The Syrian Arab Republic is an Arab country in Western Asia, bordering Lebanon and the

Mediterranean Sea to the West, Turkey to the North, Iraq to the East, Jordan to the South, and
Israel to the Southwest. In March 2011, the Syria conflict has begun due to various reasons and
is still going on today. This outbreak is one of the key factors which resulted the Arab Spring
(Arab Uprising). Arab Spring refers to the democratic uprisings that arose independently and
spread across the Arab world in 2011. The protest originated in Tunisia in December 2010 and
quickly took hold in Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. In these
countries, the citizens intiatied the protests as the ruling families have been keeping the power
for too long (Arab Spring, 2012). In Syria, the conflict goes up to its peak as the revolution
against the rule of Syria President Bashar Al-Assads (Mr Assad). According to the latest report
of the Human Right Organization, more than 36,000 people were killed in this civil war (Khera,
2012).

Talk of intervention in Syria resurfaces whenever a new massacre of civilians by Syrian government forces hits the world
headlines, but theres little appetite in Western capitals for the huge risks involved in a direct military intervention in the Syrian
conflict.
Several other options are still on the table, including an enforcement of a no-fly zone, establishment of humanitarian corridors,
and support for Syrias armed opposition, although none of them promises a quick end to the Syrian tragedy.
1. Ground Troop Intervention


Pros:
Breaking Syria-Iran alliance: Syria is Irans chief Arab ally, conduit for weapons that flow from the regime in Tehran to the
Lebanese Shiite militia Hezbollah, and sponsor of various radical Palestinian groups. Its difficult to overstate the impact that
the fall of Syrias Bashar al-Assad would have on the region.


Humanitarian concerns: Violence by Syrian government forces has provoked genuine revulsion in Western capitals and
among Syrias neighbors. Governments behind the regional push against Assad, such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey,
have staked their reputation on pushing through Assads departure.
Read more on why Saudi Arabia supports the Syrian opposition
Cons:
Lack of UN mandate: Direct intervention will not win an authorization in the UN Security Council, given Russia and
Chinas intense opposition to any form of interference in Syria.


Ghosts of Iraq: US has little taste for sending soldiers into another Arab country, after thecalamity in Iraq. Turkey is
likewise wary of getting bogged down in Syrias civil war, which would risk a direct confrontation with Iran, or possibly rally
the Syrian population behind Assad against a foreign army.


Who could replace Assad: Theres no credible, cohesive political body that could assume transitory authority and prevent a
descent to chaos. Syrias opposition is divided and has little influence on the events on the ground.


Regional destabilization: A full-scale war could spark clashes in Lebanon, which is polarized between Hezbollah-led pro-
Assad camp and political parties backed by Saudi Arabia and the West.
Read more on why Russia supports the Syrian regime.
2. No-fly Zone


Pros:
Libyan model: Proponents of some form of intervention argue that not doing anything will not prevent a civil war or stop the
violence from spilling over to Lebanon. Rather than a ground invasion, US legislators such as Senator John McCain argue for
intensive bombardment of Syrian military installations that would disable the Syrian Air Force, similar to NATO-led
intervention in Libya.


Weaken regimes morale: Bombardment could encourage further defections from the military, goes the argument, and with
air-cover whole army units could desert together with heavy weaponry. Balance of power would tilt toward the opposition
and precipitate the meltdown of the regime.
Cons:
International tension: Russia will of course never consent to bombardment of its sole Arab ally. Moscow would step up
arms shipments to Syria, although it's unlikely it would actually choose to confront US planes for Assad's sake.


Rebels weakness: Libyas lessons show bombardment alone will not break the regime unless theres a capable, centrally-led
rebel force that can take on Assads ground forces. Syria's armed opposition, represented by the Free Syrian Army, is a long
way from reaching that stage.
3. Safe Zones


Pros:
Limited risk: This is probably the least well defined option. Some governments, particularly Turkey and France, have argued
for the establishment of safe zones inside Syrian territory, along with corridors for delivery of aid. One idea was for Turkey
to secure a buffer zone across its border with Syria, creating a safe haven for civilians, while stopping short of direct military
intervention.
Cons:
Armed confrontation: How would safe zones be enforced and protected from Assads forces? Wouldn't that amount to
occupation of parts of Syrian territory? Its difficult to imagine this scenario not provoking clashes with the Syrian military or
pro-government militias, with similar implications as with other intervention scenarios.
Read more: Will Turkey Go To War With Syria?
4. Support for Syrias Rebels


Pros:
Playing it safe: This is a scenario already in play: provision of logistical support and arms for Syrian rebel groups to avoid
the pitfalls of more direct forms of intervention, while presumably giving foreign powers a degree of control over the conflict.
Saudi Arabia and Qatar have spearheaded the calls for arming the Free Syrian Army.
Cons:
Who do you arm: Syrias armed opposition has no effective central leadership, and an influx of foreign money and weapons
could make the matters worse by proliferating the number of poorly coordinated and poorly trained armed groups. There are
fears that some of the money would end up in the hands of militant Islamists.


Unclear outcome: Unless senior commanders of the Syrian army started deserting Assad, Syria would still be looking at a
prolonged conflict, including the risk of growing violence between the Sunni majority and Alawi minority and tensions in
Lebanon.
The Syrian conflict is a sectarian war in a volatile region whose potential to
spread and directly threaten American interests would only be increased by U.S.
intervention.
The struggle is between forces funded and armed by outside sponsors, notably
Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Iran. Also participating are foreign religious groups not
directly controlled by the sponsors, namely the Sunni Salafists and Iranian-
aligned militias, not to mention intensely anti-Western al-Qaeda fighters.
American involvement would simply mobilize the most extreme elements of these
factions against the U.S. and pose the danger that the conflict would spill over
into the neighborhood and set Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon on fire.
That risk has been compounded by the recent Israeli bombing of weapons sites
inside Syria. Whatever their justification, the attacks convey to some Arabs the
sense that there is an external plot against them. That impression would be
solidified if the U.S. were now to enter the fight, suggesting a de facto American-
Israeli-Saudi alliance, which would play into the hands of the extremists.


Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/08/syria-intervention-will-only-
make-it-worse/#ixzz2Tj8f0pyX
The international reactions to the Syrian civil war concern the response of international bodies,
foreign governments, non-governmental organisations and multinational corporationsheadquartered
outside of Syria. Many Western governments have condemned Bashar al-Assad's response as overly
heavy-handed and violent, while many Middle Eastern governments initially expressed support for Assad
and the "security measures" his regime has taken, though as the death toll mounted especially
in Hama they switched sides, often adopting the rhetoric of Western countries. Other countries, including
(but not limited to) China and Russia have vetoed attempts at U.N. sanctions of the Assad government.
Contents
[hide]
1 Supranational bodies
2 UN member governments
3 Non-UN member governments
4 Political organisations
5 NGOs
6 MNCs
7 Media
8 Individuals
9 References
10 Further reading
Supranational bodies [edit]
Arab League
Nabil Elaraby, the Secretary-General of the Arab League, called for an end to the violence on 7 August
2011. He cited "growing concern and strong distress over the deteriorating security conditions in Syria
due to escalating violence and military operations in Hama and Deir al-Zor and other areas of Syria" and
said the government should "stop all acts of violence" at once. In a reference to the Syrian head of state's
efforts to pacify protests, he added, "There is still a chance for the reforms that were announced by
President of Syria|President Bashar al-Assad to be accomplished."
[1]
On 27 August, the Arab League
voted to condemn the crackdown and call for an end to the violence. The next day, it said in a statement
that it would dispatch Elaraby himself on an "urgent mission" to Syria in an endeavour to end the
crisis.
[2]
After meeting with Assad on 10 September 2011, Elaraby told reporters, "I heard from him an
understanding of the situation and he showed me a series of measures taken by the Syrian government
that focused on national dialogue." He did not offer details of the conversation, but said he and Assad had
shared proposals for ending the violence.
[3]
In early November 2011 after negotiations, the Arab League
announced that the Syrian Government had agreed to end it's crackdown, remove troops, release
prisoners, begin a dialog with its citizens, and allow observers and journalists free movement.
[4]
To date,
Syria has not honored that agreement.
[5]

On 12 November 2011, the Arab League voted to suspend Syria from the organization if Al-Assad's
government would not stop violence against protestors by 16 November, and invited Syria's opposition
parties to join talks in the League's headquarters in Cairo. Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, Mauritania, and
Yemen voted against the action, while Iraq abstained from the vote. The League also warned of possible
sanctions against Syria.
[6][7][8]

On 18 December 2011, the Arab League threatened Syria with taking their Arab peace proposal to the
UNSC. Reportedly a draft resolution by five Arab League members asking the UN Security Council to end
the violence inside Syria will be introduced if the Syrian regime does not comply with the League's peace
efforts within two weeks. Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani, the Qatari Prime Minister and head of the
Arab League ministerial committee admitted "if the Syrian crisis is not solved within two weeks, the matter
would be beyond the control of Arab countries."
[9]
The Arab league will consider the plan to involve the
UN on 21 December.
[10]

Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas
At a summit on 10 September 2011, the ALBA regional bloc expressed support for Assad and warned
against an international military intervention in Syria.
[11]

European Union
On 22 March 2011, Catherine Ashton, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and
Security Policy, issued a statement which said that the European Union "strongly condemns the violent
repression, including through the use of live ammunition, of peaceful protests in various locations across
Syria".
[12]
Ashton reiterated the EU's condemnation on 31 July after military operations in the city
of Hama resulted in at least 136 deaths.
[13]
Ashton said on 18 August, "The EU notes the complete loss of
Bashar al-Assad's legitimacy in the eyes of the Syrian people and the necessity for him to step aside."
[14]

Gulf Co-operation Council
In a 6 August 2011 joint statement of GCC governments, the Gulf grouping criticized "mounting violence
and the excessive use of force which resulted in killing and wounding large numbers" and "express[ed]
sorrow for the continuous bloodshed". The statement also affirmed the GCC's support for Syria's
"security, stability, and unity", evidently a reference to the government's repeated accusations of outside
interference.
[15]

Organization of Islamic Cooperation
The 57-member OIC called for an immediate stop to the violent crackdown on 13 August 2011.
[16]
In
August, 2012, at its 4th Extraordinary Session, the OIC voted to suspend Syrian membership.
United Nations
On 18 March 2011, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon described the use of deadly force against
protesters by the Syrian authorities as "unacceptable".
[17]
In a presidential statement on 3 August, the
United Nations Security Council condemned "the widespread violations of human rights and the use of
force against civilians by the Syrian authorities". The statement, which did not threaten economic
sanctions and lacked the full stature of a resolution, was disavowed by non-permanent Security Council
member Lebanon.
[15][18]

UN member governments [edit]
France
The French Foreign Ministry condemned the violence carried out against demonstrators, and called for
political prisoners to be freed.
[19]
On 23 March 2011, French foreign ministry spokesman Bernard Valero
called on Syria to carry out immediate political reforms.
[20]
In a joint statement co-signed by British Prime
Minister David Cameron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, President Nicolas Sarkozy called for
Assad to step down on 18 August 2011, citing his government's repeated failures to institute reforms or
stop the violence in spite of statements by numerous countries and international bodies to do so. "We call
on him to face the reality of the complete rejection of his regime by the Syrian people and to step aside in
the best interests of Syria and the unity of its people", the statement read in part.
[21][22]

