Russian fighter jet by a NATO member has shown the risks that a lack of cooperation between all actors, either state or non-state has in the theatre of war. It was inevitable that this sort of incident would occur, when you have so many parties involved in the fight in Syria. Apart from the United States led coalition and Russia deploying military resources in Syria, there are also the Syrian government, ISIS and many other rebel groups fighting for their own interests. It seems that all these different actors have their own agenda for fighting and in some cases targeting groups with similar interests.

The civil war in Syria is in its fourth year and many other actors have been drawn into to conflict since it began in 2011. The most divisive has been the so called Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), who have occupied large territory in both Iraq and Syria. ISIS seems to be fighting on a number of fronts and against a number of actors or states. They have declared war against anyone who does not support their extremists’ views and have committed many atrocities in Syria, Iraq, Turkey, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Paris and many more places.

The dimensions of the Syrian civil war have changed over the past few years, with an increased focus in defeating ISIS, and even more so since the latest attacks in Paris, Beirut and the Sinai Peninsula. Since these recent terrorist attacks, member states of the United Nations Security Council have voted to call for the international community to use "all necessary measures" to fight ISIS. Russia has also since September this year in support of the Syrian government started targeting ISIS and on many other occasions attacked other rebel positions. Also, since the 13^th November terrorist attacks in Paris, French has sent an aircraft carrier to the region, doubling their efforts against ISIS. In the United Kingdom, there is a debate on if RAF jets should begin participating in targeting ISIS in not just Iraq, but also Syria. Speculation is that the UK will have to get involved, although some politicians and commentators are still sceptical of this action. 

With so many different groups and countries involved in the Syrian civil war, the issue of how to end the conflict and defeat ISIS and other extremists is becoming more urgent, but also difficult, as the years and months go by. There have been opportunities for the international community to step in and halt the conflict, but concrete action has failed every time. The United States and its western allies, who support the moderate Syrian rebels, want Bashar al-Assad to step down, and for a transitional government to take over, but Russia disagrees with this plan, as they view Assad’s government as the only group to keep stability and order in Syria. Also, Russia has other more economic and strategic interests in maintaining support for Assad.

The options that I think will need to happen to bring peace and stability to Syria, is, first a global effort that includes Russia and Iran to work as a coalition of nations to combat the threat of ISIS around the world. Second, for renewed efforts from all actors involved in the Syrian conflict to find a peaceful resolution. All that ISIS are doing is using the political vacuum left because of the Syrian civil war to create a so called caliphate in the middle East and attack its enemies.

To prevent further incidents like the one on Tuesday there needs to be a better understanding and cooperation between NATO members and Russia. Having two separate operations to combat ISIS will not be effective and may lead to further cases of shooting down of each other’s aircraft. The issue is that the western coalition does not agree with Russia’s support of Assad, which is undermining efforts to bring peace to Syria. So until there is more cooperation between all sides, defeating ISIS and bringing peace to Syria may be a lot harder to achieve.       

Changing Dimensions of the Syrian Conflict

The conflict in Syria is over four years old, with no signs of an end in the increasing violence and death toll.

The continuing conflict has forced millions of people to seek protection in other countries. As Europe has witnessed large amounts refugees from Syria, bringing to the realisation that it is not just a regional concern but also an international one. As I have written about in earlier posts, the international community has not effectively found a solution to ending the conflict. The United Nations Security Council has been divided, with Russia and China vetoing four key resolutions aimed at putting pressure on the Syrian government to put an end to the violence and negotiate peace.

Now we have a situation where the Assad regime has managed with the support of Russia to keep control of much of the strategic areas of Syria, including the major coastal towns and cities. Reports over the last few weeks have speculated increasing assistance to the Assad regime by Russia, as a number of jets, hundreds of personnel and other military equipment have been sent to an airbase in Latakia. The Russian's have claimed that these forces are not intended to support Assad's forces, and even the U.S Secretary of State John Kerry stated that this increase  is just for protection of Russian forces already in Syria, although Kerry was concern of future intentions of an increasing Russian military presence in Syria. This concern by America seems more of a risk that the U.S led coalition and Russian forces could accidentally come into conflict, rather than issue of Russian troops and equipment present in Syria. This renewed military buildup by Russia comes at a time when the U.S and its allies step up their own campaign not against the Assad regime, but Isis, who have been gaining a foothold in the continuing violence and instability.

