Is there a United Nations Security Council resolution on military action against the Islamic State on the horizon? The UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) is calling for the opening of a humanitarian corridor to supply the Yazidis and other civilian populations that are menaced by the Islamic State terrorist organization, but establishing and securing such a corridor would require ground troops.
The Iraqi army, demoralized by the sectarian divisiveness in Baghdad, throws down its arms and flees in the face of the Islamic State, and the Kurdish Peshmerga is outgunned. In general, the international community wants to see the Islamic State stopped, but who is going to step up?
There is no political will in the US for committing ground troops in Iraq again. It could not get up the gumption to take military action against Bashar al-Assad when he crossed the "red line" of using chemical weapons, so US action against the Islamic State in Syria would give aid and comfort to a previously demonized dictator. On the other hand, the US would probably welcome intervention by a multinational force, so it should support a vote to authorize the use of force in the UN Security Council.
Like the US, France and Britain would probably vote for authorizing the use of force. Both have historical interests in the region; when as victors of the First World War they carved up the disintegrating Ottoman Empire, France took Syria and Britain took Iraq.There is no political will in the US for committing ground troops in Iraq again. It could not get up the gumption to take military action against Bashar al-Assad when he crossed the "red line" of using chemical weapons, so US action against the Islamic State in Syria would give aid and comfort to a previously demonized dictator. On the other hand, the US would probably welcome intervention by a multinational force, so it should support a vote to authorize the use of force in the UN Security Council.
China might also vote for such a resolution, since military intervention for humanitarian reasons would have the secondary effect of supporting the sovereignty of two UN member states: Syria and Iraq. Supporting the status quo of international borders is a key principle of Chinese foreign policy (except in the East China Sea and the South China Sea). Furthermore, taking down a Muslim terrorist group would play well to China's domestic politics, given the increasing incidence of terrorist attacks by Uyghur separatists.
That just leaves Russia as the fifth Security Council permanent member. Russian support for the use of force for humanitarian reasons would have the secondary effect of relieving military pressure on the Assad regime, which Russia has long defended against the rest of the international community, whereas a Russian veto would stab Assad in the back, not to mention further isolating Russia diplomatically, which it can ill afford.
A Russian vote would turn on looking several moves ahead, as any good chess player will do. The fear has been expressed in the international media that the Islamic State could carry out a terrorist strike against targets in Europe.
The Europeans are already honked off at Russia for its complicity in the downing of MH17 last month. An attack by the Islamic State would refocus European anger and the response might well be the invocation of Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which states that an attack on one NATO state is an attack on the entire alliance.
Although Russia has never been happy about NATO out-of-area operations, from the 1999 Kosovo War to the Libyan civil war that brought down Muammar al-Gaddafi, NATO intervention in Syria and Iraq would divert its attention and resources from Russia's support of the ethnic Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine. So, Russia might see Security Council authorization of the use of force in Iraq and Syria as being in its national interest, including the possibility of yet another NATO out-of-area operation.
However, Russia may not be content to stay on the sidelines; rather, it may take a lesson from Anglo-French intervention in the region in the late 19th century. When France sent a military expedition to protect Christians from persecution in the Ottoman province of Syria, the British invited themselves unbidden to keep an eye on the French, their historical rivals in great power politics. Similarly, should a large-scale deployment of NATO forces in the region develop, the Russians might want to tag along to keep an eye on NATO. After all, Russia has demonstrated an enduring interest in the survival of the Assad government.
Westphalia vs. Caliphate
No comments:
Post a Comment