Non Intervention in SyriaEssay Preview: Non Intervention in SyriaReport this essay« U.N.s Syria death toll jumps dramatically to 60,000-plus » titled CNN on January 2013. The situation in Syria is getting worse since the beginning of the conflict in February 2011. At the beginning of the war, the international community is shocked and a lot of people all over the world are asking for a military intervention in Syria. The situation seems to be comparable to the conflict in Libya in 2011, ended with the intervention of western forces against Gaddafi. The Syrian people can logically expect the intervention of the UN in order to free them from Bashar al-Assads deadly repression. Two years and 60000 dead later, the massacres are continuing.
If a foreign intervention was possible in Libya, why is it not the same for Syria?On one hand, the two conflicts are quite similar and an intervention seems logical. On the other hand, hugh differences between both are leading to the non-intervention in Syria.
An intervention in Syria is asked by a lot of people. If it was necessary in Libya, it might be the same for Syria because the two conflicts are very similar. In both cases, a popular uprising broke out in one of the most highly repressive and brutal regime in the Middle-East, with a dictator ready to do all what he has to in order to keep the power and the clan stranglehold on the state, and brutally repressed the demonstrators. Who, as soon as the police apparatus and torture are no longer sufficient, seeks to restore the terror by giving tanks, heavy artillery and air power against the cities of his own country. In both cases, demonstrators are finally taking up arms, mostly rifles stolen from the regular army or sent from the outside in order to continue their fight. The revolution turned into an armed conflict, when the regime shouts at international conspiracy, accusing the Mossad, al-Qaeda, Americans, Qatar of trying to destabilize the country.
The regime of President Bashar al-Assad, with a brutal state of mind and blood pressure among the populace, has taken a stand on human rights. In June 2013, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 194, a comprehensive and unanimous resolution to prevent Syria from becoming a state. The council unanimously adopted a resolution that called for the end of any “war on terror, and all forms of discrimination, including torture,” and called for the “existence of a rule of law” and “strong judicial, judicial and military independence of the Syrian people.” Syria is now declared to be “a peaceful, democratic state under all the rights, duties and obligations laid down by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Charter of the United Nations.” Syria is a non-conforming and economically depressed country, as it was the case in Lebanon, Yemen and other Arab states for a long time. Assad’s government has systematically targeted its ethnic and political, and most significantly, its minorities through a brutal and authoritarian policy, and continues to be the main target of opposition group Anbar, in a campaign now known as the “anti-Sunni” strategy and also as its propaganda arm.
“Syria’s long and complicated history with the UN Security Council and other member states is also littered with accusations of genocide and political intimidation, along with acts of civil disobedience and violence. In many cases, Assad’s people have taken their own lives, often with impunity, for not taking up arms. Most prominently, the Syrian dictator was brutally repressed; many human rights organizations in Lebanon reported that hundreds of people, including children, with injuries, were tortured. By all accounts, the Syrian regime has taken all feasible steps to suppress peaceful protests, and to suppress and suppress the activities and movements of the opposition (and some of its political opposition members under the Assad family). The Syrian regime has also systematically punished anyone who fails to protest or to demonstrate for its own benefit.” >
“The Assad regime was in power for over twenty years. Its power is a total and total mockery of human rights, particularly its human rights work. Since the regime began to invade Syria after 2004, Syria never had the power to govern itself. The United States and its allies have been at the forefront of military-industrial relations, supported by their European and Asian allies, and in particular the European Union, which will continue to support the Assad dictatorship. The Assad regime has used all available means to further its political agenda, and if anything it has been even more ruthless than the United States and its allies, while the Syrian regime has used the leverage of the EU to justify its continued pursuit of the Assad regime.”
The US State Department confirmed that there are no reports of executions for political prisoners after the fall of Bashar al-Assad. “There seems to be no credible evidence that the Syrians have been imprisoned,” said the State Department’s John Kirby on July 5, 2014. However, in November 2014, after the Assad regime announced that it would “stop trying to bring people into the country, it made the announcement without providing any details,” and that the UN Security Council would soon convene a “trying decision … to bring refugees fleeing terrorism to some of the areas they have captured in the past,” the US State Department announced its “reduction of political prisoner counts to a limited number of people.” In February 2015, the U.S. State Department issued an official clarification, which described “reductions in the number of persons granted legal status after [and after] the end of the war” as “unacceptable”. The State Department also released a statement saying that all “restrictions on access for detainees to Syria’s prisons are not compatible with international law.” The US Treasury Inspector General identified a number of “inappropriate conditions” for detainees detained at the