Security and Diplomacy Panel Case Study Group 1 Paper

1. Identify the major security challenges in Syria

Humanitarian crisis: lack of basic needs such as food and water, health,
and security, creation of a population more willing to resort to violence
Political vacuum: government has no control, leads to militia/ ISIS
control
Refugees: terrible conditions, recruitment ground for jihadist groups
Neutralization of militias: little organization, but armed and will fight hard
for survival. This means they are difficult to neutralize, and could harm
citizens.
Terrorism: huge harm on civilians because it is indiscriminate.
ISIS: threats, like mass killings, to civilians who refuse groups rule
Chemical weapons: threat to civilian safety, neutralization of stock
required
Interest and involvement of other nations: Iran and Russia support
Assad government, Arab nations support opposition. Protracts fighting.
2. Map out the key actors, groups, and stakeholders that have stakes in,
or are undermining, the attainment of sustainable security in Syria
A) Syrian Government (Bashar al-Assad)
Syrian army Militia Christians
B) Opposition groups
Syrian National Coalition Free Syrian Army Islamic Front
(salafists) Jabhat al Nusrah ISIS Kurds
C) Syrian citizens (including refugees)
D) Supporters of Assad
Hezbollah Iran Russia
E) Supporters of the Opposition
Middle Eastern nations (Turkey, Saudi, Quatar, UAE)
P3 (USA, UK, France) Israel
F) United Nations (including but not limited to the Security Council)
3. Succinctly discuss the tensions between state sovereignty and
international and regional pressures on how Syria has responded to
major crises
State sovereignty is the right and power of a governing body to govern
itself without outside interference. Under this definition, the international
communitys response to the Syrian crisis borders on violation of the Syrian
governments sovereign rights. What began as a civil war became a proxy
one as nations began supporting one side or another.
From the 2011 uprising and beyond, Syria has employed a ruthless
counterinsurgency policy, characterized by intensive bombardment used to
destroy commerce and the infrastructure of life support. This policy, along with
Syrias use of chemical weapons on its citizens and lack of protection of
human rights has been used a pretense for the opposition to question the
Assad regimes legitimacy of rule, especially regarding its negligence towards
civilians.
The important questions are, can Syria under the Assad regime be
considered a sovereign state when it only controls one sixth of the nations

former territory and cannot provide basic needs to its citizens? Do other
nations have the right to intrude in what is, in name, a civil war?
These tensions define the Syrian conflict.

(If you use 1.5 spacing in Arial 12, this is the most you can write in two pages)
Syrias counterinsurgency strategy is informed by the previous experience of
the Assad regime in suppressing the 19771982 Muslim Brotherhood
rebellion and by Soviet/Russian doctrine developed during the Soviet Unions
occupation of Afghanistan and Russias two wars in Chechnya. It is a ruthless
approach that differs significantly from Western counterinsurgency doctrine,
which places emphasis on population protection and avoidance of civilian
casualties and collateral damage combined with efforts to win the hearts and
minds of the people. That doctrine reflects the fact that insurgencies in distant
lands are not viewed as existential threats to Western governments.
Moreover, such missions come out of the chutes burdened with guilt arising
from colonial pasts or questions about their legitimacy. Syrias history is
different, and so are the lessons the regime draws from that experience. The
1982 uprising in Hama culminated five years of guerrilla warfare and terrorist
assassinations. When Islamist rebels seized control of the city of Hama in a
final showdown with the Hafez al-Assad government in 1982, government
forces sealed off the town and pounded it with artillery before sending in army
commandos and Baathist Party irregulars to mop up the resistance. The
military operation lasted three weeks, razing entire districts and killing
thousands of civilians. Although widely denounced by the international
community, Syrias brutal response succeeded in snuffing out any wider
resistance to Damascus, preventing precisely the kind of chaos seen in the
country today. At issue now is regime survival. If Syria cannot be saved, those
loyal to the government are committed to protecting themselves against the
annihilation that they believe will be their fate if the rebels triumph. Syrias
campaign against the insurgency is characterized by the static defense of
major population centers, sectarian enclaves, military bases, and strategic
lines of communication. This has required withdrawing from large portions of
the country. Offensive operations in key areas the government must hold
feature intensive aerial and artillery bombardment followed by clearing
operations carried out by commandos or militias. It is destructive and
indiscriminate. Airpower and artillery are also used to pound areas not under
government control, deliberately targeting crops, bakeries (a critical source of
food for many), and hospitalsdestroying commerce and the infrastructure of
life support. The objective is to force people to move out of rebel zones,
thereby depriving the rebels of popular support. These tactics explain the vast
numbers of refugees. Military operations are supplemented by intensive
propaganda programs portraying the regimes opponents as terrorists and

political education efforts aimed at ensuring continuing loyalty to the regime. It

