w11.zetaboards.com Webutation
Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]

- NATIONS

Domestic News: | International News: P | Military News: | Financial News: | Other News: |
Add Reply
The Syrian Situation
Topic Started: Jan 27 2013, 12:58 AM (513 Views)
Acer
Member Avatar
.
Turkey's stance on the Syrian situation is clear - we recognize the Syrian National Coalition (SNC) as the sole legitimate representative of Syria, we want an end to the fighting, and we're willing to accept a reconciliation council composed of both SNC and pro-Assad supporters, as long as ex-President Assad is not part of that council and is not in a position of power.

We call on our NATO allies who are still on the fence to clarify their views on Syria and to help us take action to end this crisis. Many nations here have declared that they view the SNC as the legitimate representative of Syria, but beyond that have taken little action. Every day we fail to act, is a day that more lives are ended and more families torn apart.

To be clear, Turkey is not advocating for NATO military intervention in Syria. However, our nations must make a concerted effort in the United Nations and through other international channels to get the world to work together to resolve the Syrian situation. One action would be a resolution that passes the UNSC and preferably includes UN peacekeepers to enforce a ceasefire. Also, through private communications with China and Russia, we must bring them around to put pressure on Assad to step down or to convince his subordinates to turn on him.

A note of concern for Turkey's government is that in private talks with the Russian government (OOC: in-game), possible Russian military invention in the conflict to prop up Assad's government along with the potential announcement of a Russian mutual defense pact with Syria were mentioned. While the Turkish government is not sure how much truth were in these statements versus simple rhetoric, the fact is that we need to wake up and deal with this situation before it possibly takes a turn for the worst.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
Acer
Member Avatar
.
Turkey Representative to NATO

We must remember that we had a chance to act before Russia's involvement in the Syrian situation - but we failed to do so. While our actions now are more limited, we must still act, and act immediately.

1. As the UK representative suggested, let us attempt to get Assad's regime replaced in the UN by the SNC. However, with Russia and most likely China not backing this proposal, it is doubtful that such a proposal will be passed, but regardless we should attempt it.

2. The West must place economic sanctions on Russia. This may be hard for European countries relying on Russian oil and gas, but those countries who *can* place such sanctions should do so. Those who cannot should at least attempt to find some way to hurt Putin's popularity within Russia.

3. We must show the world and the Russian populace how Putin's government is carrying out actions that are detrimental to peace, stability, and to Russia itself.

4. We must increase our covert support for the SNC, and in particular, the Free Syrian Army.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PolishPrince
Member Avatar

Posted ImageDame Alison Mariot Leslie,
Permanent Representative to NATO.


- - - -

Her Majesties' Government has received a request from the regime of Mr. Bashar al-Assad, which states that it does not believe the Russian Federation or the Republic of Iran will honour the ceasefire which is supposed to take place during the peace negotiations.

It is the view of Mr. Assad that Moscow will remove him from power and attempt to seize control of Syria. Mr. Assad requests, and I am inclined to grant him his request, that the NATO flotilla currently nearby dock at the port of Tartus and that a NATO peacekeeping force be deployed with all possible rapidity.

This course of action will undoubtedly frustrate Moscow, but if we move quickly enough it may be that we can have a force in Syria before Moscow can object.

Damascus has requested a peacekeeping force of around 10,000 troops. This force would be there to maintain the ceasefire, not to be active combatants. It would take several days to deploy British and American forces in the numbers required, so it is likely that the bulk of the initial peacekeeping force would need to be Turkish.

Thought? Is this body willing to deploy a peacekeeping force?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Acer
Member Avatar
.
Turkish Representative to NATO

That is most concerning. We suggest that NATO readies a naval landing force that remains outside Syria's territorial waters waiting for Assad to make a public announcement calling for our assistance in creating a cease-fire. Once that public announcement is made, the NATO task force should move in and land peacekeeping forces including forces to safeguard Assad for the time being.

