Leiden University

Syria; a local international conflict Research paper Current Issues of International Organisations

Gert van Weelden 8-4-2014

1

2

Content Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 3

A historical overview ............................................................................................................................... 4

Interests of the international community ............................................................................................... 6

The UNSC in deadlock ............................................................................................................................. 8

Discussion and conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 10

Bibliography ........................................................................................................................................... 11

Literature ........................................................................................................................................... 11

News articles ..................................................................................................................................... 11

Sources .............................................................................................................................................. 12

Image ................................................................................................................................................. 12

3

Introduction On the 28th of January 2011 a man set himself on fire in the city of Al-Hasakah in North-West Syria.

This act is now regarded as the symbolical start of the revolution, which resulted in a civil war that

still rages on to this day. We have now passed the three year mark of this war and the international

community and the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) have done next to nothing about this

conflict that has taken the lives of thousands of people. But why is nothing done about this situation?

In order to understand the importance of the situation and the complications of the Syria conflict we

will have to take the geographical position of Syria into account. Syria is a country of approximately

185,180 km2 and has a population of roughly 21.4 million people1. Syria has oil and gas reserves,

although currently all the gas is consumed domestically. The country is situated north-west of

Lebanon and Israel and south of Turkey. Thus it lies within the unstable middle-eastern region and

conflicts there could escalate easily and destabilize the entire region. And the Syrian conflict could

expand to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Not only would such an escalation pose a threat to

international peace, but if the entire region destabilizes it could pose a threat to the trade through

the Suez Canal and the Mediterranean Sea as well.

Syria also has a strategic placing if we look at gas export. Plans are formed to create a gas pipeline

between Qatar and Europe through Syria and Turkey.2 Syria has a geographical key position in the

delivering of gas to Europe without interference of Russia. So if this nexus is created it would reduce

Europe’s dependence on the Russian gas exports.

On top of that the Syria conflict is involved in the debate around the concept of Responsibility to

Protect (R2P). R2P is a concept in international law that emerged in 2001 and is intended as a way for

the international community to prevent mass atrocity crimes occurring within a sovereign state.3

There is no doubt that horrible things are happening to the people in Syria, especially since the war

has become more sectarian. However do we have a responsibility to act and protect the people? This

is an ongoing debate in which the way the Syrian conflict is treated has an important role.4

This essay will try to explain why the international community seems to be in an impasse over Syria

and why the UNSC has not yet adopted any rigorous resolution yet. What are the different opinions

and in what way has that resulted in a deadlock in the UNSC? Chapter 1 will consist of a short

historical background of Syria and an overview of the events that have taken place during the civil

war in the recent years. In chapter 2 the interests and involvement of different countries will be

discussed. And chapter 3 will discuss in what ways the conflict in interests make that the

international community and specially the UNSC are at an impasse.

1 IMF, World Economic Outlook Database, October 2013, http://www.imf.org/external/data.htm, accessed on 04 April 2014. 2 Y.A. Weiler, “Pipeline Predicament: The Ukraine-Syria-Russia-U.S. gas nexus”, Tehran Times (online 18 March 2014) accessed on 04 April 2014. 3 P.R. Williams, J.T. Ulbrick & J. Worboys, “Preventing Mass Atrocity Crimes: The Responsibility to Protect and the Syria Crisis”, Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 45 (2012) 473-503, 474. 4 T.G. Weiss, “Military Humanitarianism: Syria Hasn’t Killed It”, The Washington Quarterly, 17:1 (2014) 7-20.

4

A historical overview In order to have a better understanding of the different interests of the different parties involved in

the Syrian conflict it is necessary to have a little understanding of the history of the country. This

chapter is no way meant to be a complete historical overview, but it will help to gain a better

understanding of the diversity in the country.