The conflict in Syria has changed the dimensions of the international community’s response, with focus turning to combating extremist forces within Syria, rather than trying to remove Assad or finding a solution to ending the conflict. This war against Isis has become the key strategy of the international community with increasing emphasis by the U.S and other countries including Australia and the UK. In respect to Australia, in the last few weeks Royal Australian Air force jets have begun bombing Isis forces in not just Iraq, but also Syria. The UK on the other hand limited its role to just fighting Isis in Iraq, but there is speculation that in the next couple of months Parliament could decide to authorise airstrikes within Syria. It’s all well and good that the international community is fighting against extremists groups like Isis, but this is only one actor in the conflict, there needs to be a refocus towards  either renewing pressure on Assad to step down or working with the Assad regime to finding a solution to bring peace to the people of Syria.    

The case of Syria is now proving that if conflicts of such a nature are not solved early, even though from the beginning this war had many dimensions from multiple actors internally and externally, there should have been a larger emphasis for the root causes of the spread from protest to all out civil war. These causes in my mind was Assad and his regime. The sad thing with Syria, was that Russia has been a longtime supporter of Assad and his regime, meaning that the UNSC were unable to influence the Russians to support the stance of majority of the international community towards placing pressure on Assad. Even China's long term policy of non-intervention played a key role in its decision not to agree with the resolutions tabled by the west.

So the outcome at present is that we have an outside extremist group in ISIS which stems from the occupation of U.S led forces and conflict Iraq, increasing its hold on large parts of both Syria and Iraq. The extreme  views and violent tactics of ISIS have become more of a concern to the international community, leading many countries to be dragged into a U.S led coalition to fight extremism from the air. This conflict in Syria and the instability in Iraq has spread from a mostly regional issue to an international concern. Europe at present is witnessing the fallout of such a spread of violent conflicts, with hundreds of thousands of refugees from Syria fleeing to the continent.

In the last week or so, many world leaders or senior foreign advisers have come out and stated that for any future peace in Syria, will require the international community to negotiate with Assad. The possibility of a transitional government with Assad as part of it has been considered for any future peace in Syria. I think in the reality of the present situation in Syria, dropping the opposition to Assad by much of the international community would be wise for future peace and stability. Assad seems to be in a strong position, especially with Russian forces inside Syria, and he has shown that although the west are against him, he still has enough allies in Russia and Iran to hold on to power. It’s hard to predict in what capacity Assad would contain in any future transitional government. Course you would think that Russia and Iran would want Assad and this regime to contain much of the control and decision making positions. On the other hand, the true Syrian opposition forces and the west would want Assad and his government to maintain a limited position. Thus, any future negotiations would require a delicate balance, which would legitamise the concerns of the majority Sunni population, as well protect the many minority groups, including the Alawite’s. The next few months will be decisive on how the Syrian’s achieve with assistance from the international community a path of long term peace and stability.  

How and Why the United Nations needs to be Reformed

Over the last month or so, I have been writing a number of blog posts on the United Nations (UN), focusing on the structure of the system and why I think it does not work. I have outlined some reasons for such, including too much power and influence in the hands of just 5 permanent member states (P-5). With the differing national interests and political ideologies, the UN, especially the UNSC is in need of reform.

For many decades there have been many discussions and debates on the issue of a requirement for reform of the UN system, but nothing as progressed beyond mere talking. There has only been one major change to the structure of the UN, and that was back in the 1960’s, when the UNSC increased from 11 members to 15, as to accommodate the increase in new member states during the era of decolonization. Apart from this increase nothing has changed.