Germany
On 24 March 2011, German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said: "The violence must end
immediately. The Syrian government must make sure that basic human and civil rights, as well as the rule
of law, is observed,"
[23]
In early August 2011, after the Siege of Hama, the chairman of the German
government's committee on foreign relations declared that there should be a global boycott of Syrian gas
and oil exports with the aim to pressure Syria into ending its violence against protesters.
[24]
Meanwhile, on
the same day (the 8th of August 2011), a German government spokesman declared that if Assad
continues to reject dialogue and resort to violence, the Syrian government will lose its legitimacy.
[25]
On 15
August 2011, a German Foreign Ministry spokesman said Berlin wanted stronger sanctions against Syria
after hearing reports that Syrian gunboats strafed coastal neighborhoods in Latakia.
[26]
On 18 August
2011, in a joint statement with the leaders of France and the United Kingdom, Chancellor Angela
Merkel called on Assad to leave power immediately and condemned "this bloody repression of peaceful
and courageous demonstrators and the massive violations of human rights which President Assad and
his authorities have been committing for months".
[21][22]

On 7 February 2012, the Berlin Police arrested alleged members of the Syrian intelligence on suspicion of
monitoring Syrian opposition members living in Germany. Foreign Minister Westerwelle insisted that
Germany would not tolerate such activities against Syrian opposition figures.
[27]
Two days later, four
members of the Syrian embassy were expelled from the country on the grounds of alleged espionage as
well.
[28]

Japan
A statement attributed to Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs Takeaki Matsumoto published on 24 April
2011 condemned the Syrian government's use of force and noted the rising numbers of casualties and
fatalities in Syria. The statement said additional reforms beyond the government's lifting of the emergency
law were urgently required and called for a stop to the violence.
[29]

Algeria
In the November 23, 2011, the Algerian Foreign Ministry spokesman Amar Bellani, said his country urged
Damascus "to sign the protocol on sending Arab observers to Syria to avoid the internationalization of the
crisis," referring to a possible initiative from countries outside the Arab world, in a statement broadcast by
the agency APS.
[30]

People's Republic of China
The PRC Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Jiang Yu said on 24 May 2011: "China believes that when it
comes to properly handling the current Syrian situation, it is the correct direction and major approach to
resolve the internal differences through political dialogue and maintain its national stability as well as the
overall stability and security of the Middle East. The future of Syria should be independently decided by
the Syrian people themselves free from external interference. We hope the international community
continues to play a constructive role in this regard."
[31]
On 4 October 2011, Russia and China vetoed a
Western-drafted resolution which would have threatened the Syrian government with targeted sanctions if
it continued military actions against protestors.
[32]
However, in the days following their opposition on the
UNSC to derail a 'Libyan intervention scenario', both Russia and China issued rare public admonishments
of the Syrian Government separately expressing their desire for them to reform and respect the will of the
Syrian people.
[33]

Russia
Main article: Russia's role in the Syrian civil war
On 6 April 2011, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev called al-Assad to voice support for the latter's
decision to make reforms in his country.
[34]

On 28 April 2011, Russian UN ambassador Alexandor Pankin warned against "taking sides" in Syria and
other Arab countries, as "such approaches lead to a never-ending circle of violence".
[35]
A number of
Russian and other intellectuals affirmed that Russia would not tolerate any interference in Syria.
[35]
One
reasons given for Russia's opposition to any action by the UN or other organizations in Syria was that it
Russians fear it could turn into another Libya scenario (with the West intervening on the side of the
rebels). Alexander Fionik, head Arab Studies Center at the Russian Institute of Oriental Studies, said that
"Russia has seen what happened in Libya. It would be logical to assume that Russia's stance on Syria
would be more clear-cut that that on Libya".
[35]
Another reason noted was Russia's close relations with the
Syrian government, which was one of the few governments to back Russia's military intervention in
Georgia in 2008. Russian Middle East analyst Alexander Shumlin wrote that "The fall of the Syrian regime
will mean the disappearance of Russia's last partner in conducting Soviet-style policies in the Middle East
whose essence in many ways boiled down to countering the United States".
[35]

Russia has at various times used its UN Security council position to block resolutions that would harm the
Syrian government (often in concert with China), including blocking the first and second drafts of a
Franco-British sponsored attempt to condemn the use of force by the Syrian government.
[36][37]
A council
diplomat said, in the case of the first, that Russia objected to "the publication of the report as an official
Security Council document", but another council diplomat stated that "It's obviously an attempt to protect
(Syrian President) Bashar al-Assad".
[36]
The vetoed report in March had apparently contained material
incriminating both the leadership of Iran and Syria in matters related to the transmission of arms to
militant groups.
[36]
In the case of the first and second drafts of the resolution sponsored by France, the
UK, Germany, the US and Portugal and to condemn the Syrian government because it feared they could
lead to an interpretation by Western countries that could allow for interference in Syrian affairs.
[37]
An
interview in the government run-media outlet Voice of Russia stated that "What arouses concern is that in
this resolution of Britain and France declares illegitimacy of the regime of Bashar Assad. That means that
the approval of the resolution will make it possible for others countries to doubt the legitimacy of the
regime on the base of this document."
[37]

In response, the following Friday, diaspora Syrians in Lebanon rallied in front of the Russian and Chinese
embassies in Lebanon to "express their gratitude for Russia and China's support Damascus and [to
reject] the conspiracies sought against Syria",
[38]
while, on the same Friday, protestors in Syria itself
burned Russian flags and carried signs with anti-Russian slogans to show their anger at Russia's
position, which they perceived as helping Assad.
[39]

On 2 June 2011, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said, "It is not in the interests of anyone to send
messages to the opposition in Syria or elsewhere that if you reject all reasonable offers we will come and
help you as we did in Libya ... It's a very dangerous position."
[40]
Sergei Lavrov said furthermore that
Russia opposes UN involvement because "the situation doesn't present a threat to international peace
and security ... Syria is a very important country in the Middle East and destabilizing Syria would have
repercussions far beyond its borders", and asserted that Assad had made attempts at major reform.
[40]

In the later parts of the month of June, both the US and other Western governments
[41]
as well as Syrian
protestors
[39]
prevailed upon Moscow to change its position, and finally a Syrian anti-government
delegation visited Moscow and met with Russian envoy Mikhail Margelov, who after the meeting noted
that "leaders come and go" and called for "an end to any and all forms of violence", which some
interpreted to be a shift away from Assad, once a major ally, in foreign policy.
[42]
This was considered to
be potentially hazardous for the Syrian regime (if Russia switched positions) given the Syrian
government's reliance on Russia for weapons, and diplomatic and economic support in the past.
[42]

On 19 July 2011, President Dmitri Medvedev said he was working with German Chancellor[Angela Merkel
to find consensus for a strategy to persuade the Syrian government to abandon violence and begin a
constructive dialogue with protesters. He did not threaten to use Russia's veto at the United Nations
Security Council to oppose a resolution critical of the Syrian government, as Moscow has previously said
it could do. Medvedev also said it was imperative that Syria not slide into civil war the way Libya has.
[43]

Amid the siege of Hama, the Russian Foreign Ministry issued a 1 August 2011 statement documenting
deaths in Hamas as well as condemning the violence, including the killing of eight policemen alleged by
Assad's regime's slaughter. The statement beseeched the pro-Assad forces in addition to the violent
protesters to "exercise maximum restraint".
[44]

On August 3, 2011, Russian ambassador Vitaly Churkin stated that Russia will not oppose a UN
resolution condemning the violence in Syria as long as it does not include sanctions or other
"pressures".
[45]
Al Jazeera reported that Russia had "softened the blow" to the Assad government by
insisting successfully that the UN would make a statement rather than a resolution on the matter.
[46]
On
23 August 2011, the Russian delegation in the UN, along with those of China and Cuba, took to the floor
to denounce a UN inquiry on human rights violations by the Assad government.
[47]
Vitaly Churkin stated
that "We hope to see progress, we hope to see dialogue established in Syria...We think we should
continue to work within the scope of that unified position."
[48]

On 26 August 2011, Reuters reported that according to UN envoys, the effort by the US, France, the UK,
Germany and Portugal to impose UN sanctions on Syria was meeting "fierce resistance" from Russia and
China, with Vitaly Churkin threatening to use Russia's veto power.
[49]
According to Reuters, the arms
embargo included in the sanctions would prevent Russian firms (the main source of Syrian weaponry)
from selling to Syria.
[49]
Russia proposed a second "rival" resolution for voting, described as "toothless" by
Western diplomats, which did not include sanctions or other punitive measures, but rather urged Syria to
speed up the process of its reforms.
[49]

On October 29, 2011, Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee in Russia's Federation Council, Mikhail
Margelov said in an interview to RIA Novosti the position of the Arab League, which calls upon Syrian
President Bashar al-Assad to stop killing civilians, is rather constructive and may lead to end of
bloodshed in the country. Margelov also said that current power methods of the Syrian authorities hamper
implementation of reforms, which seem inevitable.
[50]

On 1 November 2011, Sergei Lavrov said at a Russian-Gulf ministerial meeting that Russia would oppose
the recent proposal for a no-fly zone in Syria as (in Russia's view) the no-fly zone in Libya had been used
to "support one side in a civil war". Lavrov nonetheless argued, when asked if Russia was supporting the
Assad government, that "we are not protecting any regime".
[32]

In late November 2011, Pravda and Reuters announced that a naval flotilla led by the aircraft
carrier Kuznetsov to its naval base in Tartus as a show of support for the al-Assad regime.
[51][52]
However,
in an apparent contradiction, a Russian naval spokesman stated to the Izvestia daily that "The call of the
Russian ships in Tartus should not be seen as a gesture towards what is going on in Syria", and "This
was planned already in 2010 when there were no such events there. There has been active preparation
and there is no need to cancel this", noting that the Admiral Kuznetsov would also be making port calls
in Beirut, Genoa and Cyprus.
[53]

On 15 December 2011, Russia proposed a UN Security Council resolution condemning the violence "by
all parties, including disproportionate use of force by Syrian authorities". The draft resolution also raises
concern over "the illegal supply of weapons to the armed groups in Syria". Western diplomats initially
referred to the proposed resolution as a basis for negotiations.
[54]
The proposal is an updated version of a
Russian-Chinese draft resolution introduced to the Security Council a few months earlier.
[54]
By the end of
January 2012, however, a competing resolution proposal had been drafted by Western and Arab powers
which, in contrast to the Russian draft, did not condemn violence by both sides in the conflict and did not
rule out military intervention. Russia indicated that it would not agree to the Western-Arab draft in its
current form,
[55]
and that it would continue to promote its own resolution in the Security Council.
[56]
In early
February 2012, Russia (along with China) vetoed the Western-Arab draft UNSC resolution.
[57]

Russia has continued to ship arms to Bashar al-Assad, with one ship loaded with "dangerous cargo"
notably having to stop in Cyprus due to stormy weather on the 10th of January, 2012.
[58]
Russia's current
contracts with Syria for arms are estimated to be 1.5 billion US dollars, compromising 10% of Russia's
global arms sales.
[58]
Syria also houses a Russian navy base at Tartus, Russia's last military base outside
the borders of the former USSR.
[58]
Russia's arms sales sparked anger and criticism on the part of certain
Western and Arab nations.
[58]
The Russian government, for its part, defended its sales by pointing out that
they did not violate any standing arms embargoes.
[58]