In the 11th and 12th century the country of Syria was invaded by Crusaders and they formed kingdoms

in this region. The primary state in Syria was the Principality of Antioch. The crusades formed the first

significant western European influence in the region. After the crusades different parties had their

interest in Syria and the region had different rulers until 1516. Then the Ottoman Empire conquered

Syria and Syria remained a part of this empire until 1920. Under the Ottoman Empire the Syrians had

a relative autonomy, because the Ottomans respected the Arabic language as the language of the

Quran. After the fall of the Ottoman Empire there was a short-lived independent Kingdom of Syria,

but it soon came under French mandate. This was a turbulent period and in 1930 the Independent

Syrian Republic was founded. As an independent state Syria fought, together with other Arab states,

against the establishment of the State of Israel. In 1956 as a result of the Suez Crisis Syria signed a

pact with the Soviet Union. This resulted in communist political influence in exchange for military

equipment. Then in 1958 the Syrian President Shukri al Quwatti and Egypt’s Nasser announced a

merging of the two states and a formation of the United Arab Republic. This however was short-lived

and in 1961 Syria seceded from this union. In 1966 a military coup led to the state known as Ba’athist

Syria. And it is this state that forms the current state in Syria.5 All the different regimes and presences

have influenced the Syrian population and have resulted in a chequered demography. While the

majority of the Syrians, approximately 77%, are Arabic there are many minorities. In the northeast

there are approximately 2 million Kurds. And spread across the country we find Christian Syriac-

Aramic people and Assyrians.6

The chain of events in the Syrian conflict are in itself a subject worthy of study this is not the place. I

will give a short overview of the conflict wherein I will highlight some key events that have taken

place.

The symbolical start of the conflict is 28th of January 2011 when a men set himself on fire in the city

of Al-Hasakah. Then on 15th of March large protests were held in Damascus and Aleppo. This day was

dubbed “day of rage” by activists.7 Up until now the Syrian uprising seemed to be a call for reforms

and violence was not a necessary option. However on 19th of March the government forces used live

ammunition on the protesters and so the first escalation of the conflict appeared.8 But most of the

attention of the international community was focussed on Libya at the moment.

The international community’s attention was really drawn when on the 13th of July US officials noted

that Syria was moving its chemical weapons out of storage.9 But nothing is done about the conflict

and on the 23rd of December the first claims of use of chemical weapons arrive.10

5 Syria, Britannica Online Encyclopedia, britannica.com accessed on 01-04-2014. 6 U.S. Department of State, Syria - International Religious Freedom Report 2006 (2006) accessed on 05-04-2014. 7 P. Iddon, “A recap of the Syrian crisis to date”, Digital Journal (30 July 2012) accessed on 07-04-2014. 8 BBC, Guide: Syria Crisis (9 April 2012) accessed on 04-04-2014. 9 J.E. Barnes, J. Solomon, A. Enthous, “U.S. Concerned as Syria Moves Chemical Stockpile”, Wall Street Journal (13 July 2012). 10 Al Jazeera, Syria Live Blog 24 December 2012, blogs.aljazeera.com/liveblog/topic/syria-153 accessed on 07-04-2014.

5

The year 2013 is the year of the intensification of the conflict. In this year Hezbollah, supported by

Iran, enters the conflict. The coming of Hezbollah to Syria also internationalises the conflict.

Hezbollah supports the government troops, but they themselves get their weapons from Iran.

Together with the fact that Hezbollah is dubbed a ‘terrorist group’ by the Americans and other

countries complicates the situation. Through Hezbollah Iran is involved through proxy in the Syrian

conflict and the USA gets an incentive to act against these terrorists. 11

In the same year tensions arise between ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham) and the other

opposition forces. This tension tears the opposition into different camps against each other. ISIS is a

splinter group from Al-Qaeda, but the extreme choices of ISIS and the fact that they do not listen to

Al-Qaeda core have resulted in the fact that even a terrorist group as Al-Qaeda has distanced itself

from this organisation. Through the interference of ISIS the war intensifies and it becomes harder to

distinguish between the different parties now that the opposition is fighting each other as well.12

This complicated conflict is nowhere near being resolved. A few months in we have already seen the

second round of negotiations end in failure on 16th of February13and the USA has closed its Syrian

embassy.14 So it seems that as of this year a way to a peaceful resolution of the conflict through

negotiations and mutual respect seem of the table. Together with the chequered landscape as shown

in figure 1 make a peaceful resolution very hard. On top of that the fact that the international

community has different interests in Syria does not help the conflict either.

