Broken/Special:Badtitle/NS100:JamesMoore/How The Syrian Civil War Could Have Been Prevented
The Syrian Civil War started in March 2011 beginning with peaceful protests and eventually, armed rebellion. It is understood that the main reason for the start of the protests is that the people rightly wanted an end to the dictatorship of the Ba'ath Party headed by Bashar al-Assad. The Syrian military started the violence by firing upon the protesters and it escalated from there to full blown civil war.
Since then it is estimated that approximately 100,000 men, women and children have been murdered and millions more turned into refugees. How could the United Nations Security Council allow this war and the suffering of innocent human beings to occur? Not one presidential statement has been made by the UNSC about the Syria civil war. Nor has a single resolution been passed by the UNSC on the subject. The UN Secretary General has however made several statements and written letters, the effect of which are difficult to quantify but it is obvious they have had no effect on the ground in Syria. It seems obvious to me that it is a combination of:
- the clash of differing political ideologies (interference or non-interference)
- human greed for power (the power of using a veto)
- human greed for money (the sale of arms and other products to Syria)
- the lack of empathy, love and respect for our fellow human beings of Syria
All these points clearly show what must be changed in order to bring about an end to the suffering of our brothers and sisters in Syria but perhaps it must be spelled out. From the great ideas to be found in the article, World Peace and Multinational Peace-Fighting Troops that the following actions need to be taken as soon as possible:
- A many million-strong army of peace fighting troops must be formed to be the only army on Earth so that it outnumbers the belligerents many times and provides a greater chance of a quick success.
- It must be multinational and apolitical and have the aim of using proportional and logical force to end all violent-uprisings or rebellions and all criminality.
- It should also have a secondary aim of providing humanitarian aid such as food transportation and evacuation from ecological disaster areas.
- The leadership of the world peace and multinational peace-fighting troops should be of the highest moral quality. We do not want generals to lead it whom have no quarrels with ordering operations that cause large numbers of casualties. The aim should be to minimize casualties.
A few questions remain for me:
Q. But what should be done about countries who do not agree to joining this new arrangement?
A. Do not trade with any country who do not participate in the world peace agreement but we should overtly encourage the education of their people about the advantages of signing the agreement.
Q. But what about people in dictatorships who want to leave their country?
A. They should be relocated within one of the participating countries.
Q. But what about Syria?
A. We must avoid a third world war (or 4th if you count the world war at the turn of the 19th century), therefore, presuming that the new world peace agreement was implemented but only Syria did not sign it then we could plausibly enforce peace using millions of troops and technology from all the other countries. If China or Russia did not sign the agreement and threatened world war then obviously we shouldn't enforce the peace in Syria. There are many scenarios to consider but basically, if there is a way to enforce the peace without causing greater suffering then it should be considered.
Q. Would this not open the possibility of a crazy general becoming the dictator of planet Earth?
A. Not if we are 100% transparent in the selection process of the leadership and ensure that the rules and purpose of the leadership are clear. There should also be an internal affairs division that ensures that the rules are adided by and aims achieved according to the specifications within the rules.
