Conference: Brazil Model United Nations Conference 2014

Committee: Political Committee

Country: The United States of America
School: Escola Americana de Campinas
Delegates: Matheus Bevilacqua and Sujin Lee

Topic B: Diminishing the Presence of Militant Groups in Syria by

Holding Governments Accountable for Supporting Them
Although many people expected the Syrian uprising to occur as a natural corollary of
the Arab Spring, intervention of the international community has been delayed for a number
of reasons. To begin with, states in general are apprehensive towards taking military actions
in Syria despite the governments evident use of extreme violence and employment of
chemical weapons against innocent civilians. While most states do assert it is imperative to
act to protect the Syrian people from the government and the militant groups, attempts to do
so have been impeded by the two major allies of the Syrian government, Russia and China,
who have repeatedly vetoed the United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding this
issue. The more pressing concern is the affiliations that some opposition groups have with AlQaeda and those that the Syrian government has with Hezbollah, both of which the United
States regards as terrorist organizations and is publicly opposed to. Well-intended weapon
supply from other states have exacerbated and prolonged the issue due to lack of control over
the path of weaponry as well.
The United States of America, in particular, is cautious to act in a haste in the Syrian
crisis, since it is fully aware of the deplorable consequences of its intervention in the instance
of Iraq. Although the intervention in Libya is considered largely successful in retrospect,
there is no guarantee that the same tactics will work in Syria. The characteristics of the Syrian
crisis are different, and many obstacles still stand in the way. Regional political issues, as
well as practical difficulties faced by intervening forces prevent the United States from
engaging in active intervention. This by no means suggests it has no plan to take substantial
actions toward the Syrian conflict. In fact, it has continuously made it clear that affirmative
counter-actions should and will be taken in order to prevent further atrocities from happening.
For instance, the President tried to gain support from the Congress to militarily intervene in
September 2013 once the use of chemical by the Syrian government had been uncovered.
This proposal was retracted, however, as the Syrian government announced it would disarm
its chemical weapons.
In short, the United States does feel a moral obligation to intervene to diminish the
presence of militant groups in Syria. However, it believes that the form of intervention need
not involve military actions, which could be used only if deemed necessary by the
international community on the occurrence of grave violations such as further usage of
chemical weapons. There are several implications with using military forces in an unstable
region like Syria. Such force must come with assurances that weapons will not fall into the
wrong hands, but since no state or organization currently has a flawless plan, it is in the
interest of the international community to undertake non-military actions. Thus, the United
States disapproves of any military actions taken by militias that aim to support either the
government or the opposition groups. Alternatives to approach the issue include border
control in order to prevent illicit weapon flow in and out of Syria and urging the resignation
of the Al-Assad regime. Whatever measures are taken, the collective work of the international
community with the support of Syria is crucial.