Figure 1: Territory of different forces15

11 M.V. Ospina and D.H. Gray, “Syria, Iran, and Hizballah: A Strategic Alliance.”, Global Security Studies 5:1 (2014) 27-36. 12 T. McCormick, “Al Qaeda Core: A Short History”, Foreign Policy (17 March 2014) accessed on 08-04-2014. 13 A. Barnard and N. Cumming-Bruce, “After Second Round of Syria Talks, No Agreement Even on How to Negotiate”, The New York Times (15 February 2014). 14 P. Lewis, “US closes Syrian embassy and orders diplomatic staff back to Damascus”, The guardian (18 March 2014). 15 Map source: E. Wexler, Map: Syria’s Shifting Battle Lines, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/foreign-affairs-defense/syrias-second-front/map-syrias-shifting-battle-lines/ accessed on 07-04-2014.

6

Interests of the international community The Syrian conflict has become a proxy war of many different instances. While this complicates the

conflict, it does not explain a deadlock in the UNSC. This deadlock is best explained by looking at the

two opposing major powers: the United States of America and Russia. Their different interests and

views result in the fact that they cannot come to a solution together. Because both these countries

are part of the permanent five (P5) of the UNSC they have a veto power. Their inability to come up

with a satisfactory solution to this crisis results in a deadlock. But what are their differences and why

is there no single line of action?

Let us first take a look at the role of the USA. At first the USA supported the opposition against

President Assad. However after groups that the USA labelled as being terrorist, such as ISIS, started

to become involved the USA dropped its support for the opposition. According to the Telegraph the

USA secretly still backs certain opposition forces that fight against the Al-Qaeda presence in Syria,

but this is not officially confirmed by the USA.16 Also the USA has repeatedly denounced the actions

taken by Assad against the population. Although the USA is not openly supporting any party in the

conflict it is clear that they would like to see the Assad regime be overthrown.

But why would the Americans oppose the regime in Syria? Weiler has a theory that the USA have

searched for a regime change in Syria since as early as 2009. This is because of Syria’s strategic

placing in the world’s gas networks. In 2009 Qatar developed plans to build a gas pipeline from its

capital Doha to the city of Istanbul, Turkey. This pipeline would have to cross Syria to get to Turkey

and Europe, because the other route, via Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq had to be dropped because of

the situation in Iraq. However the Syrian president Bashar Al-Assad declined the offer and so the

plans for the pipeline could not continue.17 The USA would be involved in this pipeline process and

the existence of such a pipeline would decrease the dependence of Europe on Russian gas. This gives

the USA and Europe a motive to be involved in this conflict and to oppose Assad. But if this would be

the only reason for the USA to be interested in this conflict they would probably not be so involved in

the crisis. The USA fears an escalation of the conflict, while they see it in everyone’s interest to

contain the crisis to Syria.

The containment of the crisis consist of two parts. First many refugees have fled Syria in the last

years and they have flooded the neighbouring countries. To contain the crisis would mean to stop

these refugees and to support them in returning to their homes. But for this more stability in Syria is

needed. Second, tied to this refugee problem, is the stability within the region. For the USA the

regional stability is important. This is obvious if we take a look further south. South of Syria we have

Israel and there the Israeli-Palestinian conflict there is still going on. The enormous amounts of

refugees put a strain on the neighbouring countries. And sometimes the refugees take their conflicts

with them. So the unrest spreads outside of Syria’s borders. The USA fears that an escalation of the

conflict in Syria and the flood of refugees may cause the conflict in Israel to intensify and maybe

escalate as well.18 With the USA as one of Israel’s biggest allies involvement in this conflict would be

almost unavoidable by the USA. Therefore an escalation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be a

nightmare for the international peace.

16 R. Sherlock, “US secretly backs rebels to fight al-Qaeda in Syria”, The Telegraph (21 Jan. 2014), http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10588308/US-secretly-backs-rebels-to-fight-al-Qaeda-in-Syria.html (accessed on 07 April 2014). 17 Y.A. Weiler, “Pipeline Predicament: The Ukraine-Syria-Russia-U.S. gas nexus”, Tehran Times (online 18 March 2014) accessed on 04 April 2014. 18 D.S. Sorenson, “Dilemmas for US Strategy; US Options in Syria”, Parameters, 43:3 (2013) 5-15

7

Russia on the other hand has very different interests in Syria. It is surprising to see that Russia takes

such a firm stand in supporting Assad. This while even China is keeping a low profile over this conflict

in order to not alienate itself from the western powers. But if we take a look at Russia’s interests in

Syria it is not altogether surprising that they have such a strong stance in this case.19 But why are the

Russians so firm in supporting Assad.

