Is the UN failing on Syria?

As the shells fall on their own towns and cities, the rest of the world stand by unable and seemingly unwilling to respond to save lives that have reportedly (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16932556) already been lost in the al-Assad Syrian conflict. As videos of civilians running from the mortar fire dropping around them dominates the news coverage of the crisis, the UN is bound and unable to move thanks to the intervention of both Russia and China leaving SOS calls unanswered.

With a veto in place and a vote necessary to take action to save people in danger, it seems evident that the current institutions set up to protect people around the world, including the UN, are not equipped to safeguard lives. Surely it’s simple. Whether it’s internal conflict or international warfare, a unilateral organisation is needed with the sole mandate to protect innocent civilians from conflict and war, unimpeded by the political agendas of individual states.

There would be no capabilities for returning fire, or engaging in warfare itself, but it would simply act to protect lives. Shields would replace bullets, and armoured occupation of civilian locations under fire would replace retaliatory action. Where warring factions focus their resources on inflicting damage, the new organisation would look at technological advancements to block, absorb and incapacitate the implements of war to save innocent civilians.

Obviously such an organisation would need a lot of stipulations to ensure that it continues to have a positive impact – for example it should not protect warring factions, only innocent civilians; it should utilise equipment that guarantees the highest level of safety for its peace missions and personnel; it could even hold regular global public confidence votes following each intervention to ensure that it continued to be universally respected – however, what’s clear is that there still appears to be be a gap between the needs of the vulnerable and the solutions of the international community.

The UN process of seeking approval from the Security Council to send peacekeepers to areas where armed conflict has recently ended or under ceasefire conditions to enforce the terms of peace agreements and to discourage further hostilities does little to save innocent men, women and children while the conflict fires around their lives. Only with a free standing global organisation of peace, unrestricted by national interests, can we ever ensure that countries like Syria get the help that they need, when they need it the most.

The continuing conflict in the country well into 2014 – more than three years after it first began – is a clear indicator of the long term damage that a lack of timely action can have. With Islamic State taking hold in the country and occupying large swaths of territory by force, it’s clear that earlier intervention combining peace keeping missions, arbitration and policing action could have prevented the new risks and dangers that are developing in Syria.

As it becomes increasingly fragmented and overrun by varying warring factions, it will become increasingly difficult for the UN to bring back order to the Middle Eastern country. The reality is that when chemical weapons are used but not sufficiently dealt with, when more than a hundred thousand people are killed (including many civilian women and children) and when millions of people have to flee their homes in favour of refugee status, you know that we’ve failed.

Share our “Is the UN failing on Syria?” article with: