[thunder_chunky]

A resolution from the Syrian Resolution Committee:

Resolution 2012/10 - Concerning the Conflict in the Syria Arab Republic

Resolution 2012/09: Concerning the conflict in Syria
Committee: Security Council
Proposed by: Syrian Resolution Committee

Concerned by the increasing violence in Syria
Seeking a solution to the issue
Welcoming the co-operation of the international community
Thanking all involved in the development of this resolution
Believing that the way forward involves diplomatic pressure and isolation, rather than military intervention

This resolution seeks to establish the following proposals:
1) That the diplomatic pressure on Syria be increased. This would involve expelling Syrian diplomats, and ending foreign relations.
2) That humanitarian aid be provided for all civilians.
3) That a boycott of Syria's allies and arms providers be put into place. This would involve a diplomatic and trade boycott of Syria's allies (such as Iran) and arms providers (such as Russia).
4) That the rebels be recognised as the government of Syria. This could be implemented by inviting diplomats from amongst the rebels to replace those from the al-Assad regime.
5) That Syria comply with its international obligations as a recognised member of the United Nations.

This failed in the Security Council Vote by Veto.

The period for debate now begins.

[JPKC]

The French Republic supported Resolution 2012/10 in the Security Council; the People's Republic of China exercised their veto.

[SunderX]

China does not condone Syrian actions, but will not support Western-backed regime building. We voted in support of the Russian position.

[JPKC]

(Original post by SunderX)
China does not condone Syrian actions, but will not support Western-backed regime building. We voted in support of the Russian position.

The French Republic empathises with China's position and believes that any international actions regarding Syria should not entirely be cynical attempts at weakening enemies of the West; we ask that you consider Resolution 2012/11 as we believe the proposals it contains provide a framework for alleviating the problems in Syria that both Russia and China would find suitably neutral. While it'd be unacceptable for Western nations to exploit the Syrian crisis for their own ends, the same also applies to those nations that benefit from maintaining the Assad regime.

[toronto353]

The MHoC was a member of this Committee and continues to back the resolution.

[SunderX]

(Original post by JPKC)
The French Republic empathises with China's position and believes that any international actions regarding Syria should not entirely be cynical attempts at weakening enemies of the West; we ask that you consider Resolution 2012/11 as we believe the proposals it contains provide a framework for alleviating the problems in Syria that both Russia and China would find suitably neutral. While it'd be unacceptable for Western nations to exploit the Syrian crisis for their own ends, the same also applies to those nations that benefit from maintaining the Assad regime.

What legitimacy do the rebels hold to assume government over all the people of Syria? The SRC is attempting to mandate that the government of a sovereign nation be assigned arbitrarily to a group that recently plundered an entire convoy of humanitarian supplies for its own people.

[RoryS]

As Chair of the Committee and MUN Rep for Qatar, I still continue to back this resolution.

I do hope it passes.

[JPKC]

(Original post by SunderX)
What legitimacy do the rebels hold to assume government over all the people of Syria? The SRC is attempting to mandate that the government of a sovereign nation be assigned arbitrarily to a group that recently plundered an entire convoy of humanitarian supplies for its own people.

None. Though they are fighting for democracy, which means that supporting them is the most obvious route to seeing Syria become free. Though we stress that the ideal solution would involve collaboration between the Syrian National Council, the current Assad regime and all members of the international community, including China, Russia, Iran and Western nations.

[eff01]

Georgia will support this resolution as we believe decisive action needs to be taken regarding the genocide that is taking place. However as we pointed out in previous discussions, we do not recognise the Syrian National Council as the government of Syria and thus do not support point 4 of the resolution. Nevertheless we will not vote against this resolution.

[SunderX]

(Original post by JPKC)
None. Though they are fighting for democracy, which means that supporting them is the most obvious route to seeing Syria become free. Though we stress that the ideal solution would involve collaboration between the Syrian National Council, the current Assad regime and all members of the international community, including China, Russia, Iran and Western nations.

So it is the habit for the UN to do what is easy instead of what is right? China does not believe it has the right nor mandate to dictate what happens in Syria. Nor do we agree to the imposition of the Western model of democracy across historically self-governing Arab nations.

The belligerence of the FSA is part of the Syrian problem. There is no guarantee that they would constitute a better or representative government for Syria. The Free Syrian Army is not elected, nor has been shown to represent the people. If France wishes for China not to regard this as a cynical attempt at spreading Western influence, it must provide evidence to the contrary.

[cimperator]

As representative of the Gambian Republic I'm only commenting this resolution is relevant to the situation but I've some concerns Russia and China both defend Syrian government I don't encourage them but Europe has an imperialistic politique in such a way that the west always want to have control.
Syrian government is bad and they are wrong to reprimand their own population in such a bad way but I appeal that the MUN should should take severe measures trough the security council because if it was a Ghadaffi or an African leader the problem would have been dealt long ago it is an injustice in that sens.
Assad is Nat a good example of leader but he is Nat fully in control of the regime I think we should try to have a second mediation with him there we can see what's next that all I've to say for the republic of the Gambia cimperator

[Lipvig]

Oman supports this motion.

