Recent reports that both parties in the civil war in Syria used chemical weapons on civilian populations have been a significant and puzzling aspect of the conflict as it continues to rage and draw attention from around the world. Under international law, such as the Geneva Conventions, the use of chemical weapons in warfare is usually banned by the US. Chemicals like chlorine are prohibited from being used as a weapon or technique of war under the Chemical Weapons Convention, to which Syria has been a party since 2013. Global organizations such as the United Nations (UN) that are charged with ensuring world peace and the protection of the rights of civilians in war-torn zones, therefore, have a responsibility to put an immediate end to the use of chemical weapons and hold criminally responsible all those found to have employed such weapons. Many nations including the United States, Russia, and Germany have already petitioned the UN to investigate the use of chemical weapons in Syria and come up with a Resolution reaffirming the illegality of the use of such weapons as means of warfare. In fact, the US is already considering imposing sanctions on various Syrian government officials and opposition leaders who may have ordered the application of chemical weapons on civilians. However, to prevent any future usage of such weapons elsewhere or in the Syrian war, organizations such as the UN need to explore various policy options. This paper looks at some of the available options for preventing the use of chemical weapons in Syria.
Situation Brief
According to Deutch, reports by the Human Rights Watch indicate that chemical weapons have been employed in opposition-controlled regions of Syria, such as Aleppo by the Syrian government forces to splash out the rebels. These reports indicating evidence of the use of banned chemical weapons of mass destruction have led to calls by the United States, France, and Britain for sanctions to be imposed on the Syrian official’s responsible for this heinous act. The chlorine bombs according to the Human Rights Watch were dropped by government planes in residential areas in Aleppo in 2016 and so far, the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons overseeing the treaty that bans the use of such weapons has not commented. However, the Syria government has denied claims it has used chemical weapons in rebelled-held areas and has instead blamed the opposition militants opposing President Bashar al-Assad for having done so. According to Korte, the US has sanctioned eight Syrian officials following the reports on the use of chemical weapons against civilians in opposition strongholds. This was after a United Nations and Organizational for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons report in 2016 found that the Syrian regime had applied chlorine has as a weapon. According to Shaheen, a report by the Syrian-American Medical Society (SAMS) indicates that close to 1500 people have been killed as a result of chemical weapon attacks IN Syrian since the civil war began six years ago. All these incidents happened even as the International community boosted its efforts to hold talks on ways of finding a political solution to the Syrian war.
Stakeholders
The use of chemical weapons as a means or method of waging war in Syria is one that affects various stakeholders. These are people, governments, and organizations interested in the Syrian situation and in finding a plausible peaceful means to end the civil war given its consequences or impacts on civilians and the ugly turn it has now taken of destructive weapons being used in residential areas. One of the stakeholders is the Syrian civilians who have been directly affected by the war and the use of the chemical weapons as some have died from the chemical weapons attacks while others have been forced to flee their homes and country and are now refugees. The Syrian government and the rebels are also stakeholders in this issue since some reports indicate that both sides of the war might have used the chemicals. Further, most other European nations are stakeholders given that they are not affected or overwhelmed by a large number of Syrian refugees fleeing their homes and seeking refuge or asylum in their territories. Globally, organizations such as the UN are also stakeholders as the use of chemical weapons as means of warfare goes against its legal and political framework that prohibits the use of such weapons of mass destruction. Other countries like the US, France, and Britain are also stakeholders in the issue interested in seeing a stop to any further application of such chemical weapons as it violates human rights and is also a threat to the national security of these nations.
Examples of organizations that have policies on the use of chemical weapons and which are also stakeholders include the UN, SIPRI, NSS, Arms Control Association, NPT, OPCW, and NIT. The United Nations Disarmament Affairs, for instance, is an organization that discourages the use of chemical weapons and engages in disarmament exercise to prevent the development, manufacture and stockpiling of such weapons. This UN organization works closely with the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), the latter of which provides assistance and protection against chemical weapons and promotes the international cooperation in the peaceful application of chemical weapons.