United Kingdom
On 24 March 2011, British Foreign Secretary William Hague said: "We call on the government of Syria to
respect their people's right to peaceful protest, and to take action about their legitimate grievances."
[59]
On
10 August, after Syrian Ambassador to the United Nations Bashar Jaafari compared the protests in Syria
to the actions of rioters in England, British Permanent Representative to the United Nations Mark Lyall
Grant called the comparison "ludicrous", saying, "In the United Kingdom, you have a situation where the
government is taking measured, proportionate, legal, transparent steps to ensure the rule of law for its
citizens. In Syria, you have a situation where thousands of unarmed civilians are being attacked and
many of them killed."
[60]
Prime MinisterDavid Cameron, together with French President Nicolas
Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, demanded Assad step down in an 18 August joint
statement, which also condemned the crackdown and called for an end to violence.
[21][22]

United States
President Barack Obama's administration condemned the use of violence, stating: "The United States
stands for a set of universal rights, including the freedom of expression and assembly, and believes that
governments, including the Syrian government, must address the legitimate aspirations of their
people."
[61]
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that it was unlikely the US would intervene in Syria,
since the US Congress views al-Assad as "a reformer".
[62][63]
On 9 April, it was reported that Obama had
said: "I strongly condemn the abhorrent violence committed against peaceful protesters by the Syrian
government today and over the past few weeks. I also condemn any use of violence by protesters ... I call
upon the Syrian authorities to refrain from any further violence against peaceful protesters ...
Furthermore, the arbitrary arrests, detention, and torture of prisoners that has been reported must end
now, and the free flow of information must be permitted so that there can be independent verification of
events on the ground...Violence and detention are not the answer to the grievances of the Syrian people.
It is time for the Syrian government to stop repressing its citizens, and to listen to the voices of the Syrian
people calling for meaningful political and economic reforms."
[64]
On 18 May 2011, President Barack
Obamaimposed sanctions on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and six other senior Syrian officials as a
response to Syria's bloody crackdown on political protests. Additional sanctions were imposed by
the Treasury Department against Syrian and Iranian intelligence services and commanders.
[65]

Robert Stephen Ford, the US ambassador to Syria criticized the regime on the
embassy's Facebook page, stating "On July 9, a 'mnhebak' group threw rocks at our embassy, causing
some damage. They resorted to violence, unlike the people in Hama, who have stayed peaceful... and
how ironic that the Syrian Government lets an anti-US demonstration proceed freely while their security
thugs beat down olive branch-carrying peaceful protesters elsewhere."
[66]

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton condemned both the attacks and the incumbent regime, stating that
al-Assad had "lost legitimacy", and that "President Assad is not indispensable and we have absolutely
nothing invested in him remaining in power."
[67]

On 31 July 2011, responding to a pre-Ramadan crackdown that resulted in the bloodiest day of the
uprising to date, President Obama issued a statement in which he sharply condemned the violence,
warning that Assad was "on the wrong side of history and his people", and added, "Through his own
actions, Bashar al-Assad is ensuring that he and his regime will be left in the past, and that the
courageous Syrian people who have demonstrated in the streets will determine its future. Syria will be a
better place when a democratic transition goes forward." While he did not explicitly say that his
administration believes Assad should leave power, he said the US would step up its efforts on the
international stage to "isolate the Assad government and stand with the Syrian people".
[68]

The US government slapped a new round of economic sanctions on Syrian telecom companies and
banks tied to Damascuson 10 August. The sanctions rendered US citizens unable to do business with the
Commercial Bank of Syria, the Syrian Lebanese Commercial Bank, or Syriatel, and the US-based assets
of those companies were frozen.
[69]

On 15 August 2011, appearing on US late-night talk show The Colbert Report, US Ambassador to the
United Nations Susan Rice said that testimonials from Syrian protesters as reported by Ford were
shaping Washington's policies on Syria. "What [Ford] hears every day and what [the protesters] want from
the United States is more leadership, political pressure, and sanctions, but very clearly no military
intervention", she said.
[70]

On 16 August 2011, media suggested that the Obama Administration was preparing to impose new
energy sanctions against the Assad regime and officially call for regime change.
[71]

In a written statement issued on 18 August 2011, Obama said explicitly for the first time that Assad
should resign: "The future of Syria must be determined by its people, but President Bashar al-Assad is
standing in their way ... For the sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for President Assad to step
aside." He again condemned the violent crackdown, but reiterated that the US will not intervene in Syria's
affairs beyond placing political and economic pressure on Assad to leave power. Both the E.U. and
Canada joined U.S. calls for regime change.
[72]
He also issued anexecutive order that blocks the property
of the Syrian government, bans US persons from new investments in or exporting services to Syria, and
bans US imports of, and other transactions or dealings in, Syrian-origin petroleum or petroleum
products.
[73]

The same day, Clinton announced a full ban on imports of Syrian oil or petroleum products into the United
States.
[21]

On 23 August 2011, Reuters reported that US ambassador Robert Ford made a surprise tour of the town
of Jassem, which had seen government crackdown after popular protests.
[47]
The Assad government
denounced the visit as "inciting unrest" (which was denied by the US), and banned Western diplomats
from departing from Damascus; the US embassy was also attacked by a pro-Assad mob which broke
windows and sprayed graffiti.
On 26 August 2011, the media reported that U.S. Central Intelligence Agency chief Leon Panetta traveled
to Turkey in March 2011 to discuss Syrian regime change with his Turkish counterparts.
[74]

On 23 November 2011, the U.S. Embassy in Damascus issued a call for American nationals to depart
Syria "immediately while commercial transportation is available."
[75][76]

On 24 November 2011, a Reuters news dispatch reported the U.S. Navy's Carrier Strike Group
Two operating off the coast of Syria to monitor the ongoing Syrian uprising, with an unnamed Western
diplomat in the region noting: "It is probably routine movement. But it is going to put psychological
pressure on the regime, and the Americans dont mind that."
[77]

On 24 February 2012, after a veto by Russia and China of an Arab League-backed initiative, Clinton
blasted Russia and China by saying "It's quite distressing to see two permanent members of the Security
Council using their veto while people are being murdered women, children, brave young men... It is
just despicable and I ask whose side are they on? They are clearly not on the side of the Syrian
people."
[78]

On 20 August 2012, President Barack Obama warned that the use of chemical weapons in Syria by
President Bashar al-Assad would be a "red line" for America and would change Obama's views on
intervening in the Syrian civil war. Obama said that the consequences of using these weapons would be
enormous, and their deployment would widen the conflict in the region, and would concern America's
allies as well.
[79]

Egypt
The Egyptian government broke its silence over the uprising on 9 August 2011, with Egyptian Foreign
Minister Mohamed Kamel Amr asserting that "reforms that are soaked in the blood of the martyrs who are
dying daily are of no use" in an apparent criticism of the Syrian government's simultaneous promises
of political concessions and use of force to suppress protesters. Amr said he feared the situation in Syria
was "heading to the point of no return" and demanded an "immediate end to shootings". He also called
upon Syrian authorities and citizens to come together in a national dialogue and bring an end to the
crisis.
[80]

Iran
Irans supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, spoke out in favor of the Syrian government in regard to the
uprising In Syria, the hand of America and Israel is evident and Wherever a movement is Islamic,
populist and anti-American, we support it.
[81]
The Guardian reported that the Iranian government is
assisting the Syrian government with riot control equipment, intelligence monitoring techniques, oil
supply, and snipers.
[82][83]
It has also been reported that Iran has sent the Syrian regime $9 billion to help
it withstand the sanctions imposed upon it.
[84][better source needed]

On 15 August 2011, while visiting Cairo, Egypt, high-ranking Iranian parliamentarian Alaeddin
Boroujerdi condemned the actions of Syrian protesters, claiming they were American agents trying to
destabilise Syria in order to benefit Israel.
[85]
On the same day, a report published in the British Daily
Telegraph quoted an alleged defector from the Syrian secret police as saying Iranian soldiers,
including snipers, were working alongside Syrian police, paramilitary, and military units fighting to put
down the uprising.
[86]

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in an interview with the Lebanon|Lebanese television news
network Al-Manar on 25 August 2011 that the violence should end and "the people and government of
Syria" should join in a national dialogue. "When there is a problem between the people and their leaders,
they must sit down together to reach a solution, away from violence", Ahmadinejad said.
[87]
However, he
told Emir Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani of Qatar on 26 August 2011 that he believed that any "interference
of foreigners and domineering powers in the regional countries internal affairs would complicate the
situation".
[88]

Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi delivered the Ahmadinejad government's sharpest remarks to date on
27 August 2011, saying the Syrian regime should respond to the people's "legitimate demands".
However, Salehi also cautioned that a "power vacuum" in Syria could have "unprecedented
repercussions" for the region.
[89]

Israel
Israeli reactions have been mixed, with some believing regime change in Syria would weaken their
enemy Iran,
[90]
and others believing a change of regime might be more dangerous.
[91]

On 24 March 2011, Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs Avigdor Lieberman said: "The same principles,
activities the Western world [has taken] in Libya ... I hope to see those regarding the Iranian regime and
the Syrian regime."
[92]
Israel expressed concern that Assad will try to divert the attention from the uprising
in Syria and try to provoke some border incidents with Israel in the Golan Heights, Lebanon or Gaza or
even start a war with Israel in order to unite the Syrian people against Israel and to divert the media
attention from the uprising in Syria.
[93][94]
On 4 March 2012, Lieberman called on the international
community to intervene in Syria in order to stop the killings.
[95]

On January 10, 2012, Benny Gantz, the Israeli military chief of staff, informed members of the Knesset
committee that in the event of the Syrian regime's collapse Israel is getting ready to permit fleeing
Syrian Alawites settlement in the Golan Heights.
[96]

On 30 January 2013, according to Western reports, Israeli warplanes struck a convoy of SA-17 anti-
aircraft missiles near the border with Lebanon
[97]
intended for Hezbollah in Lebanon. The Syrian state
denied it was shipping weapons to Hezbollah and instead claimed it was a military research facility
outside Damascus targeted and that the strike killed two people. Israel neither confirmed nor denied the
reports of a strike. An official news agency of the Assad regime claimed that the attack proved that Israel
was behind the attempts to overthrow Assad.
[98]
Both Syria and Iranthreatened retaliation against Israel
for the strike, while Russia also condemned it.
[99][100]

Former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy has suggested that Israel should exploit the Shia-Sunni
conflict.
[101]
The president, Shimon Peres, said that the international community is not doing enough to
stop the violence, and he urged the West to intervene. The Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu said that
an "axis of evil" is behind the atrocities in Syria. Netanyahu told the Cabinet that Iran and the militant
group Hezbollah in Lebanon are assisting the Syrian government in the massacre of civilians.
[102]

Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah became the first Arab head of state to openly condemn the Syrian
government over its response to the uprising in the early morning of 8 August, saying, "What is happening
in Syria is not acceptable for Saudi Arabia." He warned Syria "will be pulled down into the depths of
turmoil and loss" if it did not immediately move to enact major political reforms. He also announced Saudi
Arabia was withdrawing its ambassador to Syria.
[103]
Despite originally wanting to stay out of Syria's
affairs, Saudi Arabia's head of state, King Abdullah, escalated the rhetoric, calling on the government to
stop its "killing machine".
[104]

Turkey
On 21 March 2011, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutolu said: "Syria is on an important threshold.
We hope problems between the people and the administration [in Syria] can be handled without
trouble."
[105]
On 2 May 2011, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoan warned that if the Syrian government
replicated an incident like the Hama massacre during this uprising, Turkey will not stand by and watch
idly.
[106][107]
On 10 June 2011, Erdoan condemned Assad outright, calling the images of Syrian protesters
being attacked by security forces "unpalatable" and criticizing the "savagery" of the government's
response to the uprising. He said Turkey may back a proposed United Nations Security Council resolution
condemning the Syrian regime over the crackdown.
[108]