[PierceBrosnan]

The Swiss Confederation fully supports this motion.

[Birchington]

India supports this, and calls for the strengthening of diplomacy to solve this conflict.

[cimperator]

Gambia support the motion after an in-depth reflection and we encourage military action if possible

This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my GT-S5570

[cl_steele]

Australia does not agree to this proposal for several key reasions namely points 4, 1 and 3
1] Further isolating syria will prove detrimental to any possible peace process and possibly further radicalise the regime
3] Boycotting nations like Russia etc. will only further inflame internaitonal tensions regarding this and further escalate a highly volatile situation and make a vote even less likely to pass through the SC
4] We will not condone that the rebels be recognised as the rightful government of Syria under any circumstances, they have absolutley no mandate for such a position and to simply apoint them as such will lead to dire consequences, a fair a democratic election is the only way to decide the true leaders of Syria.

[cimperator]

(Original post by cl_steele)
Australia does not agree to this proposal for several key reasions namely points 4, 1 and 3
1] Further isolating syria will prove detrimental to any possible peace process and possibly further radicalise the regime
3] Boycotting nations like Russia etc. will only further inflame internaitonal tensions regarding this and further escalate a highly volatile situation and make a vote even less likely to pass through the SC
4] We will not condone that the rebels be recognised as the rightful government of Syria under any circumstances, they have absolutley no mandate for such a position and to simply apoint them as such will lead to dire consequences, a fair a democratic election is the only way to decide the true leaders of Syria.

Australia I agree with some of your points, but why some nations always decide for other make a reflexion about it and consider the fact that Syrian government is practicing a genocide, a crime against humanity, since Assad regime is installed in the country please let us not close our eyes this situation is no more a diplomatic issue but it is purely something that has to be dealt in a drastical way please consider supporting this resolution

Sent from my GT-S5570

[cl_steele]

(Original post by cimperator)
Australia I agree with some of your points, but why some nations always decide for other make a reflexion about it and consider the fact that Syrian government is practicing a genocide, a crime against humanity, since Assad regime is installed in the country please let us not close our eyes this situation is no more a diplomatic issue but it is purely something that has to be dealt in a drastical way please consider supporting this resolution

Sent from my GT-S5570

Whilst Australia does feel something of course needs to be done about the attrocities being committed by the Assad regime in Syria we as a nation feel it would be unwise to support this resolution for the aforementioned reasons namely because we believe they will do more harm than good both in the long run and on an international scale, if our grievences can be adhered to or at least find a middle ground on then we shall happily but our name down for this but again we feel it is a] unwise to prop up an undemocraticly elected party of guarilla fights, b] penalise foreign powers which could well have far reaching ramifications for international politics and turn this isolated conflict into a potentially regional or international incident and c] We feel that completely isolating Damascus could be in no way helpful as dialogue with Mr Assad is still key to resolving this.
This all being said we of course sympathise with the plight of the Syrian people and the hardship they are facing but we believe that this resolution will harm them more than it can help them.

[cimperator]

(Original post by cl_steele)
Whilst Australia does feel something of course needs to be done about the attrocities being committed by the Assad regime in Syria we as a nation feel it would be unwise to support this resolution for the aforementioned reasons namely because we believe they will do more harm than good both in the long run and on an international scale, if our grievences can be adhered to or at least find a middle ground on then we shall happily but our name down for this but again we feel it is a] unwise to prop up an undemocraticly elected party of guarilla fights, b] penalise foreign powers which could well have far reaching ramifications for international politics and turn this isolated conflict into a potentially regional or international incident and c] We feel that completely isolating Damascus could be in no way helpful as dialogue with Mr Assad is still key to resolving this.
This all being said we of course sympathise with the plight of the Syrian people and the hardship they are facing but we believe that this resolution will harm them more than it can help them.

I understand the Australian position and I do also see that the Syrian people are suffering but do you think Mr Assad still understand the meaning of negotiations? Why the UN agree to a resolution for ghadaffi and not for Assad I strongly think that the UN is biased....


Sent from my GT-S5570

[cl_steele]

(Original post by cimperator)
I understand the Australian position and I do also see that the Syrian people are suffering but do you think Mr Assad still understand the meaning of negotiations? Why the UN agree to a resolution for ghadaffi and not for Assad I strongly think that the UN is biased....


Sent from my GT-S5570

Australia has of course not ruled out the possibility of supporting an international military intervention in Syria but due to the differences between the situtation in Libya and Syria we would rather hold back judgement on this particular.
We would like to add for clarification, just incase anyone has gotten the wrong end of the stick, that Australia does not under any circumstances condone or support the Assad regime or the crimes it is committing we merely feel that any attempt to stabalise Syria should be done in a manner which causes the least distress to the Syrian population and arming, supporting or supplementing rebel groups is most definitely not the way to go about this as seen countless times through out history from Iran to Afghanistan and countless other times.