is likely that these programs will increasingly exploit the sectarian divide rather
than political issuesthey will not be about Assads legitimacy but will warn of
the Sunni threat to the survival of Alawites and Christians. (The jihadist rebels
are engaged in similar indoctrination efforts in towns they control.)
Presentation:
Aim: to present the best argument possible for your party at the first plenary
session of a hypothetical Geneva peace talk meeting.
Transitional arrangements: power sharing, what will happen to President
Assad
President still commands a significant portion of Syria, especially the
Alawite population. First, He is a force to be reckoned with because even
without the chemical weapons he has the firepower and the better trained
army. He also has the support of Hezbollah and Iran, and although there is no
need to cater to these needs, it would be better for the long term stability of
the nation to give him his fair share of the nation. However, we concede that it
is impossible to maintain the same breadth of Syria that Assad controlled in
2011. Second, although some countries discredit is as a farce, Assad is still
the democratically elected leader of Syria: it would be principally unjustified to
simply kick him out
Therefore, we believe that the Assad regime should be given control
over the majority of Syria
Terms of ceasefire (amnesty/ prosecutions/ investigations)
Amnesty
Make up/ timing of political system post-settlement
Research:
Chemical Weapons
On 9 July, Acting UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs Kim
Won-soo briefed Council members on the chemical weapons track. During the
consultations, the US introduced a draft resolution to set up a UN-OPCW
Joint Investigative Mechanism to determine responsibility for the use of
chemical weapons in Syria. (P5, bilateral negotiation between US and
RUssia)
http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/monthly-forecast/2015-08/syria_22.php
Peace talks
However, the recent Geneva consultations were not convened in order to
achieve an immediate and concrete political solution. Rather, they were
undertaken to keep a mediation process alive despite the prevailing climate of
insufficient political will among the major domestic, regional and international
actors to untangle what has become known as the Assad knot enshrined in
the Geneva Communiqui.e., trying to find openings between Irans and
Russias support for the Assad regime and the position of the P3 (US UK
France) and their Arab allies that Assad must go.
When de Mistura briefed the Council on 29 July, he announced that his office
would facilitate intra-Syrian working groups on ways to implement key
elements of the Geneva Communiqu. Such working groups would get
underway in September and hold parallel discussions on political and
constitutional issues; military and security issues (including counter-terrorism);
public institutions; and reconstruction and development. He said that the

results emanating from such intra-Syrian working groups could generate a

Syrian-owned framework document on the implementation of the Geneva
Communiqu. Such a framework could also provide for a transitional
governing body, procedures for a national dialogue, the constitution drafting
process and transitional justice issues. He stressed that the support of the
Security Council would be critical to convince all Syrian and regional players
to get involved.
Walid minister of foreign affairs of Assad regime (LIAR!!)
soldiers imported from more than 100 nations. Syria is the land of th holy
jihad that will raise them to heaven
French, SAudi does in SYria
violence should be used to stop bombing
violence= bombing

terrorists use civilians as human shields

(hiding in civilian communities, tunnels put civilians on top
no russian iranian leverage in syria
hezbollah and lebanon are fighting together
syrian people now believe that people dont aim for freedom, but aim
for authority, popularity, want to be known

How Syria has responded to major crises

Assads campaign against militant strongholds

As the US military strikes Isis in Iraq, President Bashar al-Assads forces have
significantly stepped up their own campaign against militant strongholds in
Syria, carrying out dozens of air strikes against the Islamist groups
headquarters in the past two days. But in hitting hard against Isis, Assad has
another motive. His aerial bombardment of militant strongholds in Syria in a
way mirrors the US militarys air strikes against extremists across the border
in Iraq.
Assads strikes aim at sending a message that he is on the same side as the
Americans, reinforcing the Syrian governments longstanding claim that it is a
partner in the fight against terrorism and a counterbalance to extremists. That
comes after the US itself nearly bombed Syria after it blamed Assads forces
for a chemical weapons attack on rebel-held areas near Damascus last August.
Support for Assad
if Assad is knocked out of power or if the rebels are not exterminated by the
SA then the country will be thrown into an eternal proxy warfare. FSA is in no
respected position to form a coercive government. They barely have control
over their own people and they are helpless against the growing number of
fundamentalist factions who will eventually unite for their common cause
against the FSA once Bashar is out of power. You'll have pro-Assad groups
combating anti-Assad groups, members of families seeking revenge from their
killed loved one (this goes both ways), Iran-backed mercenaries, Saudi-backed
mercenaries, the remaining FSA, and al-Qaeda-linked groups as well as many

other heavily backed fundamentalist groups, all fighting each other, just as
shown in other middle-eastern countries, Syria being the worst. Not only that,
but Assad, the state and many other key positions in security and wealth are
virtually indistinguishable due to his dictatorship which involves the close
relationship between the state and the upper-class. Killing all of the Assad
supporters would be like hitting the reset button on the Syrian economic
timeline, given that most of their infrastructure is already vastly in ruin. For
the FSA to think that they can walk straight into office unopposed while
expecting the people to obey their order is a joke. A funny, sad joke. Iran has
many U.S. military bases with their guns pointed directly at it, I doubt they
would accept another one.
Although it is sad to say in such a gloomy situation, the only hope for the
Syrian people is if Bashar stays in power for his remaining term (which he
added in the constitution due to protest) and neutralize all rebel factions,
including the FSA, and then give the people the human rights they deserve.
Otherwise there will be no rights, now law; just anarchy.