News of the world
Today
2nd September
2013
Syria
Last week the world was shocked by many of the following images
WARNING GRAPHIC CONTENT
Image from ticotimes.net
Image from Indian Express
Image from ibtimes.com
From Irish Examiner
from www.cbsnews.com
Here is one of the maps showing some of the Areas affected
Was there bombing of the area after?
from www.theage.com.au
Eventually the United Nations where allowed entry
to Inspect the area
Image from Washington Post
from news.yahoo.com
(Many more images can be seen by simply typing in
Syria Gas Attack into Google or Bing or Baidu Image Search)
Many are angered over the United States response and the fact that they plan to intervene into what many say is a "Civil War" that has nothing to do with the "National Interest" of the United States.
However we need to go back and ask why is it that the United Nations, are not intervening?
While yes this may be a "civil war" between the Syrian Regime and the "Rebels", however as soon as the Assad Regime "Allegedly" used Chemical weapons they went against the
Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction
also known as the
However to get any form of Military Action from the United Nations involves
a 9 votes from members and a veto from any of the 5 permanent members of the
UN Security Council (UNSC) void the resolution.
Taken straight from the "Wikipedia" Definition, the make up of the council goes like this
"There are 15 members of the Security Council. This includes five veto-wielding permanent members—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States—based on the great powers that were the victors of World War II.[1]
There are also 10 non-permanent members, with five elected each year to serve two-year terms. This basic structure is set out in Chapter V of the UN Charter. The current non-permanent members are Argentina, Australia, Azerbaijan, Guatemala, Luxembourg, Morocco, Pakistan, Rwanda, South Korea, and Togo."
To get something passed in the UNSC you must get 9 votes, however there is
Veto Votes by members of the Permanent Security Council
Once again from the pages of "Wikipedia"
"Under Article 27 of the UN Charter,
Security Council decisions on all substantive matters require
the affirmative votes of nine members.
A negative vote, or veto, also known as the rule of "great power unanimity", by a permanent member prevents adoption of a proposal, even if it has received the required number of affirmative votes (9)."
So the Reality of the Syrian Situation is that even if 9 or 10 or 12 votes get passed by
the UNSC to do something about the use of Chemical Weapons in Syria
Any ONE of the 5 Permanent members can Veto the notion, and its stopped in its track.
In fact here is the Results of the UNSC
So with no course of action opened to using the full force of the
United Nations, The United States and the United Kingdom endeavoured to form what the
Turkish Prime Minister said was a "Coalition of the Willing"
This lead to +David Cameron calling back the UK Parliament and calling a Vote for weather
they would authorise the use of Military Action to responded to the use of Chemical Weapons by the Assad Regime , they responded and voted, no.
Now the same is being played out across the Atlantic in Washington, many are calling the
Presidents decision to also put the vote and discussion to Congress before he uses any military force, weak, and that it does not reflect his earlier "Red Line" statement. There are also those fighting on the ground that see this as a sign of weakness and betrayal from the support they once thought they had in +Barack Obama
However, have not the British Prime Minister and the United States President, done the very thing that is needed to show people the difference between Democracy and Dictatorship. Both these world leaders have the power to use Military Force, but by virtue of how the nations Constitutions are created, they must follow certain "checks and balances" so that they are doing the "will of the people"
In Britain, the "will of the people" by way of the "House of Commons" had spoken, and now the leader of that nation, must follow what was chosen. Can the same be said for the Assad Regime?
Where in the Syrian Constitution does it say the Leader of their nation is allowed to kill thousands with chemical weapons that have been banned by the United Nations? Where in the Syrian Constitution does it give the "people" of Syria the right to a fair trial? the right to voice their opinions openly in public without fear of retribution, the right to criticise their government, the right to not be killed by your government just because of your race, religion or gender or sexuality?
Why should the United States be the only country that gets involved, if it had not been for a
Russian Veto Power, the resolution would have been put through.
So rather that people always asking
"Why should the US get involved?
Are the better questions to be asking is
Why does Russia not want people to get involved?
Why does China not want people or nations to get involved?
No comments:
Post a Comment