First of all Russia’s policy concerning Syria is influenced by the events in Libya. They fear that Syria

will be a second Libya in which they consent to resolutions to protect the people, but they see that

the regime is overthrown. The Russians fear that if they let a resolution pass that calls for sanctions it

will lead to an overthrow of the regime and an increase of Western influence in the region.20

Secondly strongly tied to the previous point, they fear that such an overthrow of the regime will

destabilise the region even further. And a destabilisation of the region would form a thread to

international peace as said before. And so Russia has made itself a diplomatic shield for the Assad

regime. Russia tries to force the Assad regime to reform and come to reconciliation with the

opposition by threatening to drop their support.21

Thirdly there is a more psychological reason for Russia to support Assad. Russia and Syria have a

historical association and affinity, with a common denominator of being antagonistic to the western

powers. “Alternatively, Putin and the core of Assad’s regime may simply bond around a shared

international outlook or identity focused on territorial sovereignty and rejection of the normative

basis of the solidarist, human-focused agenda of many western states.”22 Although this ideological

alliance is somewhat flawed and disputes exist between Russia and Syria it still has some impact on

their relationship.

Fourthly Russia has material interests in Syria. They have a solid arms trade that could cease to exist

when the Assad regime falls. Linked to this is the fact that most of these arms have not yet been paid

for by Syria. The Assad regime has an estimated debt of US$3.6 billion and it is likely that Russia will

not be paid in the event that the regime is overthrown. Russia is not willing to suffer this loss,

because it has already lost a lot of money in the region. Russia will probably not see any returns on

the money it had previously invested in Libya before the fall of the regime. And the economic

sanctions on Iran have resulted in the fact that they are behind on their payments to Russia as well.23

Finally the Russians have a naval facility located in Tartus, Syria. This facility is very small and partially

being refurbished, but it allows the Russian naval vessels to have a permanent base in the

Mediterranean. While this naval presence of the Russians is more of symbolical value it drives the

Russians to not abandon the Assad regime out of fear of what would happen to their facility.24

To add to the interests of both of these parties the idea of R2P is involved in the Syria question. This

concept is both part of the debate surrounding the conflict as well as a possible legitimization for

intervention in Syria. It is without a doubt that people are suffering within the borders of Syria.

However if the Security Council fails to act UN member states can call upon the idea of R2P in order

to intervene. But only to prevent atrocity crimes. And it is really hard to justify this. In Libya R2P was

19 R. Allison, “Russia and Syria: explaining alignment with a regime in crisis”, International Affairs¸ 89:4 (2013) 795-823. 20 R. Allison, “Russia and Syria: explaining alignment with a regime in crisis”, International Affairs 89:4 (2013) 795-823. 21 Ibidem, 799. 22 Ibidem. 23 Ibidem, 805-808. 24 Ibidem, 808.

8

used in the UNSC to come to resolutions that allowed intervention. But the success of the mission in

Libya is debated and therefore it is difficult to use R2P again as an argument to intervene.25 The

entire existence of R2P is now thoroughly debated by scholars and politicians and the outcome of the

Syria crisis will certainly put its mark on this concept.

The UNSC in deadlock There is a raging conflict in Syria and many factors are involved, but what have been the actions of

the UNSC in this entire conflict and how have the different actors influenced the course of actions in

the UNSC. What resolutions were blocked in the UNSC or have not even been brought to vote out of

fear of rejection? This chapter will deal with the events that have taken place surrounding the UNSC

during the Syria conflict.

At the beginning of the turmoil in Syria the UNSC was still occupied with the events in Libya. Because

of this the events in Syria where first discussed in April 2011 during a meeting on Israeli-Palestinian

negotiations. In that same week the first session dedicated to the situation in Syria took place. In this

meeting the delegates of the UNSC expressed their concern with the events in Syria. Some of the

delegates used stronger words than others.26 In this early stage the US and some European countries

already drafted a press statement to call on Assad and his regime to end violence against protesters.

