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.