SYRIA. THE PATH FROM WAR TO PEACE

Multilateral diplomacy in search of a resolution of the syrian conflict

Marija Chodynskaja Goleniš?eva, Marija Chodynskaja Goleniščeva

• Publisher: Sandro Teti Editore
• Year: 2021
• eBook ISBN: 9788831492300
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Middle Eastern History
• Index: History

This book is an indispensable tool for deeply understand the Syrian conflict in all its aspects and for having an overall view of the situation in the Middle East.

III. THE UNITED NATIONS AND THE SYRIAN CRISIS: THE UN’s ROLE IN A CHANGING WORLD ORDER

One of the most important and controversial issues related to the resolution of the Syrian crisis is the role of the United Nations, a body called upon to organize the interaction of members of the international community to resolve conflicts on the basis of the principles of its Charter and the principles of international law.

It is the UN that is the protector and guarantor of such important principles as the sovereignty and independence of states, renouncing the use force in international relations, and non-interference in internal affairs of other nations.

The Founding Fathers of the UN, when laying down the legal framework of the Organization and looking into the future, strived to create a solid and durable foundation for a new world order, one that would ensure the freedom and independence of peoples, and outlaw war as a tool to settle interstate disputes1. The new architecture of the world order is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all peace-loving states. Its implementation is meant to guarantees peace and security and remains the foundation of present-day international law. One of the UN’s key principles is non-interference in the internal affairs of states. Its observance guarantees stable and progressive development of countries in the legal realm, insures protection from unconstitutional shocks and serves the interests of resolving even the most acute global and regional problems.

The UN should be a buffer of sorts against those who push the concept of unilateral intervention in the internal affairs of states, orchestrate from the outside all sorts of “democratic revolutions” that lead to widespread violations of human rights and destabilize the situation in entire regions.

Therefore, it is interesting to look at the role played by the UN in the Syrian events. How did Member States interact within the UN structures and agencies, what kind of agenda did they offer, what were the patterns of behavior of the UN Secretary General, Secretariat and the UN agencies. It is not a secret that some of the UN officers in their work clearly adhere to the principle of neutrality, which should determine the activities of an international official, whereas many UN officers, unfortunately, are simply agents who pursue the line of their governments. That Western States implement their national agendas by using their “own people” in the UN Secretariat, today is unfortunately not unusual. Especially given the dominance of such representatives in the Secretariat. The conviction that the United Nations exists to “assist” the implementation of its geopolitical strategies finally ripened in the 1990s, when the world was unipolar and the United States enjoyed absolute hegemony in international affairs. Of course, under the weight of objectively evolving realities, it will eventually disappear.

It is in the interaction between states on the Syrian issue in the United Nations where we can see all the signs of the emerging multipolarity manifested. The rejection by a growing number of states of US conduct, which aspires to single-handedly engineer the overthrow of regimes wherever it decides, these same states’ non-acceptance of the logic of “We Came, We Saw, He Died”2, and the position of Russia and China on the need to counter the policy of permissiveness on the world stage – all this did not allow the West to use the UN for its next adventure in regime change, “under the protection” of the authority of the Organization which can impart “legitimacy” to otherwise illegitimate actions. That is why during the Syrian events there were many complaints by Western states about “UN inefficiency”, “harm” of the veto right and the “misplaced” priorities of the UN agenda. These are the words of the United States and its allies’ in response to the objective reality that they refuse to accept: the UN is not an instrument for achieving opportunistic goals, but rather a platform for mutually respectful dialog and conducting a joint search for win-win solutions and compromises.

1. Attempts to use the UN Security Council to legitimize unilateral actions

Established in 1945 in accordance with the UN Charter, the UN Security Council is called upon to bear the primary responsibility for the international peace and security3. The UN Security Council is a traditional instrument of the so-called Yalta-Potsdam world order, which was based on the principle of consensus of five permanent members – Russia, Britain, China, the United States and France. The procedural rules of the Council objectively responded to the balance of power in the postwar international arena existing at that time. The ongoing transformation of the system of international relations toward a more polycentric one and, as a result, the objective strengthening of new power centers has raised the issue of whether it is now appropriate to adapt UN Security Council methods to conform to these new conditions. In this sense, the review of the Council’s activities with respect to the Syrian situation is of particular importance. In a situation when the region’s countries, other the UNSC members (Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar etc.), played an increasingly active role in the Syrian events, the question then arises to what extent the internal Council discussions and its approved decisions correspond to the political alignment of forces in the international arena and, accordingly, how this alignment affects the possibilities for the implementation of these decisions.