Due to a lack of support of all the Council members this statement was not released.27 And a

resolution condemning the violent response of the Syrian government was never put to vote because

it was anticipated that Russia and China would resist this resolution.28 So already in this early stage of

the conflict we see a divide in the UNSC between the western countries on one hand and Russia and

China on the other. An impasse was reached that would not be broken for four months.

The impasse was broken in August 2011 when a Presidential Statement was adopted by the UNSC. This statement consisted of four main points.

“First, it voiced the Security Council’s position on the events in Syria, expressing “grave concern over the deteriorating situation” and condemning the “widespread” human rights violations. Second, the Council called for an immediate end to the violence and unimpeded access for humanitarian workers and stated that “[t]hose responsible for the violence should be held accountable,” without noting how that accountability process should take place. Third, the Council indicated its restraint, reaffirming its “strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of Syria” and emphasizing the importance of a Syrian-led political process. Finally, the statement expressed the Council’s intention to remain involved in the situation, requesting the Secretary-General to provide an update within one week.”29

While this was the first statement of the UNSC it was not as strong as some of the delegates would

have liked. But opposition of Russia and China made it impossible to adopt a stronger resolution.30

In February 2012 the next resolution was vetoed by Russia and China. Morocco put forward a

resolution stating that the UNSC would fully support the Arab League peace plan. This resolution

25 P.R. Williams, J.T. Ulbrick & J. Worboys, “Preventing Mass Atrocity Crimes: The Responsibility to Protect and the Syria Crisis”, Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 45 (2012) 473-503. 26 Security Council, 6524th Meeting (27 April 2011). 27 Neil MacFarquhar, “Push in U.N. for Criticism of Syria Is Rejected”, The New York Times, (28 April 2011). 28 BBC, Syria Crisis: UN Resolution Submitted by UK and France (9 June 2011), http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13706317 (accessed on 07 April 2014). 29 Security Council, 6598th Meeting (3 August 2011) as seen in: S. Mohamed, “The U.N. Security Council and the Crisis in Syria”, American Society of International Law 16:11 (26 March 2012). 30 Security Council, 6627th Meeting (4 October 2011).

9

noted explicitly the Arab League’s goals of asking Assad to resign and grant full authority to his

deputy. This would then be followed by free elections under international supervision, after which a

new government would be formed.31 Russia attacked this plan for striving for a forceful change of

regime in Syria. Also the fact that there were no amendments concerning the opposition to distance

itself from extremist groups and to cease violence were a reason for Russia to veto this resolution.32

This veto of Russia was deplored by many and the UK even said that they were “appalled by the

decision of Russia and China to veto an otherwise consensus resolution.”33

On April 5th the UNSC told both the Assad regime and the opposition to cease armed violence in all

its forms within 48 hours. However there are no consequences if this goal is not met, so this

statement was no more than a paper tiger.34 The fact that Russia keeps watering down UNSC

resolutions appears again on April 14th when a resolution is adopted that unarmed military observers

are to be sent to Syria. “The Russian Federation’s representative said today’s measure was consistent

with his country’s long-held view that stopping the violence in Syria was the primary goal, alongside

avoiding external intervention. The text had become much more balanced through extensive

negotiation, he added.”35 And in the next two weeks UNSC meetings have been held concerning Syria

where strong language was used, but there was no action taken to stop the Syrian conflict due to

unwillingness from Russia and China to support any strong resolution.36

On the 19th of July 2012 China and Russia again veto a resolution that would threaten Syria with

sanctions if the demands to end the violence were not met. This resolution would have also

extended the mandate of the United Nations Supervision Mission in Syria (UNSMIS).37 A resolution to

extend UNSMIS with a final period of 30 days is adopted on 20th of July 2012. However this resolution

had no sanctions or threats for Syria if the violence does not cease.38 So Russia and China still oppose

the idea of sanctions against Syria.

If we look at the archives of the UNSC the year 2013 looked promising, because there have been no

vetoed resolutions by Russia and China. However a closer inspection shows us that this year also has

no adopted resolutions that use a strong language against Syria. So this little fact shows us that the

other powers have learned that they cannot adopt a resolution without being certain that Russia and

China would not veto it. The only resolution adopted in 2013 that mentions Syria is a call to maintain

the ceasefire between Syria and Israel.39 This resolution does show that the international community

is afraid of an escalation of the conflict into Israel and thus threaten the international peace.