President Abdullah Gl sharply condemned the siege of Hama's escalation at the beginning
of Ramadan on 1 August 2011, saying the Syrian regime's use of heavy weapons against the general
populace "has given me a deep shock". Gl said it was "impossible to remain silent in the face of events
visible to everyone ... and accept a bloody atmosphere at the start of Ramadan". He called upon the
Syrian government to stop the violence and institute reforms to restore "peace and stability".
[109]

Although on 5 August 2011, Davutolu said his government was not considering expelling the Syrian
ambassador in Ankara, he visited Syria himself on 9 August 2011 to deliver a "decisive message",
according to Erdoan.
[110]
After meeting with Assad and other Syrian officials for over six hours,
Davutolu said he had outlined "concrete steps" that the Syrian government should take, but he did not
say how they responded.
[111]
The Hurriyet Daily News reported, on 13 August 2011, that the meeting had
delivered an ultimatum from Turkey's president to Syria's president, and quoted an anonymous
government source as saying Turkey could intervene militarily if Assad did not renounce the use of
violence. The report suggested the Turkish government is concerned about Syrian ties to Iran and the
role both have historically played in destabilising Iraq, as well as the possible sectarian dynamic of the
uprising and crackdown.
[112]
On 15 August 2011, Davutolu warned that the violence must stop
"immediately and without conditions or excuses" or Turkey would take unspecified "steps".
[26]
Gl
expressed disappointment in the regime on 28 August and said his government had "lost confidence" in
Assad.
[2]

Turkey stopped at least two shipments of what it said are Iranian weapons being transported to Syria
amidst the 2011 uprising, one in March 2011 and one in early August 2011.
[113]

On 10 April 2012, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoan slammed Syrian Regime, he said "They are
even shooting these fleeing people from behind. They are mercilessly shooting them, regardless of
whether they are children or women." and added "Indeed, he(Assad) gave his word to Mr. Annan, but
despite giving his word he is continuing to kill 60, 70, 80, 100 every day. This is the situation."
[114]
Recep
Tayyip Erdoan has been trying to "cultivate a favorable relationship with whatever government would
take the place of Assad."
[115]

Iraq
On 3 April 2011, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki called Syria's President and voiced Iraq's support of
Syria "in the face of conspiracies targeting Syria's stability".
[116]
However, on 9 August 2011, as violence
continued during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, the Council of Representatives of Iraq issued a
statement demanding reforms and an immediate halt to violence, which read in part: "We call to stop all
non-peaceful practices, and all actions for suppression of freedoms and bloodshed is condemned and
unacceptable."
[117]
Speaker Osama al-Najafi condemned the use of violence by the regime and said, "For
the sake of the Syrian people, we demand the government, out of its responsibility to safeguard the lives
of its people and their property, take the bold and courageous steps to stop the bleeding." Even in the
same week as his parliament voiced its condemnation, Maliki appeared unswayed in his support for
Assad, blaming protesters for trying to "sabotage" Syria and saying they should "use the democratic
process, not riots, to voice their displeasure", according to The New York Times.
[118]
Iraqi Ambassador to
the United States Samir Sumaida'ie said in an interview with a Foreign Policy blog, on 25 August 2011,
that he believed Assad's regime was "steadily losing its friends, its credibility, and its grip" and would
eventually collapse, which would "alter the balance of power in the region and will eventually weaken Iran
and reduce its capacity to project its power through Hezbollah, Hamas, and other instruments". He
said Baghdad is not concerned about any potential instability that may arise from Assad's ouster.
[119]

Muqtada al-Sadr, the cleric that leads the Iraqi Sadr Movement expressed support for al-Assad,
saying: "there is a big difference between what is happening in Syria and the great revolutions in
Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Bahrain and Yemen, one of the reasons behind this difference is that Bashar
al-Assad is against the American and Israeli presence and his attitudes are clear, not like those who
collapsed before him, or will collapse." He also warned that the demonstrations could bring Syria into
"an abyss of terrorism and fragmentation in the event of a vacuum in power.
[120]
However, in 27th
April 2013, Iraqi president Nouri-Al-Maliki expressed concern for the situation in Syria, stating that "a
plague of sectarianism" was sweeping Iraq as it had in Syria.
[121]

Jordan
The Jordanian Foreign Ministry called for dialogue to end the crisis, saying, "What is happening in Syria
now is worrisome, unfortunate and sad. We hope that dialogue is restored and reforms are achieved in
order to get Syria out of this impasse. " However, Jordan also insisted that it would not interfere in Syria's
internal affairs.
[122]
On 13 August 2011, a spokesman for the government said Amman's "concern was
growing" and added, "The government has voiced and still voices regret over the increasing number of
victims and calls for sparing the lives of the brotherly Syrian people."
[123]
Prime Minister Marouf al-
Bakhit said, on 15 August 2011, that the crackdown must end and serious reforms should be
implemented soon.
[124]
On 18 August 2011, Foreign MinisterNasser Judeh said Jordan was "angered" and
"extremely worried" by the situation in Syria and the actions of Assad's security forces.
Lebanon

This section
requires expansion.(September
2011)
On 31 March 2011, Lebanese Prime Minister-designate Najib Mikati commended the "ending of the
chance to cause strife in Syria" and hailed the Syrian people's "support" for their president.
[125]
Also,
President Michel Suleiman highlighted the importance of stability in Syria, and its positive impact on the
security of and economic situation in Lebanon and Syria.
[126]
On 3 August 2011, Lebanon was the
only United Nations Security Council member to disassociate itself from a presidential statement read by
the Indian delegate condemning the Syrian government over the crackdown.
[18][127]

Hezbollah, a long-standing ally of the regime, has stood in support of Bashar al-Assad, citing their status
as a state of "resistance".
[128]
Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah has suggested that the downfall
of the Syrian regime is an interest of the United States and Israel.
[129]
The Syrian opposition
[who?]
have
accused Hezbollah of aiding the government in suppressing protests.
[130]
A story in Arabiya suggested
that Hezbollah is planning a military coup in Lebanon should the Assad regime fall, with the assistance of
the Free Patriotic Movement.
[131]

After a bloody crackdown across Syria on the eve of Ramadan, former Lebanese Prime Minister Saad
Hariri publicly condemned the Syrian government. "We in Lebanon cannot, under any circumstances,
remain silent regarding the bloody developments taking place in Syria", said Hariri on 31 July 2011. He
compared the violence in Hama over the weekend to the 1982 Hama massacre and said the Arab
world must speak out against repression in Syria.
[132]

Albania
[133]

During a meeting with the new ambassador of Qatar in Albania the Prime Minister of Albania, Sali
Berisha said "The government of Albania is following with concern the events in Syria where the regime
of Bashar al-Assad is using its power as a permit to kill the innocent civilians and the Syrian
people."
[134]
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Albania on 18 February 2012 strongly condemns the
violence already spread throughout Syria, as well as increasing the number of victims caused by the
regime of Bashar Al Assad on the innocent population of his country.
[135]
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs
supports the conclusions of the meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the European Union, held on 27
February in Brussels, on developments in Syria, as well as the additional sanctions that the European
Union has adapted against the Assad regime, sanctions that aim to paralyze the apparatus and finances
of the repressive machine against the Syrian people. The Albanian Foreign Ministry expresses sympathy
and support for the progressive forces, which have embraced the aspiration to transform Syria into a
democratic, open and pluralistic state, which respects the rights of all communities living in this country.
By coordinating its contributions to those of the international community, the Republic of Albania joins
the Friends of Syria Group, believing that this is the secure way to help the Syrian people.
[136]
During the
meeting on 1 April 2012 Friends of Syria in Istanbul the Minister of foreign Affairs of the Republic of
Albania, Edmond Haxhinasto too spoke in the meeting, emphasizing that the issue of human rights is not
an internal affair belonging to the states, but a responsibility of all the international community. He
expressed the need to intensify the pressure against the current regime of Damascus not just politically,
but also through a concentrated action of all international mechanisms. Haxhinasto stressed the position
of the Albanian Government to support the efforts of the UN, the EU, the Arab League and other
international bodies in putting an end to the violence towards the civilian population from the Damascus
regime, and establishing the conditions for a democratic process. He praised the Mission of the UN
Special Envoy, Mr. Kofi Annan and his plan to stop the bloodshed and violence, achieve national
reconciliation and establish a democratic government in Syria. In conclusion, Minister Haxhinasto
underlined the support of the Albanian Government for the Syrian democratic opposition represented by
the Syrian National Council, as well as its war for freedom, human dignity and progress.
[133]

Australia
On 25 March, Australian Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd said: "We are deeply sceptical about the official
explanations as to what has happened with the various killings which have occurred in Daraa ... and we
call directly on the Syrian Government to exercise restraint in their response to peaceful protest seeking
democratic change."
[137]
Rudd said on 1 June that Assad and leading members of his regime should be
referred to the International Criminal Court and tried for "brutal" crimes against the Syrian
people.
[138]
The Reserve Bank of Australia strengthened economic sanctionsagainst Syria on 3 August,
adding intelligence and security officials to its banned list and freezing the assets of several
companies.
[139]

On 5 August 2012, hundreds of demonstrators gathered in Sydney, Australia in a pro-Government rally,
chanting slogans in English and Arabic in support of Presiden Bashar al-Assad and theSyrian army. The
protesters have also blamed the media of distorting the situation in Syria and being bias in favor of the
Syrian Opposition.
[140]

Austria
At a meeting of European Union foreign ministers on 18 July, Austrian Foreign Minister Michael
Spindelegger recommended that the EU engage the Syrian government "in a stern tone" to put pressure
on the regime.
[141]
Spindelegger condemned the Syrian government over its crackdown in early August,
saying on 9 August that "violence in Syria must come to an end" and adding, "Those responsible for
ordering the use of brute force and those who apply it will be called to account for their actions." He
said Ramadan offered a good opportunity for Syrian authorities to disavow the use of violence and enter
into a dialogue, warning that "dialogue and violence are mutually exclusive".
[142]

Bahrain
On 8 August, following Saudi Arabia's decision to recall its ambassador from Syria, Bahraini Foreign
Minister Khalid bin Ahmed Al Khalifa announced on Twitter that the Gulf archipelago state would do
likewise.
[143]

Botswana
On 11 May, Botswana's Foreign Affairs Ministry issued a statement calling the violence "appalling" and
stating the position of President Ian Khama, expressed in a letter to the Secretary-Generalof the United
Nations, that the UN should act immediately to halt the Syrian government's crackdown.
[144]

Brazil
On 26 July 2012, Brazilian UN Ambassador Maria Luiza Viotti expressed her government's "concern" at
the violence in Syria. The Ambassador pointed out Brazil's worries with the conflict scalation and the
possibility of chemical weapons being used. Viotti also said that Syria should pursue a peaceful
Government transition via dialogue between Syrian Government officials and the ones opposed to the
Government. At last, Viotti said that Brazil is against any kind of military external intervention in Syria.
[145]

