Why hasn't the UN intervened in Syria?

Isn't the use of chemical weapons supposed to be banned? And isn't the UN supposed to enforce this ban among it's member nations? Why hasn't the US and other UN leaders enforced the guidelines passed under the Chemical Weapons Convention? We don't need to use military force. Pass trade sanctions, or maybe even a complete ban on trade with Syria by all UN nations, and only lift it when all of the government and military leaders in Syria who had knowledge of the use of chemical weapons on civlians have been arrested and charged with crimes against humanity.

 

Well it's not necessarily necessary to invade. They can just kick them out of the union which is a bit like a...clique. I wouldn't be surprised if after events in the coming weeks that they get a ban hammer.

 

Lobbying by various nations. In all honesty, the moment we learned chemical weapons had gone off, we should have passed embargoes, made sure no one got anything.

 

Because it's a lie.

 

Because such sanctions have to go through the security council. The power of veto gets thrown around a lot

 

Are you kidding? The reason the UN doesn't sanction Syria is because Russia has a veto in the Security Council. Syria is Russia's best ally in the Middle East, providing Russia with its only navy base in the Mediterranean.

The only time the UN ever got involved in something this big was Korea. The Russians made the mistake of walking out of the Security Council, and the Korean intervention was authorized while they were absent. You can bet the Russians won't make THAT mistake again.

 

"Why hasn't the UN intervened in Syria?"

Taxcutter says:
Because they can't.

 

Syria never signed the treaty.

 

The UN is nothing but a corrupt tyrants' protective association.

 

Personally, I don't think it was a mistake on their part. I believe it was planned for Uncle Joe to see how his technology stacked up against the US. The MIG, the T-34 Tank, plus there was almost unlimited manpower.

There really was no reason for us to get involved in a war designed to reunify a country the UN by decree had split.

 

They never signed the CWC, but they are a signatory to the 1925 Geneva Protocol which bans the use of chemical weapons during wartime.

 

All of the nations on the security council, save maybe China, are nations that have a strong stance against chemical weapons. I doubt the veto would be used to stop sanctions against a nation that is blatantly using illegal weapons.

- - - Updated - - -

The treaty was adopted by the UN and applies to all UN members nations. There are no exceptions.

 

The government of Syria does not consider this to be a war. They consider it to be an unlawful rebellion. So they do not recognize the Geneva COnvention's authority in it.

But, as for Russia being their allies, Russia is a part of the treaty, and overlooking Syrian chemical weapons usage could reflect badly on them, and lose support of the other nations in the treaty.

 

Trouble is with Russia, they have been throwing the veto card on Syria's behalf since the civil war started

 

Because no one is sure who planted them.

 

Apparently no one told Assad. Besides that make Syria the UN's problem not ours.

 

Then the US needs to be clear that we see it as the condoning of chemical weapons useage and a violation of the treaty on Russia's behalf, and we will place trade restrictions on Russia goods entering the US if they continue.

 

Um, you seem to forget who all sits on the UN Security Council.

 

this is basically it.

 

You do realize that as a Security Countil member, the US is supposed to take a leading position in the UN.

 

Russia is also a permanent member of the UN Security Council and they have been defending Assad even after breaking the treaty they didn't sign and using chemical weapons. Has the U.S. moved to have Russia kicked off the security Council yet?

 

Russia condoning chemical weapons use could be viewed as a violation of the treaty. The US could simply cut off all trade with them and tell them trade will not be restored as long as continue they continue to defend Syria's use of chemical weapons.

 

Russia and China, which frequently commit atrocities against their own people, don't like the idea of a precedent of the Security Council acting against another leader who commits similar atrocities. Russia also has long standing ties to Syria. And Russia and China both have veto power on the Security Council which according to the UN Charter is the UN group that would have to authorize UN action against Assad.

In 1950, the only reason that the UN authorized action in Korea, was because the U.S.S.R. walked out of the UN in protest over something else, and the rest of the Security Council members at the time voted to authorize the UN action against North Korea. The Soviet Union never walked out of the UN again.

 

Actually China has supported intervention. Russia is the one that vetos intervention in Syria.

But really it should not matter. I believe that Security Council nations are required to take action in the face of war crimes and genocide, or attacks on civilians. Isn't that what Resolution 1674 says?

 

Each of the members gets to define for themselves whether the criteria for action has been met. The nations which have veto power on the SC, all have their own geo-political agendas, and their own perceived self-interests. Rest assured that they never (including the U.S.) act against these two things. The SC and the UN have the same fundamental flaw as the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution of the Confederate States of America, each individual state has an effective veto power over the others.