Maurice Chukwu
The political maneuverings amongst the five members of the United Nations Security Council (the U.S., UK, France, Russia and China) following the August 21st poison gas attack that killed hundreds of civilians in a Damascus suburb in Syria, and President Barack Obama's threat of U.S. strikes in retaliation provides an ample opportunity to appreciate the impact of international diplomacy in conflict resolution. The conflict in Syria has lasted for almost two and a half years and has led to the death of thousands of Syrians who are demanding for a change in government. President Bashar al-Assad has been in power since 2000, when he succeeded his father, Hafez al-Assad, who led Syria for 30 years until his death.
Russia and the United States had been at odds over the Syrian
conflict, and most especially over the use of chemical weapons in Syria. Russia
and China had vetoed three US, UK and France-backed resolutions pressuring al-
Assad's regime to end the violence. This is because Russia and China being Syrian
allies, and also their chief suppliers of war heads, are bent on protecting
their economic ties with Syria. This, methinks, explains why Russia and China
have rebuffed all attempts by the trio of the U.S., UK and France to declare
the use of chemical weapons by Syria as falling under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter.
Suffice to state that under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter,
the Security Council can take enforcement measures to maintain or restore
international peace and security. Such measures range from economic and/or
other sanctions not involving the use of armed force to international military
action. The use of mandatory sanctions is intended to apply pressure on a State
or entity to comply with the objectives set by the Security Council. Sanctions
thus offer the Security Council an important instrument to enforce its
decisions. The Security Council resorts to mandatory sanctions and ultimately military
strikes when world peace has been threatened and diplomatic efforts have
failed.
Now, the repercussion of the
invocation of Chapter 7 of the UN Charter on Syria is that if the UN makes an
explicit determination that the situation in Syria constitutes a threat to the
peace, a breach of the peace, or an act of aggression, and then passes a
resolution to that effect, it would call for military action against Syria. The
US, UK and Frances align with this position and have canvassed for immediate
military strikes against the al-Assad-led Syria. The US had even gone further
to threaten to single-handedly go to war as it viewed the use of chemical
weapons by Syria as constituting ‘a threat to the peace, a breach of the peace,
or an act of aggression’
On the other hand, Russia
and China would have none of this as their economic interests are obviously
involved. Rather, after the UN confirmed "unequivocally and
objectively" that chemical weapons have been used in Syria, Russia and
China began pushing
for an agreement that would allow Syria to place its chemical weapons stockpile
under international control. This move, if successful, is aimed at preventing
the invasion of Syria by UN forces.
Consequently, Russia and China sought the cooperation of the US, proposing that if there
is any violation by any party – as the proposed resolution also calls on the
Syrian opposition to assist in the disarmament process – the Security Council will
then convene again and decide whether to take enforcement measures in line with
Chapter 7.
Following
U.S.
Secretary of State John Kerry’s
proclamation that President
al-Assad could avert U.S. military action by
turning over "every single bit of his chemical weapons" to
international control within a week, Russia quickly agreed. Kerry and Russian Foreign
Minister Sergey Lavrov signed an agreement in Geneva on 13th
September to put Syria's chemical weapons under international control for later
destruction, and Assad's government accepted.
Thus,
the U.S. and Russia mapped out benchmarks and timelines for cataloguing,
quarantining and ultimately destroying Syria's chemical weapons, their
precursors and delivery systems. The U.N. Security Council eventually voted
unanimously on Friday, 27th September, 2013 to secure and
destroy Syria's chemical weapons stockpile.
The final resolution also states that the Security Council will impose measures
under Chapter 7 if Syria fails to comply, but that this would require adoption
of a second resolution. Thus, a possible U.S. war with Syria, which many have
speculated could lead to the third world war, has been averted.
The lesson of derivable
from the foregoing is that international diplomacy can be so powerful that it
can peacefully defuse the worst weapons of war. This could also be applied in
Nigeria in the war against terrorism. However, it is hoped that eliminating
chemical weapons from the Syrian conflict without military action against Syria
is not a license for Syria to continue killing its citizens with conventional
weapons. It is imperative that President Bashar al-Assad gives the inspectors
unfettered access to all sites and people to enable them catalogue, quarantine
and ultimately destroy the chemical weapons. One also hopes that members of the
UN Security Council should henceforth collectively pursue world peace as the
overriding objective of their resolutions, as opposed their self-seeking economic
interests. We all need peace on earth.
*Maurice Chukwu, Legal Practitioner, Dr Olu
Onagoruwa Chambers, 77 Olonode Street, Alagomeji, Yaba, Lagos. mauricechukwu@gmail.com, 08032332734