Canada
On 21 March, Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon said: "Canada deplores the multiple
deaths and injuries following protests in several Syrian cities over the weekend."
[146]
On 24 April, Foreign
Affairs advised Canadians not to travel to Syria, and for those in Syria to consider leaving by commercial
means while these were still available.
[147]
Prime Minister Stephen Harpercalled for Assad to leave power
on 18 August, saying, "The Assad regime has lost all legitimacy by killing its own people to stay in
power."
[148]
Canada has placed sanctions on Syria
[citation needed]
.
Croatia
On 23 February 2012, Croatian Prime Minister Zoran Milanovi called on Croatian companies to withdraw
from Syria due to the violence, following the example of INA Industria Nafte d.d., the Croatian state oil
company. Deputy Prime Minister Radimir ai said INA's decision to halt operations in Syria brought
Croatia in line with EU sanctions against doing business in the country.
[149]
Syrian Oil Minister, Sufian al-
Alao, accused INA for incorrectness towards Syrian people and stated that withdrawal of INA from Syria
was a cringe to the European Union, since Croatia isn't yet an EU member. Al-Alao also confirmed that
INA's return to Syria is impossible because of such manner.
[150]
On 1 April 2012 Croatian Foreign
Minister Vesna Pusi attended the summit of the "Friends of Syria" in Istanbul.
[151]

Czech Republic
The Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs published a statement on 8 August condemning the expulsion of
journalists and violation of human rights on the part of the regime. The statement began: "The Czech
Republic condemns the brutal attacks of the Syrian regime against demonstrations in Hama that have
resulted in numerous casualties among civilians. The Syrian leadership bears a full responsibility for the
violence against unarmed civilians."
[152]

Estonia
Estonian Foreign Affairs Minister Urmas Paet said on 18 July that "Estonia condemns the attacks on
embassies in Damascus and will support the expansion of barricading measures if necessary". Paet
iterated Estonia's demands that the Syrian government renounce the use of force against protesters and
commit to political reforms "that would take into consideration the demands of the Syrian people for a
peaceful, actual, and irreversible transition to a free society".
[153]

Finland
On 18 July, Finnish Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja said that in order to govern, President Assad "should
have at least a democratic mandate, which he is lacking today".
[141]

Gabon
The West African state of Gabon, which held the rotating presidency of the United Nations Security
Council as of June 2011, said it would support a draft resolution condemning the Syrian government over
the crackdown.
[154]

Greece
On 24 March, Greek Foreign Minister Dimitrios Droutsas said: "The use of violence to repress protests
that has led to the murder of citizens is absolutely condemned. We call on the government of Syria to
guarantee the fundamental rights of its citizens".
[155]

India
Despite pressure from Damascus on India to reject any statement critical of the Syrian
government,
[156]
Indian Permanent Representative to the United Nations Hardeep Puri read the 3 August
presidential statement agreed to by the United Nations Security Council condemning Syrian authorities'
use of force and "widespread violations of human rights".
[127]
Moreover, India abstained from voting
against the violence committed by Syrian regime prompting harsh criticism from the Human Rights
Watch.
[157]

Indonesia
An Indonesian Foreign Ministry spokesman said of the violence in Syria on 1 August, "The use of force
will never solve problems. ... We hope all related parties in Syria will be able to solve their problems by
peaceful means to reach the best possible solution for the people of Syria."
[158]

Italy
The Italian Foreign Ministry recalled its ambassador to Syria on 2 August and urged other EU member
states to do likewise. It also condemned the Syrian government's "horrible repression against the civilian
population".
[156]
In December 2011 new Minister Giulio Terzi di Sant'Agata met with
Syrian opposition leader Burhan Ghalioun and advocated tougher sanctions against theAssad regime.
[159]

Kazakhstan
A spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Kazakhstan said on 23 August that it believes the
Syrian government and opposition should hold a national dialogue. He also offered the government's
support for OIC mediation in the dispute.
[160]

Kuwait
A statement on 5 August from the Kuwaiti Foreign Ministry called on the Syrian government to institute
"true reforms that meet the legitimate demands of the Syrian people away from the security actions" and
expressed "extreme pain for the continued bloodshed". Kuwait's criticism marked the first statement by an
Arab government in opposition to the policies of the Assad administration during the uprising.
[161]
Kuwait
withdrew its ambassador from Syria on 8 August "for consultations".
[143]

Libya
On October 19 Libya's interim government, the National Transitional Council became the first government
to express "its full recognition of the Syrian National Council as the legitimate ruler of Syria"
[162][163]

Maldives
On behalf of the Maldives' government, Foreign Minister Ahmed Naseem said on 9 August, "The
indiscriminate killing of innocent Muslim men, women and children by the Syrian state security forces,
especially during the holy month of Ramadan, is completely unacceptable to the Maldives." Naseem
demanded the Syrian government discontinue the use of violence and immediately move toward
democracy and comply with international human rights standards, including resolutions passed by
the United Nations Human Rights Council. "The time for promises is over it is now time for action",
Naseem warned. In his statement, he also expressly voiced support for recent condemnations by
the Arab League, the Gulf Cooperation Council, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey.
[164]

Mauritania
Mauritanian Prime Minister Moulaye Ould Mohamed Laghdaf visited Damascus in late June bearing a
letter of support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from his Mauritanian counterpart,
President Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz. The Mauritanian political opposition, the Rally of Democratic
Forces, excoriated the government for "supporting dictatorship, repression, and peoples' oppression" and
sharply condemned the visit.
[165]

Mexico
Mexico's government issued a statement through the Secretariat of Foreign Affairs in which it condemned
the violent events and called on Syrian authorities to refrain from the use of force and facilitate political
dialogue which includes its citizens more.
[166]
Yanerit Morgan, the Representative of Mexico to the United
Nations, urged the United Nations to not act "passively and indifferently" while the violence in Syria
continues to unfold.
[167]

Morocco
The Moroccan Foreign Ministry issued a statement on 10 August noting its traditional tendency not to
comment on the "internal affairs of other countries" but expressing "its strong worries and deep concern
over the sad events rocking Syria". The statement called for an "inclusive" dialogue to solve the problems
the country faces.
[60]

New Zealand
The Parliament of New Zealand unanimously passed a resolution sponsored by Green Party MP Keith
Locke condemning "the shooting of peaceful demonstrators in Hama and other Syrian cities" and urging
the Syrian government to begin a national dialogue to take steps toward a democratic transition on 3
August.
[168]

Norway
On 24 March, Norwegian minister of foreign affairs Jonas Gahr Stre condemned the violence, saying:
"Norway urges the authorities of Syria not to use violence against peaceful protesters, to respect the
freedom of speech and assembly, and to enter into a dialogue with the people about their legitimate
demands".
[169]

Panama
On May 30, 2012, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, announced the decision to "suspend temporarily" the
diplomatic relations with the Arab Republic of Syria, based on the massive and systematic violations of
human rights that the government of President Bashar al Assad ahead to the detriment of their own
people, and until they can not be held definitively and unconditionally.
[170]

Philippines
A spokesman for President of the Philippines Benigno Aquino III asked for a "peaceful resolution of the
situation in Syria" on 15 August. He quoted Foreign Secretary Alberto del Rosario as expressing "deep
concern" over the crackdown and urging the government "to immediately implement the reforms
promised" to protesters.
[171]

Poland
In mid-August, Poland's delegation to the United Nations drafted and circulated a proposed resolution
calling for a second investigation into the uprising and crackdown focusing on events on and after 15 July
2011.
[172]

Portugal
The Portuguese delegation to the United Nations reportedly collaborated with the United States, France,
Germany, and the United Kingdom to draft a United Nations Security Council resolution condemning the
Syrian government for its response to the uprising.
[173]

Qatar
On 3 April, Qatari Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani sent a letter to Syrian President al-Assad
voicing Qatar's support for Syria amid "attempts at destabilization".
[174]
After pro-regime protesters
incensed over Doha-based news network Al Jazeera's coverage of the Syrian uprising vandalized the
Qatari embassy in Damascus, pelting it with eggs, rocks, and vegetables, Qatar abruptly suspended its
diplomatic operations in Syria starting 17 July.
[175]
Political analyst Karim Sader suggested Qatar's
response was part of "a shrewdly calculated divorce from the Syrian regime".
[176]
Qatar News Agency,
the emirate's state-owned media outlet, was the first network in the Arab world to broadcast Arab
League Secretary-General Naril Elaraby's 7 August statement criticizing the Syrian government over its
military actions and calling for an end to the violence.
[1]
On 24 August, Qatar's permanent representative
to the United Nations strongly criticised the crackdown, expressing grief at the number of casualties and
urging Syrian authorities to protect civilians instead of using violence against them. He also suggested
that the Syrian government may have violated international human rights laws.
[177]
While visiting Iran on
26 August, the emir described the protest movement in Syria as "a real civil uprising to demand change,
justice and freedom" and suggested the international community should "help [Syrian authorities] to take
such a decision" to abandon the "fruitless" crackdown and adopt major reforms.
[178]
In an interview taped
for 15 January 2012 installment of news show 60 Minutes, he said Arab troops should be sent into Syria
"to stop the killing". Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani was the first world leader to publicly make such a
suggestion.
[179]

Romania
In a press release dated 3 August 2011, the Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemned "the
excessive resort to force against the civilian population" and described military operations inHama as
"extremely worrisome".
[180]
On 28 February 2012, President Traian Bsescu, referring to the situation in
Syria, remarked that "when the armed forces of the state fire on their own people, there is no way to
maintain the power of the chief of state", adding that Romania supports the EU position on Assad's
regime and the sanctions imposed on Syria.
[181]
On 22 March, Romania decided to withdraw auxiliary
personnel and family members from its embassy in Damascus.
[182]
On 31 May, Minister of Foreign
Affairs Andrei Marga recommended freezing diplomatic relations with Syria and expulsion of Syrian
ambassador in Bucharest
[183]
as a reaction to the "intolerable events" at Houla,
[184][185]
however President
Bsescu refrained from acting on the recommendation, and instead approved the ratification of two
extradition treaties with the Syrian government which he deemed necessary for bringing convicted
businessman Omar Hayssam to Romania.
[186]
Both Marga and Bsescu noted that breaking off diplomatic
relations entails risks for the Romanian citizens in Syria, who form the largest European community in the
country.
[187]

In July 2011, a non-profit organization known as the "Free Syria Community in Romania" was founded,
with the stated aim to preserve the identity, culture and cultural heritage and defend the rights of Syrians
residing in Romania.
[188]
Since the beginning of the uprising, the Free Syria Community in Romania
permanently organized movements with medical aid and food in refugee camps on the Turkish-Syrian
border. This organization opened accounts at CEC Bank, where people can donate any amount of money
to aid children in refugee camps.
[189]

South Africa
Though the South African government issued a statement condemning the violence in Syria, its
representative to the United Nations Security Council reportedly received instructions to attempt to block
a possible resolution inveighing against the regime's response to the uprising.
[190]

Spain
Spanish Minister of Foreign Affairs Trinidad Jimnez expressed "deep concern" and her government's
"resounding condemnation of the violence being used by the Syrian regime against its own people" on 8
August 2011.
[191]
Spain reportedly offered Assad asylum in July, but its envoy was quoted in El Pas on 15
August as saying the Syrian officials he spoke to "were totally detached from reality" and "will not
compromise on anything substantial".
[26]

Sudan
On 6 April 2011, Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir called al-Assad to voice his support for Syria
against "the attempts aimed at destabilising it."
[192]

Sweden
Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt said bluntly that the Syrian government "has run its course" and "has
to give way to a new regime" at a meeting of European Union foreign ministers on 18 July 2011.
[141]

Switzerland
On 18 August 2011, the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs issued a statement reading in part,
"The actions of the Syrian security forces are not acceptable." The statement also declared that
Switzerland was recalling its ambassador to Syria.
[21]

