What's new

UN Security Council Action on Syria Soon

Lankan Ranger

ELITE MEMBER
Aug 9, 2009
12,550
0
7,961
UN Security Council Action on Syria Soon

UN Security Council is likely to produce a resolution this week on Syria, initiated by Germany with the support of France, the UK and Portugal, condemning the government’s use of its armed forces to suppress the nationwide rebellion.

Russia, which had previously resisted any action by the UNSC, now says that it won’t oppose a UNSC resolution. Unlike the UNSC’s action on Libya, however, it isn’t going to endorse military action, and both Russia and France declared that they’re against the idea of direct action. And that’s a good thing.

The Russian foreign ministry said, of the possible UN action on Syria: “If there are some unbalanced items, sanctions, pressure, I think that kind of pressure is bad because we want less bloodshed and more democracy.” That means no military action or tough sanctions will be authorized. Meanwhile, the French, opting to reassure Russia and China, said: “The situation in Libya and Syria are not similar. No option of a military nature is considered.”

Over the weekend, the Syrian government launched a massive attack on Hama, the city in central Syria that has emerged as the focal point of the result. Earlier, the Assad government had refused to crack down on Hama, which was the scene of a brutal battle in 1982 that left thousands dead.

Although the Syrian army hasn’t entered central Hama yet, still poised on the outskirts, its bombs and shelling have left scores dead, provoking Russia to call Assad’s actions “unacceptable” Turkey’s president, Abdullah Gul, to say that he’s “horrified.”

In the United States, hawks are calling for tough actions. Yet another Washington Post editorial decries the alleged inaction by the White House, demanding oil and gas sanctions and indictment of Bashar al-Assad by the International Criminal Court. And the unholy ttinity in the Senate, John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman, are once again urging the White House to adopt regime change, and the fall of the Assad government, as its policy.

Though Obama has edged closer and closer to that policy, so far he’s resisted—in large part because there’s no way for the United States to enforce it or bring it about. (Even the war in Libya has proved less than effective in toppling Muammar Qaddafi, and Assad seems more firmly entrenched.)

Tomorrow will be a big day for US policy toward Syria, since US Ambassador Robert Ford will have his confirmation hearing. Ford, in a needlessly provocative act, joined the French ambassador on a visit to Hama in mid-July, an act that drew the wrath of the government and no doubt led the rebels to believe that they’d have US backing if they stood fast.

Unfortunately, there’s little or nothing that the United States can (or should) do to intervene directly in Syria, which means that the rebels there are on their own. But Ford’s US embassy spokesman is talking tough: “There is one armed gang in this country, and it is the Syrian government itself.”

UN Action on Syria Likely | The Nation
 
This will happen now. Democracy is coming..:lol:.

6186b837ea1257498586.jpg
 
^^ they dont dare it to do that against Syria, they know that Iran will get involved as Iran has signed a defence pact with Syria
 
i've read that all they are going to do is put embargo and sanctions. they are not going to take action in syria!
 
I maybe incorrect in my analysis, but it will be US' advantage if the current Syrian Govt falls since it has till now been anti US and yet going strong.

It is also to the Arab nations' interest that the current govt in Syria should fall. For after all, Syria is allied to Iran and Iran is not the flavour of the Arabs, more so since Iran backed Hezbollahs of Lebanon are the only ones who have been able to stand up to Israeli attacks (2006) as also cause serious damage to Israel and the Israeli morale that they were invincible which they were having given the united Arabs a hiding of their lives ever time the Arabs thought they could take on Israel.

I don't think the US or NATO will embark on any bombing runs as they are doing in Libya where not much of result is showing.

If the UN is to send a UN force, I would be doubtful if India will contribute since Syria has a good relationship with India.

The other two nations that contribute heavily to the UN Peacekeeping are Bangladesh and Pakistan.

If Bangladesh and Pakistan contributes to the UN Peacekeeping, then it is a different matter.

US would want the head of such a UN Force to be from a country which is favourable to the US.

Ban Moon is but a US man since the US got him into the position in the first place!
 
the US has no appetite for this ( i hope and pray so). Let them annihilate each other by their own hands, its their own people killing each other and if the west gets involved in stopping the massacre then it will be called a crusade. Let the other Islamic countries resolve their dictators massacres.
 
Hello,

Every body say that only hizb stood against israel well israel is here since 60 years and hizb came in the pictures in early 80s, while the palestinians ( arabs ) r fighting for the last 60 years. The struggle of palestinians is remarkable.

Bashar is going down no doubt and as rami makhloof the cousin of bashar said that peace in syria means peace in israel this regime is the most suited for israelies.

TARIQ
 
You are telling me China and Russia will use their military against Syria ? ROFL.
Like i said, EU,US knows Iran will get involved so they will scrap the military option

if iran threatens russia and chinas interests in the region i dont see a reason why china and russia wouldnt use force to protect their interests!
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 2, Members: 0, Guests: 2)


Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom