Uniting for peace in Syria

Russia’s consistent use of its veto in the UN Security Council has represented a fundamental obstacle to addressing the Syrian conflict, which has been described by UN officials as the worst humanitarian disaster since World War II. Moscow’s most recent veto on 8 October came against the backdrop of overwhelming military escalation in the besieged areas of East Aleppo, where over 250,000 civilians are at risk of extermination over the next two weeks because of relentless Russian bombardment.

The so-called “Friends of Syria” – including many Western governments – allege that there is no means of overcoming the Russian veto in the Security Council, and thus that there is simply nothing that can be done, legally, to take the required action to bring an end to the blatantly illegal actions of Assad and Russia in Syria.

However, there is indeed a legal way to facilitate an end to this horrible mess and it must be pursued immediately in order to save the countless lives at risk from the Syrian and Russian bombardment in Aleppo and elsewhere. The way forward lies through the convening of an emergency special session of the UN General Assembly through the “Uniting for Peace” mechanism.

Uniting for Peace was adopted in 1950 as a response to repeated USSR vetoes which paralysed the Security Council from taking any action over the situation in Korea. Essentially, it allows the General Assembly to assume responsibility for a situation that threatens international peace and security when the Security Council fails in this regard, as it has obviously done so in Syria.

The Uniting for Peace mechanism can be invoked following a procedural vote within the Security Council, which would require nine affirmative votes in which a permanent member’s negative vote – for example, that of Russia – would not count as a veto. The mechanism can also be invoked through a General Assembly majority vote. The Canadian mission to the UN submitted a letter to the President of the General Assembly on 13 October on behalf of 69 Member States (including Britain) to initiate this process with respect to Syria.

Should the Canadian initiative succeed in calling for a General Assembly emergency special session, then it would be required to meet within twenty-four hours to discuss the situation. It would then be empowered to issue recommendations, through a two-thirds majority vote, for member states to take the appropriate action to ensure civilian protection, including the use of force.

In this respect, a no-bombing zone (NBZ) stands out as a compelling option for states to consider; it will help to protect civilians, alleviate the refugee crisis, combat terrorism and induce political negotiations to bring an end to the conflict.

An NBZ would essentially prohibit attacks against civilians and civilian areas in Syria. Should Assad or Russia carry out indiscriminate attacks in violation of the NBZ, then there would be a targeted retaliatory response against an Assad regime asset, such as a runway or military base, from UN member states’ existing military bases outside Syria (for example, in the Mediterranean). There would be no boots on the ground; there would be no flights over Syrian airspace; there would be no direct confrontation with Russia.

This would send a clear message to Assad and Russia that any illegal attack against civilians will be met with a response by the international community. It is the least interventionist, the least costly and yet the most effective option on the table to address the Syrian conflict.

There are indications that the General Assembly may prove willing to consider robust measures, including an NBZ, to ensure civilian protection in Syria through an emergency special session. In August 2012, for example, it adopted Resolution 66/253B by 133 votes to 12 with 31 abstentions which “[deplored] the failure of the Security Council to agree on measures to ensure the compliance of Syrian authorities with its decisions.” This move exposed deep-seated frustrations within the General Assembly against the Security Council’s failure to assume its responsibilities towards Syria. Such frustration among member states has only increased since 2012 as the situation in Syria has become so much more pressing.

The international community has already failed the Syrian people. However, the UN can still take action, through the General Assembly, to save lives that will otherwise be taken through Assad’s and Russia’s continued contempt for international law.

Now is the time for states to rally behind the Canadian effort for an emergency special session in the General Assembly and to seriously consider imposing a no-bombing zone as a means of achieving civilian protection in Syria. The lives of the Syrian people, in Aleppo and elsewhere, are depending on our timely and robust action.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.