Skip to main content

Remember first why Uniting for Peace was born. In 1950, most countries wanted to take measures regarding the conflict in Korea but the URSS'USSR's obstructionist veto worked in order to prevent it. Since then, the Uniting for Peace is useless.

To invoke this, there are some things you have to consider some things that comescome with the action of this Resolution.

  • Are we really sure that we want to take these actions? Is it prudent? Will it be neutral help or for one side? Most of thew timesthe time, we see military intervention is to "protect the civilians" or to serve as "help" in the conflict but the history showshows us the military often choosechooses a side (usually, not always, rebels) to "protect and help"; remember for example, NATO acted in Libya to help civilians; we knownow know they only protected the rebels. So, let's suppose the intervention will help, they won't pick a side, this taketakes one more step to the next question:

  • Did the Syrian government useduse all the measures, lines of actions, exhausted all the peaceful ways to prevent a military intervention? When this failed, the International Community ask to the Security Council to take actionsaction.

  • When the first point was made, the second consideration comes with more questions about the acting of the military, meaning:

    • What are the lines of actionsaction? Should we consider to use theusing military forces to find a solution/dialogue or impose one line approved by the UNSC? Say, you know what are you going to do; this leaveleaves us to the next issue:
  • The humanitarian aid. As you know, Syria needneeds lots of help, speciallyespecially the civilians and refugees. The size of logistics support be to keep open the roads and airfields that would be needed, provision of humanitarian materials associated with housing, medical care, and feeding. Will the humanitarian convoy be protected? Will there be a responsible coalition to coordinate all the actions and measures previously speakedmentioned? This subject is connected with one more:

    • Who is going to finance this? The UN, the states, NGOs?

It's really difficult, speciallyespecially in this specific case (Syria), to take actions because there are so many interestinterests interposed (the G5, all of them hashave something to do with the actions); better than invoke Uniting for Peace (I think), this is aan international politicpolitics matter.

Remember first why Uniting for Peace was born. In 1950, most countries wanted to take measures regarding the conflict in Korea but the URSS' obstructionist veto worked in order to prevent it. Since then, the Uniting for Peace is useless.

To invoke this, there are some things you have to consider some things that comes with the action of this Resolution.

  • Are we really sure that we want to take these actions? Is it prudent? Will be neutral help or for one side? Most of thew times, we see military intervention is to "protect the civilians" or to serve as "help" in the conflict but the history show us military often choose a side (usually, not always rebels) to "protect and help"; remember for example, NATO acted in Libya to help civilians; we know know they only protected the rebels. So, let's suppose the intervention will help, they won't pick a side, this take one more step to the next question:

  • Did the Syrian government used all the measures, lines of actions, exhausted all the peaceful ways to prevent a military intervention? When this failed, the International Community ask to the Security Council to take actions.

  • When the first point was made, the second consideration comes with more questions about the acting of the military, meaning:

    • What are the lines of actions? Should we consider to use the military forces to find a solution/dialogue or impose one line approved by the UNSC? Say, you know what are you going to do; this leave us to the next issue:
  • The humanitarian aid. As you know, Syria need lots of help, specially the civilians and refugees. The size of logistics support be to keep open the roads and airfields that would be needed, provision of humanitarian materials associated with housing, medical care, and feeding. Will the humanitarian convoy be protected? Will be a responsible coalition to coordinate all the actions and measures previously speaked? This subject is connected with one more:

    • Who is going to finance this? The UN, the states, NGOs?

It's really difficult, specially in this specific case (Syria), to take actions because there are so many interest interposed (the G5, all of them has something to do with the actions); better than invoke Uniting for Peace (I think), this is a international politic matter.

Remember first why Uniting for Peace was born. In 1950, most countries wanted to take measures regarding the conflict in Korea but the USSR's obstructionist veto worked in order to prevent it. Since then, the Uniting for Peace is useless.

To invoke this, there are some things you have to consider that come with the action of this Resolution.

  • Are we really sure that we want to take these actions? Is it prudent? Will it be neutral help or for one side? Most of the time, we see military intervention is to "protect the civilians" or to serve as "help" in the conflict but history shows us the military often chooses a side (usually, not always, rebels) to "protect and help"; remember for example, NATO acted in Libya to help civilians; we now know they only protected the rebels. So, let's suppose the intervention will help, they won't pick a side, this takes one more step to the next question:

  • Did the Syrian government use all the measures, lines of actions, exhausted all the peaceful ways to prevent a military intervention? When this failed, the International Community ask the Security Council to take action.

  • When the first point was made, the second consideration comes with more questions about the acting of the military, meaning:

    • What are the lines of action? Should we consider using military forces to find a solution/dialogue or impose one line approved by the UNSC? Say, you know what are you going to do; this leaves us to the next issue:
  • The humanitarian aid. As you know, Syria needs lots of help, especially the civilians and refugees. The size of logistics support be to keep open the roads and airfields that would be needed, provision of humanitarian materials associated with housing, medical care, and feeding. Will the humanitarian convoy be protected? Will there be a responsible coalition to coordinate all the actions and measures previously mentioned? This subject is connected with one more:

    • Who is going to finance this? The UN, the states, NGOs?

It's really difficult, especially in this specific case (Syria), to take actions because there are so many interests interposed (the G5, all of them have something to do with the actions); better than invoke Uniting for Peace (I think), this is an international politics matter.

Source Link
nelruk
  • 2k
  • 15
  • 29

Remember first why Uniting for Peace was born. In 1950, most countries wanted to take measures regarding the conflict in Korea but the URSS' obstructionist veto worked in order to prevent it. Since then, the Uniting for Peace is useless.

To invoke this, there are some things you have to consider some things that comes with the action of this Resolution.

  • Are we really sure that we want to take these actions? Is it prudent? Will be neutral help or for one side? Most of thew times, we see military intervention is to "protect the civilians" or to serve as "help" in the conflict but the history show us military often choose a side (usually, not always rebels) to "protect and help"; remember for example, NATO acted in Libya to help civilians; we know know they only protected the rebels. So, let's suppose the intervention will help, they won't pick a side, this take one more step to the next question:

  • Did the Syrian government used all the measures, lines of actions, exhausted all the peaceful ways to prevent a military intervention? When this failed, the International Community ask to the Security Council to take actions.

  • When the first point was made, the second consideration comes with more questions about the acting of the military, meaning:

    • What are the lines of actions? Should we consider to use the military forces to find a solution/dialogue or impose one line approved by the UNSC? Say, you know what are you going to do; this leave us to the next issue:
  • The humanitarian aid. As you know, Syria need lots of help, specially the civilians and refugees. The size of logistics support be to keep open the roads and airfields that would be needed, provision of humanitarian materials associated with housing, medical care, and feeding. Will the humanitarian convoy be protected? Will be a responsible coalition to coordinate all the actions and measures previously speaked? This subject is connected with one more:

    • Who is going to finance this? The UN, the states, NGOs?

It's really difficult, specially in this specific case (Syria), to take actions because there are so many interest interposed (the G5, all of them has something to do with the actions); better than invoke Uniting for Peace (I think), this is a international politic matter.