Perhaps one area that could be reformed is broadening the participation in the UNSC. The international system has changed since the founding of the UN in 1945, and many more new nations have gained independence, with some increasing  their power and influence over the last 60 years or so. The current UN system has not allowed for this transgression of these major changes, and this can be argued as leading to the ineffectiveness of the UN. So perhaps what could be discussed and implemented would be to increase the number of permanent seats in the UNSC. It would be unlikely that any of the current P-5 members would give up their prominent place in world affairs, so they would still need to keep their positions. But giving for instance, Germany, Japan, Brazil and even India a permanent seat would acknowledge these changes in the international system and the rise in power and influence that these states now occupy on the global stage. Although, increasing the number of permanent seats in the UNSC may not solve the ineffectiveness of the organisation, and could further complicate its ability to maintain international peace and security, but it would make it more representative of the current state of world affairs.

Furthermore, to prevent national interests of the P-5 from been major considerations in the decision making process, and causes for stalemate in the UNSC, the power of veto could be removed from the hands of permanent members. Such a reform could be difficult to gain agreement from the P-5, as they would likely be reluctant to give up such power and influence that the veto brings them. But I think if the global community and more specifically the P-5 want to have an organisation that can effectively maintain international peace and security, there should be more equality for all member states, not just the privileged few.

Why the United Nations System does not work?

Earlier this week I wrote a blog on the workings of the United Nations (UN) system, explaining the role and structure of the three main organs of the organisation. I am going to carry on with this theme of the UN, and explain why I think the system does not work.  

Over the last week leaders from member states have convened at the UN headquarters in New York, for the annual meeting of the General Assembly. One of the issues that would likely be discussed will be reform of the system, although I think and suspect others will likewise  that the UN system will be the same next year. Also, the situation in Syria will be centre stage, especially since a new resolution needs to be agreed upon by the UN Security Council (UNSC), concerning Syria’s agreed disarmament of its chemical weapons.

Most of the power within the UN system lies in the UNSC, where key issues dealing with maintaining international peace and security are discussed and decisions are made. Although each member on the UNSC has a vote and some influence in any decisions, the real power belongs to the five permanent states (US, UK, French, Russia and China), who all have vetoes over the decisions of the council. 

The problem with giving just five members state so much power in world affairs has led to the abuse of this system. Any issues discussed or draft resolution presented at the UNSC can be vetoed by any of the P-5, meaning that if this occurs, the thus resolution is not adopted. The conflict in Syria and the UNSC gridlock is a recent example, though there has been many more in the past, where P-5 members have vetoed draft resolutions even if majority of the global community are in agreeance. In the case of Syria, Russia and China has vetoed three draft resolutions presented to the council so far. Much of the reasons for a veto from a P-5 member are because of national interests influencing their decisions. Russia’s support for the Assad’s regime is evidence for my case, as they are steadfastly protecting the Syrian government at the UN, because national interest are trumping over any international criticisms. Russia has its only naval facility in the Mediterranean in the port city of Tartus, Syria, and also has many economic interests in the country, which they are unlikely to give up.

Another reason for vetoes is also due to the UN Charta, which advocates that all states have the rights to non-intervention and sovereignty over their territory. Russia and China for example have rejected any international intervention in Syria and in other cases, arguing that member states should not intervene in other member’s internal affairs.

Although I am using Russia as an example, the other P-5 states make decision on national interests as well. The US for example, in 1994 was reluctant to intervene in preventing genocide in Rwanda, because of the death of 18 American soldiers in Somalia a couple of years before, and public opinion and other concerns did not warrant the risk of intervening to prevent the killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in Rwanda.      

With the power of the UN system in the hands of just five member states, who all have at times different interests, this has lead to indecision and gridlock on many occasions.

How the system is structured has effectively prevented appropriate responses and actions by the global community in avoiding or ending many conflicts.

As a former UK diplomat Carne Ross,  once said, "One of the very odd things that I experienced when I was on the Council, was that the one group of people you could guarantee would not be consulted on what was being discussed in the Security Council were the people most affected  So whether it's Iraqis, Kosovars, Sudanese, or Syrians their legitimate representatives would never get a chance to have a say on what they thought the Council - what the world should do,"

To conclude I would like to say that the UN does have its merits in promoting development and providing humanitarian aid, along with health and education to millions across the world, sometimes on a limited budget.  