Policy Options
There is a host of policy options available to the UN, the US, and other stakeholders to take towards the prevention of the employment of chemical weapons by the Syrian government and the militants. These policy options range from political to economic and legal ones and will go a long way in ensuring that the proliferation and use of chemical weapons on innocent civilians is never again a way of settling political scores. Some of these options will be discussed briefly.
Military Intervention
The United Nations Charter mandates the UN Security Council to intervene institutions where other options have failed to bring about international peace. The Syrian situation is one such situation that justifies international intervention to save the people of Syrian from being attacked by chemical weapons by their own government. For, the use of chemical weapons is a gross violation of International human rights laws, and seemingly other options and measures aimed at bringing an end to the Syrian war all seem to have hit a snag. Therefore, international military intervention against the Syrian government responsible for the use of these chemical weapons is the only available option for the international community because the government has ignored several UN resolutions and threats of sanctions from the US. The emerging Responsibility to Protect doctrine under international law also justifies the use of military intervention to compel the Syrian government to resign or refrain from a further use of the chemical weapons. The UN and other stakeholders have an international responsibility or obligation to protect populations against the infringement of their fundamental human rights. Military strikes would help in denying the Syrian government the opportunity to use further or deploy chemical weapons and would also preempt the use of such weapons by any of the actors involved in the civil war. One of the ways this option of direct military intervention could be carried out is through the use of special operations and airstrikes or airpower on government facilities believed to be used to either manufacture or store these chemical weapons. However, there are various political implications associated with this option. For instance, it could destabilize Syria and create the kind of situation currently being witnessed in Egypt and Libya. This would even risk giving the rebels the opportunity to access the chemical weapons themselves, and this could be catastrophic in the long run. According to Robinson, Diehl, and Pack, the use of red lines such as threats of military action where this line has been crossed has traditionally been applied in international politics in cases involving the potential development and use of chemical, nuclear, radiological, or biological weapons. The Syrian situation is therefore not an exception, and hence, since the Syrian government has crossed the red line by resorting to the use of chemical weapon attacks on its people, the use of military force is justified. The advantage of this option is that it would compel the Syrian authorities to accept a deal not ever to use such weapons again. However, as stated earlier, direct military intervention in Syria would destabilize the country and region thus creating political instability and other rebel groups that are a threat to international peace and security.
Stay out of Syria, Issue Warnings of Sanctions, Promote Global Efforts to End the Syrian Civil War, and Secure Loose Weapons
The third option would involve non-intervention and use the international community measures such as negotiation to end the use of chemical weapons use in Syria. However, this option should be last option to be taken given that it is less likely to result in an amicable solution to the problem of the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government. But, given the recent experience by the US, for example, in its intervention in countries like Iraq, and Afghanistan, this option would be the best as it would ensure that non-military measures are taken to persuade both sides of the war to desist from the use of chemical weapons. Getting involved in the Syrian war situation would only drag countries into another long war that would not only drain their economic and military resources but also lead to loss of lives and the creation of more militant groups such as ISIS. Hence, as a long as the use of chemical weapons in Syria does not directly pose a threat to other nations, the best option would be to take common measures as the international community to try and find a lasting solution to the use of chemical weapons. Even though others may argue that the red line has been crossed and hence the need to carry out limited airstrikes on the Syrian military, this would not be the best option and hence there is need for the people of Syria, with the assistance of the international community, to be able to solve their own issues including the use of chemical weapons. International organizations such as the UN should play an increasingly important role in ensuring that the use of chemical weapon attacks on civilians in Syria does not go on and is deterred using appropriate means and methods. The advantage of this option is that it would lead to a political compromise and more peaceful way of dealing with the Syrian situation without causing international or regional tensions. However, its con is that it may be ineffective in preventing the use of such weapons.
The Imposition of Sanctions
The third option that may be explored in preventing the use or deployment of chemical weapons in Syria is the imposition of economic, social, and political sanctions on the Syrian government officials who ordered the use of these chemicals. Even though the Assad regime seems to have shrugged off the earlier sanctions placed on various Syrian government officials by the Obama administration, more of such sanctions would help prevent the future deployment of such weapons. To improve the effectiveness of these sanctions, there is a need for cooperation and partnership among nations to ensure that the sanctions are actually implemented. The use of empty threats of sanctions against the Syrian regime will certainly not help prevent the further proliferation and use of the chemical weapons and hence the need for the international community to stand firm and resolute in imposing effective political and economic sanctions on specific Syrian government officials. One of the pros of this option is that it would deny the Syrian government the opportunity to develop more chemical weapons. However, its con is that it may not have the desired impact of preventing the application of such weapons by the administration after all.