Tunisia
On 11 August 2011, Tunisian state-run media quoted the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as urging the Assad
administration to "immediately cease hostilities and engage in an effective dialogue".
[193]
Tunis recalled its
ambassador from Syria on 17 August, citing the "dangerous situation" in the country.
[194]

United Arab Emirates
On 29 March 2011, United Arab Emirates President Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan called Syrian
President al-Assad, and reaffirmed that the UAE stands by Damascus.
[195]

Yemen
Yemen kept distancing itself from the crisis, due to then-ongoing uprising inside the
country against President Ali Abdullah Saleh. The Yemeni government, in a statement, urgued "all Syrian
forces to refrain from actions that provoke further violence and stressed the importance of holding an
open dialogue between the Syrian rivals to ensure reaching peaceful solutions to end their political crisis".
Yet, Yemen condemned the attacks on the embassies of Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab
Emirates in the Syrian capital of Damascus, the state-run Saba news agencyreported.
[196]

In late February 2012, dozens of thousands of youths in Aden Province, south Yemen, gathered to
perform "Freedom for Free Syria" Friday in Freedom Square, demanding the government to expel the
Syrian Ambassador to Yemen and break off Yemeni Syrian relations
[citation needed]
. They demanded the just-
elected President Abdu Rabu Mansour Hadi to adopt a firm stance represents Yemen on the alleged
massacres committed by Assad regime against civilians in Syria
[citation needed]
.
Non-UN member governments [edit]
Kosovo
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Kosovo issued the following statement on 23 August
2011: "The government and the people of Kosovo support the efforts of the Syrian people as they strive
towards freedom and democracy. The Republic of Kosovo joins all democratic countries in opposing the
violence and repression against the Syrian demonstrators. By ordering the repression of his own people
through violent acts that have resulted in numerous fatalities, President Assad has lost the right to govern
the country. The People of Syria have the right to build their lives in freedom, with freedom of speech, and
with the guarantee that their human rights will be respected by the government. The Government of the
Republic of Kosovo calls for the end of violence against the peaceful demonstrators in Syria and fully
supports the engagement of democratic nations in offering support to the Syrian people to overcome this
situation and to realise their aspirations for freedom and democracy."
[197]

Holy See
Pope Benedict XVI called on Syrian authorities in a morning address on 7 August 2012 to recognise the
"legitimate aspirations" of the Syrian people. "I am following with deep concern the dramatic and
increasing episodes of violence in Syria that have led to numerous victims and grave suffering."
[198]
On 9
September the Pope called for dialogue and reconciliation to solve crises. The Pope stated that "the
commitment to dialogue and reconciliation must be the priority for all parties involved."
[199]

Palestine

This section
requires expansion with: Khaled
Meshal et al.. (November 2012)
Fatah Foreign Minister Riyad Al-Maliki called military operations in Latakia "very worrisome" on 15 August
2011 amid UNRWA reports that thousands of Palestinians had been forced to flee from a major refugee
camp on the outskirts of the Syrian city. A spokesman for President Mahmoud Abbas demanded that the
Syrian government protect the Palestinians. A Hamas spokesman said he was unaware of the reports
and denied that the uprising had affected Hamas' position in Syria or elsewhere.
[200]

Hamas's Prime minister in Gaza, Ismail Haniya, has voiced its support for the Syrian
opposition.
[201]
though Hamas leader Salah al-Bardaweel added that this does not mean severance of ties
with the Assad government.
[202]
Bardaweel's claims are at odds with repeated leaks by his group showing
that they were prepared to evacuate Syria and had already reduced their presence there.
[203]

Political organisations [edit]

This section
requires expansion with: Al Qaeda
et al.. (November 2012)
Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) leader Cemil Bayk declared that if Turkey were to intervene in
the conflict, the PKK would fight on the side of the Syrian government.
[204]

The Houthis, have urged their supporters in Northern Yemen to support the Syrian
government.
[205][206]
It has been alleged by a defected Syrian air-force brigadier that the Houthis
supplied 200 fighters to participate in the Siege of Maarat al-Numaan and the Jisr al-Shughur
operation.
[207]

Sunni Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir has voiced its support for the Syrian opposition,.
[208]

Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) suspended Syria's membership in the OIC, on 16
August 2012, despite opposition by Iran, due to President Assad's alleged violent suppression of the
uprising.
[209]

NGOs [edit]
Avaaz helped to coordinate the entry of 34 international journalists into war zones in Syria, including
the French photographer Rmi Ochlik and the American journalist Marie Colvin who both died during
the battles in Homs and the French reporter Edith Bouvier who was badly hurt.
[210]
To help evacuate
the British photographer Paul Conroy from the city of Homs, on 28 February the group had co-
ordinated an operation by Syrian activists and also evacuated 40 seriously wounded people from
Baba Amr and brought in medical supplies.
[211]
Avaaz set up a network of about 200 activists to
provide video footage, which has been used by the international media.
[210]

Amnesty International condemned the "violent crackdown", against "a peaceful protest" by people
calling for the release of political prisoners.
[212]
On 6 July 2011, a spokesman for the group claimed it
had proof that the Syrian government committed crimes against humanity in the northern town of Tel
Kalakh.
[213]

International Committee of the Red Cross On 21 January 2012, the ICRC urged the Syrian
authorities and all others involved in the violence to implement a daily cessation of fighting to allow
the delivery of humanitarian assistance.
[214]
The ICRC also appealed to all parties to the conflict to
distinguish at all times between civilians and those participating in the hostilities and to fully respect
the rules and principles of international humanitarian law.
[215][216]
On 3 September 2012, the ICRC
president Peter Maurer went to Syria for a three-day mission with the aim of scaling up the ICRC and
Syrian Arab Red Crescent humanitarian response.
[217][218]

Human Rights Watch stated that the Syrian government has shown "no qualms about shooting dead
its own citizens for speaking out." It also said that Syrian people have shown "incredible courage in
daring to protest publicly against one of the most repressive governments in the region, and they
shouldn't have to pay with their lives."
[219][220]
They say the regime's actions "could qualify as crimes
against humanity".
[221]
Sarah Leah Whitson, director of HRWs Middle East and North Africa division,
has said that Syria, before the civil war, "was such a moribund place, we couldnt generate news.
The reality is, for us to report we needed to be documenting active measures of repression or active
measures of abuse." In response, Prof. Gerald Steinberg, president of NGO Monitor, said "If thats
their methodology when dealing with us, when dealing with Israel, then how can I trust their
methodology on anything else? For 10 years they had almost no serious reporting on Syria.
[222]

A new organization started by Palestinians living in the United States, calls for a political boycott
against Syria and Iran. The organization calls itself Palestinians for Boycotting Syrian and Iranian
Goods, and one of the co-founders, Samia Shoman, has asked Israel to attack both Syria and Iran in
order to "wipe out their respective Palestinian-hating ruling classes." Shoman said that "only such a
humanitarian intervention can have the desired effect of halting the barbaric bombardment of the
Palestinians who have seen over 3,000 of their number gassed and burnt in Syria and over 25,000
turned into refugees seeking relief in Jordan and Lebanon."
[223]

MNCs [edit]
Gulfsands Petroleum, a London-traded energy firm with major oil contracts in Syria, has not
commented directly on the uprising but discontinued payments to and suspended the voting rights of
major shareholder Rami Makhlouf, a Syrian government official targeted by EU and United
States sanctions, effective 24 August 2011. "Gulfsands is fully compliant with all applicable sanctions
and is committed to continuing compliance with any sanctions that may apply from time to time", a
press release on the corporation's website read in part. The statement also denied any wrongdoing
and said Gulfsands' relationship with Makhlouf was "constructive" and "conducted with propriety and
in accordance with pertinent laws and regulations".
[224][225]
On 26 August 2011, Gulfsands said it
intended to continue drilling for oil in Syria, not addressing a proposed EU embargo on Syrian
petroleum.
[226]
On 5 December 2011, following a new round of EU sanctions, Gulfsands announced in
a statement that it would review its operations in Syria and its partnership with the state-run General
Petroleum Corporation.
[227]
On 12 December 2011, the company invoked force majeure and
announced an immediate suspension of its production in Syria.
[228]

INA - Industria Nafte, the Croatian national oil company and division of the Hungarian Mol Nyrt.
Group, saw its profits in Syria dry up starting in November 2011 as violence increased, according to
its CEO Zoltn ldott. In February 2012, Croatian Deputy Prime Minister Radimir ai announced
that after consultations between the Milanovi government and INA had decided to halt its operations
in Syria altogether. ai said the move would cost "hundreds of millions of euros" in losses to
INA.
[149]

Kulczyk Oil Ventures, a Canadian subsidiary of Luxembourg-based Kulczyk Investments, suspended
drilling operations in Syria in response to the unrest. However, in late November 2011, Syrian
authorities granted the company an extension of its exploration license in the country despite the
suspension.
[229]

Royal Dutch Shell, which provides about 17 percent of Syria's petrol, condemned the crackdown via
a spokesperson in August: "We continue to monitor the situation in Syria closely. We condemn any
violence and the human rights abuses it represents and we have deep concern over the loss of life.
We comply with all applicable laws, including international sanctions."
[230]
On 2 December 2011, the
company announced it was suspending operations in Syria to comply with new EU sanctions. A
spokesman said, "We hope the situation improves quickly for all Syrians."
[231]

Serena Hotels, a Kenya-headquartered chain of luxury hotels that specialises in operations within
countries in Asia and Africa, has vowed to honour a deal with the Syrian government, inked in 2008,
to build properties in Aleppo and Damascus. Renovations and construction in Syria, some of which
started after the uprising began, have gone ahead despite the conflict.
[232]

Suncor Energy, a Canadian firm with a natural gas operation in Syria worth $1.2 billion as of mid-
August 2011, said, on 18 August 2011, it would comply with Canadian and United Stateseconomic
sanctions enacted as a result of the uprising and the Syrian government's response to it.
[233]
On 11
December 2011, Suncor CEO Rick George declared force majeure and said the company had
suspended operations in Syria. "The current situation in Syria is very concerning", said George, who
said Suncor had determined it fell under European Union sanctions due to its subsidiaries working in
Syria being based in the Netherlands. According to Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird, the
shutdown of Suncor's Elba natural gas plant in Homs was expected to cut off electricity to "hundreds
of thousands" of Syrian homes.
[234]

Total S.A., a French energy company with stakes in Syrian oilfields and gasfields, announced on 6
December 2011 in a statement, "We have informed the Syrian authorities of our decision to stop
operations with General Petroleum Corporation to conform to the [EU] sanctions."
[235]

Media [edit]
Al Jazeera's Beirut-based reporter Ali Hashem resigned after his e-mails expressing frustration at the
outlet's "unprofessional" and biased coverage of the Syrian civil war in prominence, while relegating
the 2011-2012 Bahraini uprising to smaller stories even though there were daily events including
violence, deaths and judicial motions.
[236]

Individuals [edit]


The Syrian Revolution tent in Tahrir.
Egyptian Islamic theologian Yusuf al-Qaradawi declared his support for the uprising against what he
called Syria's "suppressive regime", saying that it commits "atrocities". He called for victory against the
ruling Ba'ath Party, and opined that the army would be the major factor in the revolt.
[237]
Al-Qaradawi said
all Arabs should support the uprising in Syria, saying "Today the train of revolution has reached a station
that it had to reach: The Syria station", and "It is not possible for Syria to be separated from the history of
the Arab community".
[238]
The Muslim Brotherhood, with which al-Qaradawi has been involved for several
years,
[239][240]
assisted in the uprising, with Islamic clergy calling on Sunnis to pour onto the streets
throughout Syria and expel the Alawi regime.
[241]

