AS the fighting rages across Syria and intensifies in Damascus Russia decides to end weapons sales to the government of bashar al-assad. Russia and the prc continue to block Chapter 7 resolutions in the UN Security Council, but this unilateral action by Russia, if true, could be the action that brings the fall of assad. From United to End Genocide.....
By Bama Athreya
The following originally appeared on the Connect U.S. Fund blog.
The Russians will sell no new weapons
to Bashar al-Assad’s murderous regime in Syria. This is a significant
shift in Russia’s stance. The time is ripe to push even harder to end
any provision of arms, by any government, to those forces in Syria
committing human rights abuses.
By some estimates, over 17,000 people have died since the inception
of violence in March 2011 – most innocent civilians, and a number of
them children. Over the past sixteen months, the international community
has attempted to find a path to implement its responsibility to protect
civilian lives from the Assad government’s violent assaults.
Governments have imposed harsh economic sanctions on Syria. The Arab
League sent in a human rights observer mission. When that failed, the
United Nations sent in a mission headed by former UN Secretary General
Kofi Annan with the intention of monitoring a cease-fire and brokering peace.
The cease-fire never occurred, sanctions were increased, a number of
countries severed diplomatic relations, and a Friends of Syria group was
established to coordinate an international response to the Syria
crisis. Yet, large numbers of civilians continue to be killed – a few
now by opposition fighters, but in far greater numbers at the hands of
Assad’s forces.
Since the violence began sixteen months ago, United to End Genocide
has advocated for the use of economic and diplomatic pressure on Syria.
By restricting Assad’s access to international capital through the
sanctioning of lucrative sectors such as oil and gas, we hoped to see
both restrained capacity of the regime to arm and pay its soldiers, and
the reduction of support for Assad from Syria’s business community. Over
the past several months, we have also pushed for an end to Russian arms
sales – in particular, targeting Russia’s state-owned weapons dealer Rosoboronexport.
We have no illusions about the company’s morality, but guess
that—between Assad’s diminished ability to pay lucrative contracts, and
the threat of loss of sales elsewhere— pressure on the Russians may be
working given the latest announcement.
Despite this victory, a protracted civil war in Syria now seems
inevitable. This will undoubtedly lead to the loss of many more civilian
lives and risks escalating delicate regional tensions even further. The
‘military option’ has been discussed with proposals for safe zones,
no-kill zones and the direct arming of the Syrian opposition. At the
other end of the spectrum, some human rights groups have called for a
total arms embargo – both to stop the flow of weapons to the Assad
regime, and to any opposition forces. Would any of these options really
serve the need for civilian protection in the cities of Syria, where it
is most needed?
In the midst of this, Annan has been clearly calling for a stronger
UN mandate for the international mission. The current mandate will
expire on July 20, and at this point it must be both renewed and
strengthened. While Russia and China vetoed an earlier UN Security
Council measure, perhaps Russia’s recent change of heart on new weapons
sales suggests that stronger action is now possible.
In response to Annan’s call for ‘strong consequences’ for Syria’s
intransigence, some Security Council members want to authorize a measure
under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. This would enable, among other
possible actions, an arms embargo on Syria. Now that the Russians have
conceded the issues with selling weapons to Syria, can they be convinced
to endorse a condition that military assistance will not be provided to
forces known to have committed human rights violations (something
similar to the Leahy provisions mandated in U.S. law)? Here, credible
monitoring will be key, and could be the justification to insist that
human rights monitors—in the form of an expanded, and protected, Annan
mission—be given enough access and resources to determine which forces
should be sequestered.
The world also needs to convince the opposition’s armed combatants
that it will not serve their cause to target civilians. Some governments
are now providing military and non-military support to the armed opposition.
Regardless of whether this is something that should be encouraged or
discouraged, it is happening. At a minimum, the necessity then becomes
working to ensure that groups receiving arms do not turn around and
target civilians. As a measure to ensure this, what if the provision of
supplies to armed opposition groups was conditioned upon those groups
adopting clear pledges to adhere to international human rights and
humanitarian law, and to allow international human rights monitors to
work in close proximity to their operations to monitor that this pledge
was being honored?
While it may be too late to succeed in bringing peace in the short
term, the Annan mission can succeed in preventing further escalation and
reducing the harm to civilians if it is backed by strong commitments
and consequences for violations by the UN Security Council. The new
mission should include an arms embargo, in particular applied to all
forces known to have committed human rights violations, international
monitors to verify that combatants adhere to the Geneva Conventions and
other applicable international human rights and humanitarian laws, and
consequences for those who do commit violations. This may not avert
civil war, but perhaps this approach can rein in the human costs of
conflict.
http://blog.endgenocide.org/blog/2012/07/16/syria-farewell-to-arms/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=syria-farewell-to-arms
No comments:
Post a Comment