Best Option: Direct Military Intervention
The use of military intervention would be the best option to restore peace and security in Syria and prevent the use of chemical weapons. This is because, apparently, all the other options seem to have terribly failed to resolve the crisis. Already, countries like Britain are considering military option to prevent Syria from using chemical weapons. The use of negotiation and mere threats of sanctions have not worked as the Syrian government has reportedly continued to deploy chemical weapons in civilian areas undeterred. Even though this option would have huge political and economic implications, these implications cannot outweigh the effects that the Syrian war and now the use of chemical weapons have had on the world as a whole.
Bibliography
Blake, Julian, and Aqa Mahmud. “A legal “red line”? Syria and the use of chemical weapons in the civil conflict.” UCLA Law Review vol. 244, no. 64, (2013)
Baruch, Pnina Sharvit, and Brandon Weinstock. The use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people: Does it justify forceful intervention?
Chulov. Martin and Kareem Shaheen. “International concern over claims of chemical weapon attack in Syria.” The Guardian, 13 December 2016. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/13/international-concern-over-claims-of- chemical-weapon-attack-in-Syria
Dearden, Lizzie. “UN investigation finds Bashar al-Assad's regime responsible for the third chemical weapons attack in Syria.” The Independent. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syrian-regime-assad-chemical- weapons-un-investigation-jim-opcw-idlib-qmenas-sarmin-2015-barrel-bombs- a7375226.html
Deutsch, Anthony. “Syrian government forces used chemical weapons in Aleppo: rights group.” Reuters, 13 February 2017. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria- chemicalweapons-idUSKBN15S1W7
Kimball, Daryl G., and Paul F. Walker. How the US can prevent the use and spread of Syria's chemical weapons. The Christian Science Monitor, 11 December 2012. http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2012/1211/How-the-US-can-prevent- the-use-and-spread-of-Syria-s-chemical-weapons
Korte, Gregory. “U.S. sanctions Syria for the use of chemical weapons.” USA Today, 12 January 2017. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/12/us-sanctions-syria-use- chemical-weapons/96495982/
Marcus, Jonathan. “Syria crisis: Western military options.” BBC News, 30 August 2013, www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23849386
Mueller, Karl P., Jeffrey Martini, and Thomas Hamilton. Airpower options for Syria: Assessing objectives and missions for aerial intervention. RAND Corporation.
Robinson, Todd, Paul F. Diehl, and Tyler Pack. Crossing the red line: International legal limits on policy options. Yale Journal of International Affairs vol. 1, no.1, (2014):58-66
Parkinson, John. “White House Condemns Syrian Use of Chemical Weapons Following UN Probe.” ABC News, 24 April 2016, http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/white-house- condemns-Syrian-chemical-weapons-probe/story?id=41632573
Shaheen, Kareem. “'Almost 1,500 killed in chemical weapons attacks' in Syria.” The Guardian, 14 March 2016. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/14/syria-chemical- weapons-attacks-almost-1500-killed-report-united-nations
Stares, Paul B. “Preventing chemical weapons use in Syria.” Council on Foreign Relations, 19 December 2012. http://www.cfr.org/syria/preventing-chemical-weapons-use- Syria/p29701
Vyver, Van der. Military intervention in Syria: The American, British, and French alternatives and the Russian option. De Jure Law Journal, vol. 3 (2013)
Wintour, Patrick. Boris Johnson: west is looking at military options in Syria. The Guardian, 13 October2016, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/13/boris-johnson-military- options-against-Syrian-regime-being-considered
Zilinkas, Raymond A. “Preventing the use of Syrian chemical weapons.” The National Interest, 6 August 2012. http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/preventing-the-use-syrian- chemical-weapons-7296