While we must not forget that the majority of us have recognized the SNC as the legitimate ruling body of Syria, we must make all effort to ensure that Russian and Iranian involvement in the situation are not allowed to continue to severely destabilize the region - and potentially the world. If that includes working with Assad to create a true ceasefire - so be it. However, he must acknowledge that we cannot and will not guarantee he remains in power. That is up to a body of Syrians composed of the SNC and pro-Assad forces who must work together to bring their country back together.

We should look at this as our involvement - if Assad's request is legitimate - is shifted slightly to ensuring it is the Syrians that are in control of Syria and removing foreign coercion.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Circo
Member Avatar

Posted Image
Posted Image Ivo H. Daalder
Ambassador to the NATO

Whilst Washington is in support of a Syrian ceasefire and a removal of the Russian Federation from a power of influence over the Assad Government, we would suggest that we liaise with the Arab League in providing a peacekeeping force under their command up to the point of democratic actions being taken between the Syrian people. Our preferred option would be a UN Peacekeeping force however given some of the troubles occurred on that international forum, we fear that it would be some time before such action was taken.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PolishPrince
Member Avatar

Posted ImageDame Alison Mariot Leslie,
Permanent Representative to NATO.


- - - -

We too, would prefer a UN/Arab league force to enforce the Syrian ceasefire but the Assad regime seems to be believe that Moscow will assassinate Mr. Assad before a peacekeeping force could be deployed. This will follow historic, cold war patterns; with Moscow placing a puppet leader in the place of Mr. Assad and taking de facto control of Syria.

I would suggest we follow the plan laid out by the Turkish representative, and then ask the Arab league to prepare a relief force. It would make our involvement temporary, hopefully.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Circo
Member Avatar

Posted Image
Posted Image Ivo H. Daalder
Ambassador to the NATO

The plan laid out by the Turkish representative sounds efficient but we must stress publicly that NATO involvement is temporary and only to facilitate the ceasefire.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jos1311
Member Avatar
Head Admin
Posted Image
Posted Image - Martin Erdmann
Permanent Representative to NATO
_____

Berlin is in support of the cease fire, as well as the talks between President al-Assad and the Syrian National Coalition. With that said Berlin is skeptical about the Muslim Brotherhood element within the SNC not supporting the peace talks, while there also are various Islamic groups within Syria that most likely will have a similar stance. While the SNC represents a substantial amount of the opposition, we should not ignore the threat of these groups to the entire process of stabilizing Syria. Berlin has also taken note of the Russian response in the entire matter, and is extremely concerned over the attitude they have adopted, and portrayed, throughout the conflict.

The plans to land a peacekeeping force of 10,000 soldiers seems ill-throughout and unwise. We currently have 40,000 Russian troops, and over 400,000 other combatants in the entire country. This makes the deployment too insignificant and will pose a great danger to all the troops that will be deployed to the nation. We are also unsure if the talks between the SNC and Al-Assad will be fruitful, because if they will not be, 10,000 NATO soldiers will be in grave danger. Berlin advises against these actions and believes that action should be taken through the Arab League and UN, while NATO should only deploy if both Assad and the SNC come to an agreement. Otherwise the risk posed to the troops is too great, and Berlin will not provide support for such a rushed operation. If the other NATO members are however planning to deploy, Berlin cannot and will not provide any forces for the operation.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PolishPrince
Member Avatar

Posted ImageDame Alison Mariot Leslie,
Permanent Representative to NATO.


- - - -

Her Majesties' Government completely understands your concerns, Mr. Erdmann. However the 10,000 NATO troops would not be combatants, they would act as observers to ensure the ceasefire is honoured by all parties involved; and to act as a minor deterrent to Russian hostilities. Mr. Assad has spoken privately with the office of the Prime Minister and has expressed his strong belief that Moscow will shortly instigate a coup with the express intent of derailing the peace talks and prolonging the civil war.

He therefore cannot request the UN or the Arab League deploy a peacekeeping force, without giving Moscow ample time to carry out the coup and install their own puppet President. That President will follow the will of Moscow, and Moscow has their much vaunted Mutual Defence Pact to give them a legitimate reason to support said puppet President. The NATO force would be primarily deployed to Damascus, Tartus and Aleppo, and would remain there only until a UN or Arab League peacekeeping force is requested, assembled and deployed.