However it remains nothing more than a call for peace without any means to enforce it.

Then on 22nd of February 2014 after a UNSC meeting dedicated to the Syria crisis a resolution is

adopted that condemns the violence in Syria and makes a lot of demands of all parties to cease the

violence, assist in humanitarian aid and negotiate peace. 40 However this resolution is devoid of any

sanctions or threats as well and so we see that with the mark of the three years of conflict the UNSC

is still at a stalemate. No actions against Syria have been taken up to this point. And a reconciliation

31 N. MacFarquhar, “U.N. Tentatively Backs a Plan for Syria”, The New York Times, (2 February 2012). 32 Security Council, 6711th Meeting (4 February 2012), supra note 25, at 9. 33 Security Council, 6711th Meeting (4 February 2012), supra note 25, at 6. 34 Security Council, 6746th Meeting (5 April 2012). 35 Security Council, 6751st Meeting (14 April 2012). 36 Security Council, 6756th & 6757th Meeting (21 & 23 April 2012). 37 Security Council, 6810th Meeting (19 July 2012). 38 Security Council, Resolution 2059 (2012). 39 Security Council, Resolution 2108 (2013). 40 Security Council, Resolution 2139 (2014).

10

between the Russia and China on one hand and the other members of the UNSC on the other hand

to come to action is not on the horizon yet.

Discussion and conclusion So we see that different international interests have put the UNSC in a deadlock over Syria. Since the

Syrian conflict is so complicated would it not be best to leave it alone and let them fight it out? I hope

you will agree with me when I say that this is the worst case scenario. First of all if the International

community ignores this situation altogether it will lead to crimes against humanity and various

severe problems for the region. The refugees are already forming a problem for the neighbouring

countries and if nothing is done their numbers will only increase.41

Second this conflict could escalate over its borders and destabilise the entire region. Especially the

nearby Israeli-Palestinian conflict could form a major war if it escalates through its contact with the

Syrian conflict.

Third if the international community fails to do anything about this conflict it would mean a de facto

bankruptcy of the idea of R2P. And the UN and the western powers are not yet ready to give up on

that idea, taking into account that Libya was the first real implementation of this concept.42

But although the future looks grim for Syria there have been glimmers of hope: the Arab League has

taken action, it suspended Syria from membership, prohibited travel by senior officials to Arab states,

and froze Syria’s assets. The US and the EU have imposed diplomatic and economic sanctions,

although not all of them are regarded as beneficial. And the General Assembly has adopted a

resolution nearly identical to the one the Security Council rejected in February.43 But these glimmers

of hope are not enough to resolve this conflict.

If the international community has to do something, the question remains what is to be done? This is

a tough question that is highly debated. Regarding this I would like to quote Vladimir Putin, who said:

“We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political

settlement.”44 I believe that as long as there are options of settling this conflict through negotiations

these options should be used. However these options probably need to be forced by the use of

diplomatic and economic sanctions.

Military action is not advisable in my opinion, unless there really is no other option left and it will be

better to intervene than to let the conflict die out. The problem with military intervention is that it is

never as effective as hoped as we have seen in Afghanistan and more recent in Libya. It will still leave

the country instable and unsafe for the years to come and it will be very expensive both monetarily

as in resources.

But most of all no recommendation that is given will ever be implemented if there is a lack of political

will. In order to be able to take action the international community should form one block. So the

USA and Russia should sit around the table and sort their differences about this situation first, before

any international pressure can be put on this conflict.

41 L. Runderkamp, “Waarom vluchten Syriërs juist nu?, NOS (3 April 2014). 42 R. Thakur, “R2P after Libya and Syria: Engaging Emerging Powers”, The Washington Quarterly 36:2 (2013) 61-76. 43 General Assembly, Resolution 66/176 (23 February 2012). 44 Vladimir V. Putin, “A Plea for Caution from Russia”, The New York Times (11 September 2013).

11

Bibliography

Literature Allison, R., “Russia and Syria: explaining alignment with a regime in crisis”, International Affairs 89:4

(2013) 795-823.