In early June 2011, Armenian professor of Arab studies Araks Pashayan expressed concern that Syrian
Armenians, who she said generally support the governmen's secular policies and could face reprisals
from anti-government protesters if the crisis continued.
[242]

Former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair said on 9 June 2011 that "change in Syria is essential", although
he warned of a power vacuum in the event of regime change. "It is important we get to the point where
the Syrian people are able to elect their government", Blair said. He said he hoped Assad would make the
necessary reforms, but acknowledged that the majority opinion among protesters in Syria was likely that
the president must leave power for the democratic transition to go forward.
[243]

The mufti of Mount Lebanon Governorate in Lebanon, Sheikh Mohammad Ali Jouzou, said, on 21 July
2011, that the Syrian security apparatus was being turned "against the struggling people" and criticised
the violence used by the government. He also voiced support for Qatar's role in supporting the Arab
Spring, including its then-recent withdrawal of its ambassador from Damascus, and criticised the Syrian
government's behaviour toward it.
[244]

Mohamed Ahmed el-Tayeb, imam of al-Azhar, Cairo's oldest mosque, said the institution "was patient for
a long time and avoided talking about the situation in Syria because of its sensitive nature", but by 8
August 2011, it had "exceeded all limits". He called for an end to the "tragedy".
[245]

Former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who resigned in the face of protests in his country in February
2011 and is currently facing trial for his role in attempting to suppress demonstrations, condemned
"crimes perpetrated by the Syrian regime against their own people" and urged Assad to resign, Egyptian
daily Al-Gomhuria reported on 17 August 2011.
[246]

Reuters reported on 18 January 2012 that Lebanese Druze politician Walid Jumblatt expressed concern
during an interview in Beirut about a full-scale civil war in neighbouring Syria. Of Assad, Jumblatt said he
was not listening to advice from former allies like Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoan, adding,
"Up 'til now he has refused to listen to the rightful demands of the Syrian people for a new Syria."
[247]