There would be no remit for the NATO force to be an active, they would quite literally be a stop gap measure which buys time for a) the peacetalks to gather pace and b) for an Arab League/UN force to be requested & assembled. All in all, I would be very concerned if the force fired a single round or if it were there for more than two months. If numbers are an issue, then of course we would be willing to discuss increasing the number of troops we should deploy but that would be more costly and may seem like an invasion force.

10,000 troops, with the close support of a US aircraft carrier, French warships, British submarines and mine hunters should be enough to convince Moscow that we are committed to the peace talks and should give Mr. Putin pause for thought.

Meanwhile with the Muslim Brotherhood, if the peace talks can gain enough tract then popular support for the continuance of the civil war should wane. Then it would be them who are saw to be carrying on the war, not Mr. Assad or the SNC. Either way the outcome is moot. We stand a chance now, of ending the war and of creating a unity government which can unite most of the Syrian peoples.

The worst outcome, so far as the Muslim Brotherhood are concerned, is that they become another insurgency which the unity government and an Arab League/UN peacekeeping force have to combat. Which still means NATO gains a strong political and diplomatic victory over Moscow, the Syrian people can go back to living their lives free from the fear of government tanks and artillery, the unity government may actually be able to rebuild Syria and rebuild it into a nation that is a NATO ally which would increase our sphere of influence and reduce Moscows'.


Edited by PolishPrince, Feb 22 2013, 02:44 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jos1311
Member Avatar
Head Admin
Posted Image
Posted Image - Martin Erdmann
Permanent Representative to NATO
_____

I did not state they were combatants, I stated that they potentially would face over 440,000 combatants, if the cease fire failed, we would in a worst case scenario have 10,000 NATO soldiers trapped in Syria.

With that said, if Russia is willing to instigate a coup against al-Assad, what makes you so sure the present NATO fleet will convince Moscow to talk about peace? The fleet has been there for over two months now, and the Russian deployment and operations have gone on unhindered. Taking note of that it seems more likely that if the cease fire fails, the NATO soldiers would become trapped in Syria. Seeing that the risk involved are considered too large Germany will not support any deployment of NATO troops, nor will it itself provide forces for such an operation. We believe it simply is too risky and could potentially only further escalate the entire affair.

The Russian resistance will most likely also ensure that it will be difficult to get approval for any UN mandate for the force, ensuring that the NATO troops would remain in Syria for a prolonged period of time. The plans will need to get approval from a majority of the UN member states, as it is unlikely that the UNSC will approve the resolution, due to a Russian veto, for an Arab League force. These hurdles will need to be addressed first before Germany is willing to provide support to the plans.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PolishPrince
Member Avatar

Posted ImageDame Alison Mariot Leslie,
Permanent Representative to NATO.


- - - -

We recognise the very real threat, which Moscow poses to these talks. That is why my government is currently funding a multi-million pound protection operation with the express goal of keeping alive a man who we were, until only a few short days ago, trying to locate for reasons which are not entirely compatible with the protection operation now under way. We are doing this, because we want to give the peace process a chance. Moscow may indeed try to instigate a coup against Mr. Assad, but they have no justifiable reason to veto a peacekeeping force if both the SNC and Mr. Assad requests it's deployment.

Now the SNC has already stated that they would like a UN peacekeeping force deployed to Syria, and now that Mr. Assad is safely in London I believe he will also, publicly, request the deployment of a UN/Arab League peacekeeping force to Syria. With both parties calling for the deployment of such a force, even Moscow cannot legitimately block the move... And even if they were to block the move, the general assembly would surely vote unanimously for the deployment of such a force.

I also think that you over-estimate the threat faced by NATO forces. The United Kingdom and Turkey are both working closely with the SNC and have been for some time, if these talks fail then they would surely be an ally of the NATO taskforce. Our forces would also not be stranded, as they could force their way across the border into Turkey and to the port of Tartus where they could reboard the naval flotilla.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Round 1 · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Skin created by tiptopolive