|Quoting connies4ever (Reply 9):|
Quoting aloges (Reply 8):
Not a chance, I'm afraid - Russia would veto it, the reason being this:
I agree. Russia's ability to use the naval base at Tartus being a large reason.
That naval base has not even been used in months. Russians don't need this naval base for their 'global ambitions', because Russians don't have global ambitions. The Russians have one ambition, and that is to rape, pillage and plunder the country (Syria) for as much money as they can get right now. It's a cleptocracy. The old soviet model isn't quite the right one. People try to apply this old prism.
The reason why Russia, and China, continue/d to block UN resolutions is because they think it justifies and enhances (US.) America's sphere of influence all over the world, just as it did in Libya. The Russians and the Chinese believe, they do not want established a principle of international law, the idea that if you oppress your people, outside countries can come and send armies to depose you. It is not difficult to understand why.
If there were a protest in Moscow, once such a precedence has been set, this could be brought to the UN security council and a resolution could or would have to be brought on its way.
But the above aside. Imagine the Russians and the Chinese would do everything ''the West'' is saying and signed under the security council resolution. Then what? The world cavalry would charge in and bring order where chaos exists?
This is a pretty difficult situation. Libya is ten times the size of Syria, with one third the population which meant that the rebels had a lot of space to hide. They were able to take over one third of the country, they were able to take over Benghazi from there they could be resupplied. Syria is a very small country, very many people and a very strong army. To make matters worse: The ''opposition'' isn't even a homogenous group of people, but in itself heavily fragmented and no one knows at this point who is where and fighting how since when for what.
The Syrian rebels have not been able to hold a city for more than a day or two. Intervening in Syria would require very significant force - because the conflict is just not a left against right. The military option is less attractive than it was in Iraq. It is not clear it would succeed without enormous military intervention and because of the many conflicting interests, no one really knows where to start.
40% of Syria is minorities - Kurds, Alawites, Christians (Hizbollah on the other side).. and it doesn't appear that they have joined the opposition. The conflict right now appears to be Sunnits against Alawites. The problem is if you get involved in that, you're getting involved sectarian, regional conflict and then you could end up getting into a situation like Iraq, where when one side ends, the other side gets screwed. And then that produces its own dynamic which was the insurgency in Iraq. It is just not clear if a difference could be made effectively which is what you need to be able to do in a military operation.
You have Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar and the rebel forces on the one, the Assad regime, Hizbollah and Iran on the other hand. Besides this being a domestic conflict, this is a full blown proxy war. Which makes intervention even more difficult.
Personally, I don't think there's hope for Syria. Too many vested interests. Maybe Syria can be stabilized, but this will not be something that can be a. achieved overnight or b. through external forces. There is no clear solution to this conflict and one can understand why the people there tolerated their dictator for such a long time. They may not have had freedoms, but they at least had security. For the foreseeable future, they won't have either and on top of that, they'll have terrorists that - for those who don't know - come from the other side of Islam and have so far been kept out of Syria by the Assad regime.
There are many proposals of what could be done (intervening, arrest Assad, closing the borders, using NATO forces to secure the country, bringing controlled elections and an independent government on its way, etc.) but most of these steps would take a lot of time, a lot of ressources and could cost a lot of lives.. and as shown in Iraq, there's no guarantee this would actually work.
..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.