 |
| Secretary of State John Kerry sitting with Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif during the U.N. Security Council meeting. |
Monday, October 14, 2013
Intergovernmental Organizations and Interstate Conflict
The conflict in Syria has, of course, been an ongoing headline topic recently, with international implications increasing this year. The focus of this post is on these intergovernmental reactions to the Syrian Civil War, namely the United Nation's recent response. The New York Times published an article last month detailing a deal made by the U.N. Security Council regarding the Syrian chemical weapon attack of unknown origins. The chemical attack on Aug. 21 killed over 1,400 people while the country still runs under the al-Assad regime. This deal provided legal action in order to enforce a chemical weapon disarmament with the agreement of all five permanent U.N. members, as well as the total fifteen member-states. In an attempt to successfully implement the change, the deal arranged possible economic sanctions and even military attack in the case of Syrian noncompliance. However, if the issue is not resolved, the U.N. Security Council will meet again to address the future course of action, and the permanent members each have veto power, including Russia.
As we know, the civil war in Syria has become an international puzzle with many other countries both directly and indirectly involved. Thus far the usefulness of intergovernmental organizations such as the U.N. has proven to be important in this instance, for now providing a safeguard against further global involvement and possible interstate war. What would be the reaction of the United States and other countries if the U.N. Security Council did not exist, and Russia did not have the power to veto military action? And on the other hand, as addressed by Chapman and Wolford, can an international organization decrease the costs of interstate war enough to make military conflict more likely, as would be the case if all fifteen members of the Security Council decide to invade Syria in the future? However, for now the utility provided by these country's cooperation in the U.N. has both kept interstate war at bay providing peaceful solutions, while at the same time disabled stronger powers from entering the fight for a quicker resolution.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Without the UN Security Council it's very probably that the US would have been obligated to attack Syria in this case. One of the reasons the US did not attack previously was to wait and see what decision was going to be made by the Security Council so I guess they did their job by preventing it. Even though the claim for attack was Syria's use of chemical weapons, it more likely is due to Russia controlling that area and its oil. The US would love to get there hands on that oil and, regardless of the Security Council's decision, chose not to invade because of some separate reasoning that changed the cost of doing so.
ReplyDeleteThank you for posting on this topic! The UN having an impact on how nations handle international conflict, especially the United States, is a very interesting question. I think that the UN security council has a great deal of influence over the United States and the American public. If the United States is ready to go into a conflict, and members of the UN security council deny the action, I think that this makes the American public second guess their leaderships stance and forces everyone to think before making an action. However, if it is China and Russia that block the US's decision, I think that they will not have much of an impact on how the American people feel about their government's stance. Because of a "Cold War hangover" maybe? But the UK and France, both strong democracies are against the US's stance on an issue, I can see how this can make the US government stop and think before simply involving themselves in an issue.
ReplyDeleteI’m glad that this is being taken so head on by the UN at the centerpiece. Now we can trust this won’t become an interstate conflict and hopefully we will expect to see some change. You mention a good point that without the UN’s investigation, this could be a global free for all with increasingly deadly consequences, and I agree completely that the US would feel compelled to attack Syria without the UN. It is interesting to see how smoothly Syria is complying with the UN with the disarmament of their weapons. Syria may be cooperating with the UN right now, which may give them international credit, but it is no judgment of their actions further down the line.
ReplyDeleteI think there a couple of interesting implications for the use of diplomacy by the United States in the Syrian conflict. First of all, it signals a recognition of the US publics' dissatisfaction with the past decade of military involvement overseas. I believe that even with the approval of the Security Council, the majority of Americans would not support unilateral military action in Syria. Second, if the moderate success of diplomacy with Syria is any indication, it is plausible that a similar tactic can be used to reach an agreement with Iran on the question of nuclear weapons. Although the U.S. still spends more on its military than almost other nations combined and has hundreds of bases around the world, the transition from the use of military force to the utilization of the UN and harnessing of "soft power" in order to protect it's interests is significant and unprecedented.
ReplyDeleteIn this case the UN has generally hindered the intervention of states against the Syrian regime. This is primarily due to the fact that Russia has continually vetoed resolutions regarding any action toward the Assad regime. The reason for Russia's veto largely stem from economic and political connections between Russia and Syria. While this has seemed to stop international action towards the atrocities committed by Assad, it has not constrained US action. The US was on the verge of launching a missile strike against the Assad regime for its use of chemical weapons. This shows the inherent weakness of the UN to prevent independent action by states.
ReplyDeleteI would agree with Andrew that a solution to the Syrian issue has been obstructed in the UN. To say that the likelihood of interstate conflict could be radically increased by IO's, while a valid argument, certainly cannot apply to this case in particular. International law, particularly international law governed by the UN is not an indelible framework for peace however. In 2003 the United States invaded Iraq under the banner of the "Coalition of The Willing," acting outside of UN mandates and international laws. In this particular case there were only 4 Security Council members willing to support an action in Iraq, out of a needed 9. It is clear then that IO's support the core principles of peace and international security but are not able to concretely guarantee either. Such is the nature of anarchy.
ReplyDeleteChapman and Wolford's argument on international organizations is very relevant to the Syrian case. It appears that the UN did have the power to influence costs of war on the U.S. and, as a result, was able to influence the U.S.'s actions. The U.S. decision to hold back on physical force against Syria can be argued to be a result of the UN making higher costs for the U.S. through opposing the military intervention. Going to war after UN opposition would bring damage to U.S. relations with other countries like Russia and it would also bring a lot of disapproval from U.S. citizens who were, for the most part, against the intervention to begin with. UN approval of the intervention could be argued to decrease the costs for the U.S. in the way that the U.S. would gain more international support as well as more approval from U.S. citizens. With the UN approval, it would be safe to say that war would be more likely because there would not be much to deter the U.S. from following through with military force. If the UN didn't exist, I still believe the U.S. would have more incentive to not attack Syria due to lack of domestic and international support. However, the UN has still displayed its effectiveness in its influence of international events and how they are resolved.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting article, thanks for sharing! I believe that without the U.N. Security Council that the syrian conflict would have escalated further. This meeting proves that a strong Multi-state council is required to avoid interstate war. Of course, the syrian conflict has massive international implications. The cold war has found new blood recently with the United States and Russia playing an international chess match. For this reason alone, having a strong United Nations can save the world from catastrophic war.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the interesting article, I enjoyed reading it and all of the comments people have left. I think that UN involvement is definitely a positive in this case. My personal stance at this point is that no action we take is going to be a cure all and that regardless this has become a messy situation that the world needs to deal with before the destruction of human life continues much longer. I think this interestingly enough ties in with the debate we had this week over how effective the UN is or isn't. We can argue all day long over vetoes in the Security Council or economic and political interest in the region, which are all important points but in my opinion the added attention that UN discussion brings to the Syrian situation will get people thinking and discussing. Whether or not this leads to action in the UN or whether it builds up enough public pressure for other support this creates a forum for discussing a solution and various plans of action.
ReplyDeleteInteresting article and thanks for sharing! It's very hard to assess a positive outcome in the case of Syria especially where the situation has escalated to the use of chemical weapons. What the US have tried to do is rally enough support for this case and unfortunately other states have yet to to join their cause. I think the main set back really above all else is the timing that all this is occurring which has created even more reluctance for the other member of the UN to approve such a notion. Hopefully as time passes by, they will find a solution for what is happening in Syria.
ReplyDelete