The Workings of the United Nations System

The United Nations System (UN) was founded in 1945 in the aftermath of two world wars, and was the brainchild of the three victories nations of WW2,  the US, UK and Soviet Union (Russia), aimed at saving future generations from the scourges of war. The objectives of the newly formed organisation of states are to protect international peace and security by preventing the need for war, through a notion of cooperation and collective security. To achieve these objectives, the UN has two main organs (institutions), the United Nations Security council (UNSC) and the General Assembly (GA), along with a number of departments and agencies that deal with a range of issues from human rights to providing aid and development across the globe. The GA is in a way a world parliament, with almost all nations represented. Each member state has one vote, with a two-thirds majority required for any decisions on key issues such as admission of new members and UN budgets. Also decisions are non-binding.

The UNSC on the other hand does bind all member states to any decisions made by the council, and is the main organ given the powers to achieve the objectives of international peace and security. The UNSC is made up of 15 member states of which 5 are permanent, known as the P-5 (US, UK, French, Russia and China) and 10 non-permanent members who serve for two year terms. The UNSC is the main decision making body in the UN and has the role of deciding if the international community will intervene in certain conflicts by either adopting sanctions or deploying peacekeepers. For any resolution to be adopted requires 9 council members agreeing, although the P-5 can veto any decisions made in the council.

Finally there is the Secretary-General (SG) who is elected by the General Assembly on the advice from the Security Council. Their main role is mostly as the chief administrator of the organisation, although the charter does give the power of the SG  to bring to the attention of the UNSC of any issue that he or she thinks is of concern relating to international peace and security. The SG and his office also play the role of chief diplomat promoting international peace and security.        

The international community need to intervene in Syria

When will the international community finally step in and actively halt the civil war in Syria? It has been over two years, since opposition forces began their campaign against the Bashar al-Assad regime with no end in sight. The United Nations estimate that almost 100,000 people have been killed and many more been injured.

In the last few days the UN refugee chief, Antonio Guterres, has reported that the conflict in Syria has become the worst refugee crises facing the world since the Rwandan genocide in 1994. Guterres estimates that over 6000 Syrians are fleeing the conflict every day, with Turkey, Jordan and Iraq being the main destinations. On top of this figure, the UN further estimates that over 6 million people are in need of aid supplies.

This report from the UN is quite disturbing, seeing that I would have thought, and I assume others would as well, that the international community would have learnt its lesson after the Rwandan genocide, but this does not seem the case.

I think that with all the recent reports over the last few months, of chemical weapons been deployed by both sides, that’s if the information is correct, and now with the ever increasing death toll and refugee crises, outside intervention may need to be examined even further.  The small amount of light military and other supplies to the opposition forces by the United States and European nations does not seem to be giving an advantage to the rebels, especially since government troops are being supplied with heavier weaponry from Russia.

The best option to end this conflict is through peace talks, but this has failed in the past and is unlikely to happen in the near future. Both sides seem content on fighting to the death and innocent civilians are becoming by-standers suffering the most. The only option that I can see to bringing peace is for more concerted effort by the outside world to actively intervene. To achieve this option would be for a meeting to take place between the all five permanent UN Security Council members and other nations from the region to discuss and hopefully come to a better solution to ending the conflict, then what has been proposed in the past.

The report by the UN on the scale of the violence and instability caused to millions of Syrians will I hope motivate more concerted action by the international community, before more innocent lives are lost. 

Iran’s Nuclear Standoff

Image source: WikiCommons

Iran’s Nuclear stand off with the rest of the world has become a unending saga, with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) announcing that Iran have installed advanced centrifuge machines, capable of enriching uranium much faster then in the past. 

Apart from this new report released by the IAEA, talks between Iran and the P5+1 (US, UK, French, Russia, China and Germany), has been planned to take place this week in Kazakhstan. Western diplomats have suggested that they will offer Iran reworked terms to settle the Nuclear crises, this will include easing some sanctions, in return for Iran closing some facilities, but still allow enrichment to continue in other facilities. 