Britannica Online Encyclopedia, Syria, britannica.com accessed on 01-04-2014.

Iddon, P., “A recap of the Syrian crisis to date”, Digital Journal (30 July 2012) accessed on 07-04-2014.

McCormick, T., “Al Qaeda Core: A Short History”, Foreign Policy (17 March 2014) accessed on 08-04-

2014.

Mohamed, S., “The U.N. Security Council and the Crisis in Syria”, American Society of International

Law 16:11 (26 March 2012).

Ospina M.V. and D.H. Gray, “Syria, Iran, and Hizballah: A Strategic Alliance.”, Global Security Studies

5:1 (2014) 27-36.

Sorenson, D.S., “Dilemmas for US Strategy; US Options in Syria”, Parameters, 43:3 (2013) 5-15.

Thakur, R., “R2P after Libya and Syria: Engaging Emerging Powers”, The Washington Quarterly 36:2

(2013) 61-76.

Weiss, T.G., “Military Humanitarianism: Syria Hasn’t Killed It”, The Washington Quarterly, 17:1 (2014)

7-20.

Williams P.R., J.T. Ulbrick & J. Worboys, “Preventing Mass Atrocity Crimes: The Responsibility to

Protect and the Syria Crisis”, Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 45 (2012) 473-503.

News articles Al Jazeera, Syria Live Blog 24 December 2012, blogs.aljazeera.com/liveblog/topic/syria-153 accessed

on 07-04-2014.

BBC, Guide: Syria Crisis (9 April 2012) accessed on 04-04-2014.

BBC, Syria Crisis: UN Resolution Submitted by UK and France (9 June 2011),

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13706317 (accessed on 07 April 2014).

Barnard, A. and N. Cumming-Bruce, “After Second Round of Syria Talks, No Agreement Even on How

to Negotiate”, The New York Times (15 February 2014).

Barnes, J.E., J. Solomon, A. Enthous, “U.S. Concerned as Syria Moves Chemical Stockpile”, Wall Street

Journal (13 July 2012).

Lewis, P., “US closes Syrian embassy and orders diplomatic staff back to Damascus”, The guardian (18

March 2014).

MacFarquhar, N., “Push in U.N. for Criticism of Syria Is Rejected”, The New York Times, (28 April

2011).

MacFarquhar, N. “U.N. Tentatively Backs a Plan for Syria”, The New York Times, (2 February 2012).

Putin, Vladimir V., “A Plea for Caution From Russia”, The New York Times (11 September 2013).

12

Runderkamp, L., “Waarom vluchten Syriërs juist nu?, NOS (3 April 2014).

Sherlock, R., “US secretly backs rebels to fight al-Qaeda in Syria”, The Telegraph (21 Jan. 2014),

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10588308/US-secretly-backs-rebels-

to-fight-al-Qaeda-in-Syria.html (accessed on 07 April 2014).

Weiler, Y.A., “Pipeline Predicament: The Ukraine-Syria-Russia-U.S. gas nexus”, Tehran Times, online

18 March 2014, accessed on 04 April 2014.

Sources General Assembly, Resolution 66/176 (23 February 2012).

IMF, World Economic Outlook Database, October 2013, http://www.imf.org/external/data.htm,

accessed on 04 April 2014.

Security Council, 6524th Meeting (27 April 2011).

Security Council, 6627th Meeting (4 October 2011).

Security Council, 6711th Meeting (4 February 2012).

Security Council, 6746th Meeting (5 April 2012).

Security Council, 6751st Meeting (14 April 2012).

Security Council, 6756th Meeting (21 April 2012).

Security Council, 6757th Meeting (23 April 2012).

Security Council, 6810th Meeting (19 July 2012).

Security Council, Resolution 2059 (2012).

Security Council, Resolution 2108 (2013).

Security Council, Resolution 2139 (2014).

U.S. Department of State, Syria - International Religious Freedom Report 2006 (2006). Accessed on

05-04-2014.

Image Figure 1: E. Wexler, Map: Syria’s Shifting Battle Lines,

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/foreign-affairs-defense/syrias-second-front/map-syrias-

shifting-battle-lines/ accessed on 07-04-2014.