As for NATO, it has no jurisdiction in Syria and as we've seen in its Libyan intervention, it went far beyond the need to protect the people of Benghazi and preventing the impending massacre that surely would have occurred at the hands of Muammar Qaddafi.
Syria under Assad has seen thousands of innocent Syrians killed by his forces since the uprising against the regime began 15 months ago.
Western governments have remained mostly on the sidelines knowing any unilateral intervention outside of U.N. authority, particularly NATO, would not be accepted internationally.
Meanwhile the latest has Annan back in Damascus meeting with Assad today trying to resuscitate his cease fire peace plan that seems a shambles, obviously all but ignored by Assad.
It has seemed Assad has no intention of stepping down on his own and he has up to now concluded no real outside intervention is forthcoming; even when his forces commit atrocities.
One unsaid complication to any sizeable U.N. intervention in Syria is U.S. involvement. That brings with it a "suspicion of motive" considering the U.S. unilateral invasions and occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq, neither of which were U.N. authorized. It's hard for others to see the U.S. as a peacekeeper when it's off precipitating unnecessary pre-emptive wars and occupations.
That said, Friday's massacring of women and children may be the horrific event and catalyst that compels U.N. Security Council unanimity and the authorization of a significant U.N. peacekeeping intervention in Syria, (not just 300 unarmed observers).
Syria is on the verge of sectarian inspired bloodletting, revenge and civil war. Does the world just sit by idly and let it happen?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
