The idea of a safe zone for refugees in Syria was first proposed several months ago, but the flood of people entering Turkey ? as many as 5,000 a day for the past 10 days ? has ratcheted up the pressure for such a zone?s creation.
The UN refugee agency announced on Aug. 28 that as many as 200,000 Syrians may seek refuge in Turkey alone. Turkey says its threshold is 100,000, and it is leading the call for a safe zone so that Syrians can safely remain inside Syria.
But it?s complicated and carries risks that make the international community hesitant to implement it. Here are some complications:
1. It is a big promise to make.
By creating a safe zone, whether under the auspices of the United Nations or with a coalition of countries, the parties involved are vowing to provide safety, and committing to do whatever it takes to maintain it. ?Whatever it takes? can be a slippery slope that could draw other countries fully into Syria?s conflict.
2. It constitutes a military action.
The Srebrenica massacre, when outgunned peacekeeping forces stationed around the town were unable to stop Serb forces from killing thousands of Bosnian civilians in 1995, taught the international community that a well-armed security force is essential to the success of a safe zone.
"To be effective, a safe zone requires a serious armed force that can defend it and serious logistics to supply it and that means a lot of military boots on the ground and serious commitment," Emir Suljagic, a survivor of the Srebrenica massacre who had worked as an interpreter for UN forces based in the town, told the Associated Press.
Marc Lynch wrote in a briefing for the Center for New American Security in February that the degree of military involvement necessary would be ?equivalent to direct military intervention.?
In practice, safe areas would require carving out a part of Syria from the sovereign control of the state and providing the military means to defend it. Safe areas could most easily be established and protected in open rural land, but the threatened civilians live in dense urban centers. Creating and protecting urban safe areas would require establishing military control over those areas, which is effectively equivalent to direct military intervention.
But UN military action requires authorization from the Security Council. That?s unlikely to come ? Russia and China have consistently blocked any further action against Assad.
3. There are political costs.
A group of countries ? perhaps the US, Turkey, France, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, who have been the most vocal critics of Assad ? could go ahead with the safe zone without UN authorization, but that opens the door to accusations of the zone being a guise for a politically or sectarian-motivated intervention, AP reports.
"Since the powers that would establish any safe zone are also calling for Assad's ouster and supporting the Syrian opposition, a so-called humanitarian mission could easily be construed as the first step in regime change managed from the outside. There would be concerns about whether Syrian rebels are using any foreign-protected camps to stage attacks on regime forces, which in turn could try to launch long-range artillery or air strikes on those same locations inside Syria.?
Additionally, the safe zone would likely also become a base from which the Free Syrian Army could plan and execute attacks. Maintaining a safe zone being used by rebel forces to wage war amounts to taking a clear side in the Syrian conflict.
4. It would require a no-fly zone.
World leaders, such as French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, have acknowledged that a safe zone would be impossible without implementing a no-fly zone over that area.
Implementation would require backing from countries like France and the US. The US has shown little interest in providing the military support needed to enforce a no-fly zone, Reuters reports, although Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said earlier this month that it was an option.
The reticence likely has to do with the fact that implementing a no-fly zone comes with the implicit threat of military action if it is violated. It is ?tantamount to war,? Andrew Exum of the Center for New American Security wrote last week.
As I explored in a piece for the United States Naval Institute, imposing a no-fly zone in Syria would likely mean conducting intensive Suppression of Enemy Air Defense to destroy Syria?s air defenses and air force. Even a partial no-fly zone would likely require some strikes outside its limits in order to degrade Syrian airfields, early-warning radars and mobile or semi-mobile air defense systems.
Imposing even a partial no-fly zone would be tantamount to war, just as arming Syria?s rebels would be an act of war, and constitute foreign engagement in the Syrian civil war, and their success would rely on the combustible cocktail of passion, reason, and chance that all wars do.
As Mr. Lynch wrote in his briefing, a no-fly zone is a military action, and it is a commitment to further military action.
Additionally, any proposal for military action needs to be understood in a fully comprehensive manner. A no-fly zone (NFZ) cannot be established without some air strikes to eliminate air defenses. Any air strikes would require an NFZ that would allow freedom of action by the forces involved. Supporting ground forces or protecting safe areas or humanitarian corridors would also require an NFZ to provide the necessary mobility and operational support. None of the options usually proposed are truly discrete policy choices. While no prominent policy expert is currently proposing the deployment of Western ground forces into Syria, the debate over military action cannot ignore the prospect that the failure of less direct forms of intervention would lead to calls for an invasion.
5. Why not maintain the status quo?
Turkey has been firm that it is unwilling to risk a repeat of 1991, when Iraq?s Gulf War sent a flood of Iraqi Kurd refugees into Turkey. ?Turkey?s lesson from the early 1990s is that if you let a large number of refugees come in, they end up being your problem only,? Soner Cagaptay, a Turkey expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), told The Christian Science Monitor.
Turkey is close to reaching its self-prescribed threshold of 100,000 refugees with no sign of the numbers abating. It has been forced to hold thousands of people just over the border on the Syrian side, where they are receiving food, water, and some medical attention. The corridor has become an unofficial safe zone.
Why not continue with that?
The Monitor reports that an internationally recognized and implemented safe zone would be a stronger deterrent to any regime attempts to attack displaced civilians and would also provide greater reassurance to stranded Syrians that they are safe in Syria and do not need to cross over into Turkey or other neighboring countries.
Related stories
Read this story at csmonitor.com
Become a part of the Monitor community
Source: http://news.yahoo.com/why-no-safe-zone-syria-yet-5-complications-202139079.html
storm shelters nick lachey chevy volt christina hendricks lifelock camp david hawaii weather
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.