This new deal is a step back from past negotiations, which the P5+1 demanded a halt of all enrichments and closing down of the Qom facility. Western powers seem to be viewing the present situation in more realistic terms, as Iran, after years of failed sanctions are not prepared to bow down to pressure by the international community and stop all uranium enrichment , and many states including the US are unwilling to be drawn into another conflict, likely to be a disaster and further destabilise the region.

Image source: WikiCommons

As we all know, Iran and western countries, specifically the United States (US), have been at  loggerheads over Iran’s nuclear ambitions for over ten years. The international community and the IAEA have been alarmed by Iran’s nuclear program, claiming that they are not just enriching uranium for peaceful means, to be used for energy, but are expanding their research and technology to build a nuclear device in the near future. The Iranian leaders have rejected this claim on many occasions, saying that they do not want to build a nuclear weapon, but just want enrich uranium for energy purposes only. Even Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has issued a ‘fatwa’ condemning nuclear weapons in the past.

The issue that the United Nations Security Council and the IAEA has with Iran’s program, is the fact that they will not fully comply with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), by not cooperating with inspectors and lying about their ambitions to acquire weapons grade uranium.

Under the treaty, signatory nations are allowed to enrich uranium to be used for energy purposes, however the technology required producing fuel for a reactor can also create material for a nuclear weapon. To overcome the use of this technology been used to produce a nuclear device, the IAEA inspects the facilities that are producing nuclear fuel, making sure it is for peaceful purposes. However, Iran has not cooperated fully on allowing inspectors into their facilities to confirm that what Iran labels as peaceful production of nuclear energy.

I think that Iran is playing a risky game of ‘Russian Roulette with the international community by not cooperating with the IAEA and not abiding by the NPT. If they are true to their word, they should allow inspectors to fully monitor their program or withdraw from the treaty; although, if Iran did leave the NPT they would likely be viewed as having ambitions to build a nuclear weapon and be a threat to international security. The current situation is two fold, on the one hand, Iran are threatened by the US and Israel, thus are secretly trying to acquire a nuclear weapons, on the other, the US and Israel are alarmed with the a prospect of a nuclear armed Iran, who’s leaders have called for the destruction of Israel and have supported the activities of a number of organizations. 

To solve these problems, Iran should suspend their ambitions to secretly build a nuclear capability and cooperate with the IAEA, and the US and Israel should stop threatening to attack BlogThis!

Australia’s bid for seat in the United Nations Security Council

Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Foreign Minster Bob Carr was in New York attending the annual United Nation (UN) leaders meeting last week, where they have been trying to gain support from other nations for Australia’s bid for a temporary two year non-permanent seat on the United Nation Security Council (UNSC).

Australia is bidding for a seat against Luxembourg and Finland. Both these nations began their campaigns to gain a seat eight years before Australia, giving them a clear advantage in drumming up support from other countries. Both Gillard and Carr are not letting this advantage halt Australia’s own chances of winning, arguing that Australia has a good record when it comes to participation in the UN, with many successful contributions to Peacekeeping operations in the past.  

As usual in politics, the campaign has not been without a few critics. Opposition leader Tony Abbot  criticised the bid,saying that Ms Gillard should be in Jakarta talking to the Indonesian government about the more important issue of stopping the boats, rather then trying to bid for a costly UNSC seat. Abbot went further, saying that “Australia’s pursuit of the temporary seat was a waste of money and distorted the nation’s foreign policy priorities.”

Although the campaign to gain a temporary seat cost an estimated $55 million, in my opinion the money spent will be worth it. Australia has as much of a good chance of winning the seat as the two other bidding nations. Australia has a good UN record, with regular contributions to peacekeeping operations and campaigning on behalf of smaller nations in the international community. Furthermore a UNSC seat would give Australia influence in some of the major global decisions that could be in the national interest both in our economy and diplomatic relations (such as, a long term, internationally coordinated plan of how to "stop the boats").

We will need to wait until October 18th when all 198 member states cast a secret ballot to decide who gains the Security Council seats.