United States

The US supports Syria's main opposition alliance, the National Coalition, and provides limited military assistance to ‘moderate’ rebels. Since September 2014, the US has been conducting air strikes on IS and other jihadist groups in Syria as part of an international coalition against the jihadist group.

In the beginning of the Syrian conflict the US has accused President Assad of responsibility for widespread atrocities and said he must divest himself of his authority. But it agreed on the need for a negotiated settlement of the conflict and the formation of a transitional administration. But in September 2015 the US position has been changed and Obama has made clear that the US will work with Russia and Iran but not accept a return to the prewar status quo. They claim that the fight against IS will go on and stick to idea of ‘managed transition’ that must take place in Damascus. John Kerry has signalled that Bashar al-Assad could be part of that – an apparent dilution of Washington’s previous demand that ‘Assad must go’.

European Union

Great Britain has also been a backer of the moderate Syrian opposition, though officials privately acknowledge its weakness. In September 2015 the UK gave to understand that Assad would not have to step down at once specifying a six-month period in which he could remain in office. David Cameron repeated the idea but also insisted Assad must face justice for war crimes.

France remains more hawkish on Syria than any other EU country, opposing any role for Assad in a transitional period. “Assad is the source of the problem and he cannot be part of the solution” [23] Francois Hollande, the French president has said.

The EU foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini, holds similar views. The German chancellor, Angela Merkel – her country taking in a large proportion of Syrian refugees – has said talks on the future of Syria must include Assad. Other EU member states – Austria and Spain – have been more explicit about the need for security cooperation and dialogue with the Syrian president to fight IS.

Conclusion

To sum it up the international community faced an extraordinary situation which could have unpredictable consequences. A power vacuum emerged in Syria led to the formation of zones of anarchy, which immediately began to be filled by extremists and terrorists. So it is necessary to immediately cease fire and form the body which would be competent and responsible for eliminating terrorism in Syria.

The United Nations should overcome the diversity of interests among its members and focus on resolving the problem. We should do our best to avoid worst scenarios associated with expanding terrorism and particularly such extremist groups like IS. The Security Council prefers diplomatic means but it has to act in restricted conditions.

There is a little space for maneuver but it is the time to undertake all the possible efforts to stabilize the situation in Syria. It is important to keep in mind that for the UN Security Council as for the body responsible for violence prevention and the maintenance of international peace and security it is necessary to do it’s best to root out evil like terrorism considering standards of international law because it may threaten both regional and global security.

The main questions under consideration:

1. How can the UNSC put an end to the military conflict?

2. What is the future of the United Nation’s diplomatic relations with the Assad government?

3. What action can be taken to unite all interested parties as soon as possible?

5. How can the borders of Syria be made more secure to ensure a stable future for Syria?

Дата добавления: 2015-11-14