Memorandum

To: Mr. Prime Minister, David Cameron
Subject: Intervention or Non-intervention in Syria
Date: 20.09.2013

The Syrian Civil War, Syrian Uprising or Syrian Crisis- all of these are names for the abyss in which Syria lies right now. It is an ongoing armed conflict which started on the 15th of March 2011 between the Belligerents of the Government and a coalition of civilians, former Syrian army troops and other factions who seek to overthrow it. Protesters all over the country want the resignation of the President Bashar Al-Assad calling for political freedom and rights. Bashar reacted violently to the protests and launched large-scale operations against the rebels. Those operations meant using tanks, artillery and infantry which lead to a high number of deaths. But the most culpable act was the use of chemical weapons against the people. United Kingdom cannot stay oblivious to these abominable actions, especially at what happened in the latest instance. It is in regard to the issue, that the Government needs a strong and firm decision and call for arms in order to restore peace in a state where it is forgotten. Chemical weapons are damnable in any circumstance The recent reports of the UN special Rapporteurs on the use of chemical weapons denote the lack of fear of the Syrians and the indefinite damnation of the act. Though the Syrian parties blame one another, the empirical evidence can’t be disputed. A civil war though not sustained can be explained, but the avail of chemical weapons is never and should never be considered applicable. Also the issue put forward can conclude that the risk of them falling into the hands of the terrorists is of vital importance.
Current approaches lack consistency and enforcement Though military action was seen as a solution after the crime against humanity, the world community decided to wait for the final proof of chemical weapons use. Our previous discussions focused more on ignoring the issue than facing it. This was because our de facto interests were rooted somewhere else. In the end realizing that this is not a solution, worldwide peace being put into question, subsequently incentives and sanctions were put into play. Those final two were assessed as being guarantees for ending the myriad of disputes within Syria and until our present day it still represent our plan of approach.
Non-Intervention has the reputation of being a two sided sword
Pro
We can imagine that non-intervention comes with its flaws and strengths. Not intervening in Syria can bring relief to the troops and their families which would have been in constant fear for their loved ones. Undeniably not risking loosing lives in a war where UK has no immediate interest is a clear plus. Of course on the same line we can discuss that staying oblivious can give a good example to the world that the SC and the UN is not leaning towards bloodshed. On the contrary, we do whatever it takes to keep the peace door open for everybody no matter in what circumstances. Furthermore, moving on to finance, even though we have the capabilities and funds to start the required operation, England is better off with the funds within its boundaries and invest in something useful for the people. On its own, this brings only benefits for whole UK. Con Non-intervention can give the Syrians the false impression the SC and the international world is complying with the current situation of affairs. This subsequently may be followed by a clear tendency towards larger and larger violent operations. On the same notion, all the states where violence is probable to erupt at some point will also see incapability/undecidedness/unwillingness of the world to make a clear statement of intervention. This can have a definite dangerous impact on the future of possible violence, since the world loses legitimacy. Moreover, one issue which is not at all accommodated in our discussions but of great importance is the risk of the chemical weapons to fall into the hands of terrorist groups. We need to be very cautious touching this problem, because it could be a real threat to the world. Taking into account the dangers non-intervention can predict, I recommend a clear and practical plan of action to induce fear and make the two sides take a step back from their actions. I propose the following empirical measures to make the Syrians understand they crossed the red line: * One last call for the Syrian President to seize the attacks and a thoroughly accepting the international sanctions and treaties. * Presuming the call will be ignored, organizing a quick military response to the Syrian Government through aerial and maritime militias. * The attack will not target civilians or military personnel, only chemical warfare warehouses or insignificant non-human targets. * It will be a strong but brief attack on the Governments military supplies, military equipment end even free spaces just to induce immediate fear into the officials. The above mentioned efforts aim to induce fear to the target and concretely abolish any other intention of breaching international customs or treaties. Fear has been used as a weapon throughout history and I believe by waking it up inside the belligerents, can have the expected results. The Syrians cannot afford after such an action to keep pushing forward and ignore the world’s response. The policy mentioned can propose some miss laps as well. If we decide to act accordingly, the risk of protracting the issue in the region is also at a large scale. Iran clearly stated for example their trenchant decision of intervening for the Syrian counterparts, in case we use force. Another weakness can be perceived as the danger of injuring/killing innocent civilians. Though our mission in to hit only non-human entities, there is always a slim chance of a miscalculation. And from that point on, like a domino effect, the mistake can create real chaos.