The UN Security Council played an important role in resolving the crisis in Syria. From 2011 to the end of 2017 it adopted 22 resolutions on various aspects of the Syrian dossier: on chemical demilitarization of the SAR; the ceasefire; modalities of the political process under the auspices of the United Nations; humanitarian assistance to the population; the fight against terrorism etc. It is noteworthy that the Council went beyond its mandate and, at the behest of the Western Big Three (Great Britain, United States, France) considered issues not directly related to peace and security (human rights, humanitarian issues etc.), which was a reflection of West’s general policy to erode the UNSC’s mandate. Here we recall the Arria formula meetings, which are the Council’s informal consultations that use flexible procedures, including the invitation of experts from the Independent Commission of Inquiry in Syria, the establishment of which was not supported by Russia in January 2013. Another such example are the UNSC regular briefings, which are held by the UN Deputy Secretary General for Syria (A. Amos, S. O’Brien, M. Lowcock) and focus on the delivery of humanitarian assistance to the population. This particular aspect should be viewed through the prism of Western attempts to maintain its dominance in the world arena, which they acquired during the unipolar period when they created the “link” between the Council and human rights and humanitarian organizations.

At the beginning of the conflict in the SAR, the United States and its allies, who declared the regime illegitimate, attempted to use the UN Security Council to obtain a legal basis for pursuing their plans to overthrow Bashar Assad. Attempts to approve the relevant draft resolutions and Russia’s aggressive response to counter such a plan politicized the work of the UNSC and led to a growing mistrust among its members, a lack of proper analysis of the root causes of the emerging threats, the sides refusing to exchange information and participate in other forms of cooperation. Throughout the crisis, Russia was facing unprecedented pressure.

This antagonism within the UN Security Council was in no small part brought about by the declining capabilities of Western countries. Here we mean Washington’s unwillingness to sidestep the UN Security Council and carry out a unilateral operation to overthrow Bashar Assad. The US experience in Iraq in 2003, when Americans used force without the direct mandate of the UN Security Council4, as well as in Libya, where a very broad interpretation of the UNSCR 1973 (2011) by the United States and NATO resulted in dire humanitarian consequences. In this regard, Washington and its allies took the position that sanctions of the UN Security Council must be obtained before they were to conduct military action. In the Syrian context, the objective was to obtain a resolution from Security Council subject to Chapter VII of the UN Charter under any pretext that would allow action to be taken: be it human rights violations, deterioration of the humanitarian situation, use of chemical weapons or the need for a transitional system of justice etc. The next step would be a statement by the Big Three of the West about the Syria’s failure to implement the UNSC Resolution followed by the subsequent adoption of a new resolution by the Security Council on conducting military operations. In this regard, documents being submitted by the West would combine the unbalanced signals being sent to the parties of the conflict and unilateral criticism of the SAR authorities the automatic punishment of Damascus would be assured if it fails to implement the resolution provided for in such documents.

Russia, for its part, tried to take proactive actions. At the beginning of the Syrian events, Moscow proposed a draft resolution condemning any violent act in Syria, calling on the international community to work with the parties of the conflict to achieve a ceasefire and start negotiations. In July 2012, Russia took the initiative to set out the steps to de-escalate the situation: the United Nations Supervision Mission in Syria was supposed to develop a special plan to end violence in every Syrian locality affected by military action...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title page
• Index
• Introduction
• I. How the syrian crisis emerged: the combination of external and internal key factors and influences
• II. The anti-assad front: its structure, ideology and external sponsors
• III. The united nations and the syrian crisis: the un’s role in a changing world order
• IV. Opportunities, constrains, role and prospects of russia-us cooperation in the sar crisis resolution and other global issues
• V. Military and political mechanism for resolving the sar crisis with participation of middle east states: new negotiation formats
• VI. Evolution of russia’s military and political efforts to resolve the syrian crisis
• Conclusion
• Italian catalogue of the publishing house
• News