Introduction
On 12 June 2012 the United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations, Herve Ladsous,
described the situation in Syria as a civil war.[1] This is the first instance of such strong language being used by
a senior United Nations figure.
In mid-March 2011 Arab Spring protests began in the southern Syrian city of Deraa, calling for the release of
political prisoners and for political reform. Despite government repression and the nominal enactment of
reformssuch as the lifting of the 48-year-old state of emergency in April 2011protests spread to other
Syrian cities. From about June 2011, the emergence of armed insurgent groups signalled a new phase in the
uprising.
In 2012, while protests have continued, the situation in Syria has more closely come to resemble a civil war, with
opposition groups seizing villages (and parts of cities such as Homs) and fighting more sophisticated battles
against government forces. In June 2012 in particular, rebel forces began to take and hold territory, especially
along the Turkish-Syrian border.[2]
This Background Note documents the evolution of the international responses to the uprising in Syria from
March 2011 to June 2012. This includes the reactions of international bodies such as the United Nations Security
Council (UNSC) and the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), as well as key individual countries.
The United Nations Security Council
The UNSC has debated the situation in Syria on at least six occasions. While two Security Council Resolutions
have been passed, no United Nations-mandated international sanctions have been applied on the Syrian
Government. The outcomes of the major UNSC debates on Syria are discussed below.
Firstly, in August 2011, the Security Council issued what is known as a presidential statementa means by
which the UNSC can express the consensus opinion of its members, without using the legally binding method of
a UNSC Resolution.[3] The statement included the following:
The Security Council expresses its grave concern at the deteriorating situation in Syria, and
expresses profound regret at the death of many hundreds of people.
The Security Council condemns the widespread violations of human rights and the use of force
against civilians by the Syrian authorities.
The Security Council calls for an immediate end to all violence and urges all sides to act with
utmost restraint, and to refrain from reprisals, including attacks against state institutions.
The Security Council calls on the Syrian authorities to fully respect human rights and to comply
with their obligations under applicable international law. Those responsible for the violence should
be held accountable.
The Security Council notes the announced commitments by the Syrian authorities to reform, and
regrets the lack of progress in implementation, and calls upon the Syrian Government to
implement its commitments.
The Security Council reaffirms its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, and
territorial integrity of Syria. It stresses that the only solution to the current crisis in Syria is through
an inclusive and Syrian-led political process, with the aim of effectively addressing the legitimate
aspirations and concerns of the population which will allow the full exercise of fundamental
freedoms for its entire population, including that of expression and peaceful assembly.
The Security Council calls on the Syrian authorities to alleviate the humanitarian situation in crisis
areas by ceasing the use of force against affected towns, to allow expeditious and unhindered
access for international humanitarian agencies and workers, and cooperate fully with the Office of
the High Commissioner for Human Rights.[4]
Prior to releasing this statement the Security Council debated a draft binding resolution that would have
condemned the Syrian Governments actions. China, Russia, Brazil, South Africa, Lebanon and India all opposed
this resolution.[5] The presidential statement was described as completely inadequate by Amnesty
International:
After more than four months of violent crackdown on predominantly peaceful dissent in Syria, it is
deeply disappointing that the best the Security Council can come up with, is a limp statement that
is not legally binding and does not refer the situation to the International Criminal Court.[6]
Russian and Chinese vetoes
In October 2011, Russia and China vetoed a draft UNSC Resolution that would have strongly condemned the
continued grave and systematic human rights violations and the use of force against civilians by the Syrian
authorities.[7] Russia stated that it opposed this particular Resolution because:
Todays rejected draft was based on the philosophy of confrontation. We cannot agree with this
unilateral, accusatory bent against Damascus. We deem unacceptable the threat of an ultimatum
and sanctions against the Syrian authorities. Such an approach contravenes the principle of a
peaceful settlement of the crisis on the basis of a full Syrian national dialogue.[8]
The Russian representative also hinted that the way UNSC Resolution 1973 had been used in relation to the
imposition of a no-fly zone in Libya was a reason for its veto.[9] In her statement to the UNSC on the occasion of
the Russian and Chinese veto, the US Ambassador to the UNSC, Susan Rice, expressed her countrys outrage at
Russia and China, declaring that those who oppose this draft resolution and give cover to a brutal regime will
have to answer to the Syrian people. Rice termed the Russian allusion to Libya a cheap ruse by those who would
rather sell arms to the Syrian regime than stand with the Syrian people.[10]
In February 2012, China and Russia again used their veto power at the UNSC to stymie a second draft
resolution. This draft resolution, sponsored by a large number of Arab and Western countries, likewise would
have condemned the Syria regime for the continued widespread and gross violations of human rights and
fundamental freedoms. While the resolution would have also condemned violence from opposition groups in
Syria, it would have demanded that the Syrian Government:
cease all violence
release all persons detained arbitrarily during recent incidents
withdraw all Syrian military and armed forces from cities and towns, and return them to their home barracks
guarantee the freedom of peaceful demonstrations
allow full and unhindered access to Syria by Arab League institutions and international media organisations and
allow full and unhindered access to Syria by Arab League observers (more on this below).[11]
On this occasion, the Chinese representative at the UNSC justified its veto by arguing that Security Council
members were attempting to put undue emphasis on pressuring the Syrian Government and were aiming for a
prejudged result of the dialogue (meaning regime change).[12] Russia argued that:
In the Security Council, we [Russia] have actively tried to reach a decision for an objective solution
that would truly help to put a prompt end to violence and start a political process in Syria. The
decision of the Security Council should be just that, but from the very beginning of the Syrian crisis
some influential members of the international community, including some sitting at this table,
have undermined any possibility of a political settlement, calling for regime change, encouraging
the opposition towards power, indulging in provocation and nurturing the armed struggle.[13]
The British representative at the UNSC stated that by using the veto Russia and China have today made a choice
to turn their backs on the Arab world and support tyranny rather than the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian
people.[14]
The adopted resolutions
On 14 April 2012 the UNSC adopted Resolution 2042, which condemned the wide spread violations of human
rights by the Syria authorities, as well as any human rights abuses by armed groups. The resolution also
authorised the initial deployment of 30 unarmed military observers to Syria as part of the Annan peace plan
(discussed below).[15] Before being adopted, the draft Resolution was amended to avoid a third
Russian/Chinese veto. Russias representative told the Security Council that the initial draft resolution
underwent substantive changes to make it more balanced, appropriately reflect realities and take into account
the prerogatives of the Syrian Government in receiving the observer mission on its territory.[16]
Later in April the UNSC adopted Resolution 2043, which authorised the deployment of a further 270 unarmed
military observers to Syria. This formally created the United Nations Supervision Mission in Syria (UNSMIS), the
official mandate of which was to monitor a cessation of armed violence in all its forms by all parties and to
monitor and support the full implementation of the Envoys [Annans] six-point proposal.[17]
Lastly, in the aftermath of the Houla massacre, the UNSC issued a press statementwhich is even weaker than
a presidential statement and which does not go on the Councils recordcondemning the massacre.[18] Without
specifically stating that the Syrian Government was responsible, the statement said:
The members of the Security Council condemned in the strongest possible terms the killings,
confirmed by United Nations observers, of dozens of men, women and children and the wounding
of hundreds more in the village of El-Houleh, near Homs, in attacks that involved a series of
Government artillery and tank shellings on a residential neighbourhood. The members of the
Security Council also condemned the killing of civilians by shooting at close range and by severe
physical abuse.
...
Such outrageous use of force against civilian population constitutes a violation of applicable
international law and of the commitments of the Syrian Government under United Nations Security
Council resolutions 2042 (2012) and 2043 (2012) to cease violence in all its forms, including the
cessation of use of heavy weapons in population centres.[19]
The United Nations Human Rights Council
About a month after protests began in Syria the UNHRC convened a special sessionby request of the US
representativespecifically to deal with the Syrian Governments crackdown on anti-regime protests in Syria. A
resolution passed by this session:
Unequivocally condemn[ed] the use of lethal violence against peaceful protesters by the Syrian
authorities and the hindrance of access to medical treatment [and urged] the Government of the
Syrian Arab Republic to immediately put an end to all human rights violations, protect its
population and respect all human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of
expression and freedom of assembly, and also [urged] the authorities to allow access to the
Internet and telecommunications networks and to lift censorship on reporting, including by
allowing appropriate access by foreign journalists[20]
This resolution also called for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR) to dispatch a fact-finding
mission to Syria to investigate all alleged violations of international human rights law and to establish the facts
and circumstances of such violations and of the crimes perpetrated. This mission was refused entry to Syria.
At the time of the 16th Special Session, Syria was applying to become a member of the UNHRC. Many human
rights groups called on the UN to reject Syrias application, and in the end Syria was not put up as a
candidate.[21]
At the 17th [regular] Session of the UNHRC in June 2011, the Council was presented with the Preliminary report
of the High Commissioner on the situation of human rights in the Syrian Arab Republic. The Report concluded:
The material currently before the High Commissioner is a matter of grave concern and reflects a
dire human rights situation in the Syrian Arab Republic. The alleged breaches of the most
fundamental rights on such a broad scale require thorough investigation and, with respect to the
perpetrators, full accountability. The fact-finding mission mandated by the Human Rights Council
would contribute substantially toward these ends. The High Commissioner thus renews her call to
the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic to grant the access requested.[22]
The mission was refused entry to Syria, but nevertheless published a report on the situation in Syria on 18
August 2011. In its report, the UNHCR fact-finding mission stated that the Syrian Government had carried out
widespread or systematic attacks against the civilian population, which may amount to crimes against
humanity.[23]
The UNHRC has held a further three special sessions on Syria (in August 2011, December 2011, and June 2012).
At each of these special sessions a resolution was passed which condemned the Syrian Government; in each case
Russia and China voted against the resolutions. The UNHRC has also set up an Independent International
Commission of Inquiry on Syria, which has reported back to the Council a number of times since August 2011. In
February 2012 the Commission of Inquiry noted that while both the Government and the opposition were
responsible for gross human rights violations, those committed by the opposition were not comparable in
scale and organization to those carried out by the State.[24]
Other international initiatives
The Arab Leagues response and the Arab League peace plan
The League of Arab States has been reasonably critical of Syrias response to the uprising, in line with its
criticisms of the Gaddafi regime in Libya and its support for the imposition of a no-fly zone in that
country.[25] The Arab League has, at least up until the Arab Spring, generally adopted a policy of non-
interference concerning the internal affairs of its members. Indeed the Pact of the League of Arab States records:
Every member State of the League shall respect the form of government obtaining in the other
States of the League, and shall recognize the form of government obtaining as one of the rights of
those States, and shall pledge itself not to take any action tending to change that form.[26]
The Arab League has taken a lead role in urging the UN Security Council to act on Syria, has attempted to halt
the violence through its own intermediaries, and has suspended Syria from the meetings of the organisation in
response to the Syrian uprising.[27] The Leagues first public criticism of the Syrian Governments crackdown on
protestors came in mid-June 2011, with Secretary General Amr Moussa stating that Arab countries were angry
about Syria and were actively monitoring the situation.[28] At the time, Moussa also noted that the views of
member states differed regarding the situation in Syria.[29]
Moussas successor as Secretary General of the Arab League, Nabil el-Araby, issued a stronger statement on the
Syrian situation on 6 August 2011, expressing the Leagues growing concern and strong distress over the
deteriorating security conditions in Syria due to escalating violence and military operations in Hama and Deir al-
Zor [sic] and other areas of Syria.[30]
In late August 2011, following the bloody events in Syria during Ramadan, a meeting of Arab League Foreign
Ministers (excluding Syria) asked the secretary general of the Arab League to carry out an urgent mission to
Damascus and transmit the Arab initiative to resolve the crisis to the Syrian leadership.[31] On 7 September
2011, however, it was reported that the Arab League mission to Syria had been indefinitely postponed, with no
official details given as to the reason or reasons for the delay.[32] The London-based Arabic newspaper Al-
Sharq Al-Awsat claimed that the Syrian Government called off the visit to protest against a meeting Secretary
General El-Araby held with Syrian dissidents in Cairo in early September.[33]
Arab League Foreign Ministers held another meeting in Cairo on 13 September, with Qatari Prime Minister and
Foreign Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jasim bin Jabir Al Thanithe meetings chairdeclaring:
We are keen to protect the unity of Syria, prevent foreign interference, stop the bloodshed and
violent acts in addition to the army withdrawal from all the Syrian cities soon.
I wish from the bottom of my heart a dialogue will be established to achieve the ambitions of the
Syrian people.[34]
In September 2011 the Arab League announced a 13-point peace plan intended to end the violence and usher in
an era of reform.[35]In early November the Syrian Government announced its acceptance of the peace plan,
which called for a comprehensive cease-fire, the withdrawal of the Syrian armed forces from civilian areas, the
release of prisoners, and the beginning of a national dialogue.[36]
The Syrian Government failed to adhere to the terms of the peace plan, and in mid-November Syria was
suspended from the Arab League. The League also called on member states to withdraw their ambassadors from
Damascus and to impose economic and political sanctions on Syria. Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin
Jassem bin Jabr bin Muhammad Al Thani said at the time:
Syria is a dear country for all of us and it pains us to make this decision. We hope there will be a
brave move from Syria to stop the violence and begin a real dialogue toward real reform.
...
We are calling all Syrian opposition parties to a meeting at the Arab League headquarters to agree
a unified vision for the transitional period.[37]
Later in November the Arab League imposed economic sanctions on Syria. These included asset freezes and
travel restrictions on senior regime officials, a ban on Arab funding for development projects in Syria, and
restrictions on dealing with Syrias central bank. Two of Syrias Arab neighbours, Iraq and Lebanon, refused to
implement the sanctions.[38]
On 19 December 2011 the Syrian Government signed an agreement that would allow Arab League observers to
be deployed to Syria.[39] Under the agreement, the observers would reportedly be under the protection of the
Syrian government but would not be allowed to visit sensitive military sites.[40] The first 60of a total of 170
Arab League observers arrived in Syria on 26 December. The observer mission was criticised for both its makeup
and its mandate. Some claimed that as the monitors would be under the Syrian Governments protection, they
would be unable to effectively document the violence; others questioned the wisdom of appointing a Sudanese
General (with possible links to the conflict in Darfur) to head the observer mission.[41] The Saudi and Gulf Arab
components of the observer mission were withdrawn on 22 January and 24 January 2012, respectively. The
remaining observers were withdrawn on 28 January, with Arab League Secretary General al-Araby citing the
deterioration of the situation in Syria and the continued use of violence as the reason for the suspension of the
observers activities.[42]
Just prior to the withdrawal of its observers, the Arab League presented a second Arab League peace plan at its
22 January meeting in Cairo. The plan called for Syrian President Bashar al-Asad to transfer power to his deputy,
for a national unity government to be formed, and for early elections to be held.[43]
The Annan peace plan and UNSMIS
Following the withdrawal of its observers, the Arab League requested that the UNSC approve a resolution based
on its peace plan. This would lead to the vetoed UNSC Resolution in February 2012 discussed above. On 23
February 2012 former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan was appointed as the joint UN-Arab League special
envoy to Syria. Annans function was to:
[B]roadly engage with all relevant interlocutors within and outside Syria in order to end the violence
and the humanitarian crisis, and facilitate a peaceful Syrian-led and inclusive political solution that
meets the democratic aspirations of the Syrian people through a comprehensive political dialogue
between the Syrian government and the whole spectrum of the Syrian opposition.[44]
In mid-March 2012, following meetings with, among others, Bashar al-Asad, special envoy Annan presented his
six-point peace plan to the UN, which called on everyone involved in the conflict to:
1) commit to work with the Envoy in an inclusive Syrian-led political process to address the
legitimate aspirations and concerns of the Syrian people, and, to this end, commit to appoint an
empowered interlocutor when invited to do so by the Envoy;
(2) commit to stop the fighting and achieve urgently an effective United Nations supervised
cessation of armed violence in all its forms by all parties to protect civilians and stabilise the
country.
To this end, the Syrian government should immediately cease troop movements towards, and end
the use of heavy weapons in, population centres, and begin pullback of military concentrations in
and around population centres.
As these actions are being taken on the ground, the Syrian government should work with the Envoy
to bring about a sustained cessation of armed violence in all its forms by all parties with an
effective United Nations supervision mechanism.
Similar commitments would be sought by the Envoy from the opposition and all relevant elements
to stop the fighting and work with him to bring about a sustained cessation of armed violence in
all its forms by all parties with an effective United Nations supervision mechanism;
(3) ensure timely provision of humanitarian assistance to all areas affected by the fighting, and to
this end, as immediate steps, to accept and implement a daily two hour humanitarian pause and to
coordinate exact time and modalities of the daily pause through an efficient mechanism, including
at local level;
(4) intensify the pace and scale of release of arbitrarily detained persons, including especially
vulnerable categories of persons, and persons involved in peaceful political activities, provide
without delay through appropriate channels a list of all places in which such persons are being
detained, immediately begin organizing access to such locations and through appropriate channels
respond promptly to all written requests for information, access or release regarding such persons;
(5) ensure freedom of movement throughout the country for journalists and a non-discriminatory
visa policy for them;
(6) respect freedom of association and the right to demonstrate peacefully as legally
guaranteed.[45]
The Syrian Government accepted the Annan peace plan on 25 March, and on 2 April 2012 special envoy Annan
told the UNSC that the regime had agreed to a ceasefire to come into effect on 12 April. Annan also reportedly
asked the Security Council, in a closed meeting, to consider sending a ceasefire monitoring force to Syria.[46] A
reduction of violence did occur following the start of the ceasefire on 12 April, and the UN deployed 300
unarmed military observers as part of the United Nations Supervision Mission in Syria (UNSMIS), as discussed
above. However, violence again increased, and the UN Under-Secretary General for Peacekeeping Operations
stated that both sides had violated the ceasefire agreement.[47] On 4 June 2012, following the Houla massacre
and a speech by President Asad to the Syrian parliament in which he vowed to crush the uprising, the Free Syrian
Army announced that it was no longer bound by the ceasefire, and stated that it was resuming armed attacks to
defend our people.[48]
Finally, on 16 June 2012 UNSMIS announced that as a result of escalating violence, the observers were
suspending their activities in Syria. This was at least partly the result of an attack on the monitors by an angry
crowd in the village of al-Heffeh on 12 June, in which a UN vehicle was damaged. UNSMIS commander Major-
General Robert Mood said in a statement:
The lack of willingness by the parties to seek a peaceful transition, and the push towards
advancing military positions is increasing the losses on both sides: innocent civilians, men women
and children are being killed every day. It is also posing significant risks to our observers.[49]
On 19 June 2012 Major-General Mood addressed a closed session of the UNSC; afterwards he told reporters that
the monitoring mission would resume if there was a significant reduction in violence.[50] These recent events
the Houla massacre, the resumption of attacks by the Free Syrian Army, and the suspension of the monitoring
missionhave led some commentators to opine that the Annan peace plan is in danger of
collapse.[51] However, UN Under-Secretary-General of Peacekeeping Operations, Herve Ladsous, states that the
UNSMIS remains an indispensable tool and that the six-point Annan peace plan is the only game in town.[52]
Friends of Syria Group meetings
Following Russian and Chinese vetoes at the UNSC, France and the US initiated the formation of a contact group
in February 2012 to, according to US Secretary of State Hilary Rodham Clinton, support the Syrian people's right
to have a better future.[53] The Group, sometimes referred to as the Friends of Democratic Syria Group, now
includes about 82 countries, including Australia. It has no official international status; it is rather a group of
like-minded countries.
At its first meeting in Tunis on 24 February 2012, the Group demanded that violence in Syria cease and that the
Syrian Government allow unfettered access by humanitarian groups. The Group also called for the UN to plan to
send a peacekeeping force to Syria when the violence stopped.[54] There was no agreement in the Group on the
question of arming Syrian rebels.
The second Friends of Syria Group meeting, in Istanbul on 1 April, issued a stronger final statement. Besides
endorsing the Annan peace plan and calling for a transition to a civil, democratic, pluralistic, independent and
free state, the Group also:
[R]ecognized the Syrian National Council as a legitimate representative of all Syrians and the
umbrella organization under which Syrian opposition groups are gathering [and] stated its support
[for] the activities of the Syrian National Council towards a democratic Syria and noted the Council
as the leading interlocutor of the opposition with the international community.
Further, the Group:
[C]ommitted to render all possible assistance, both technical advice and direct support, to a
Syrian-led political process that is peaceful, orderly and stable [and] to continue and increase, as a
matter of urgency, its assistance, including funding and financial support, to meet the needs of the
Syrian people.[55]
Representatives from the Syrian National Council, the exile-based umbrella group of the Syrian opposition,
attended both meetings. The last Friends of Syria Group meeting was held in Paris on 6 July 2012a media
release issued following the meeting called for stronger sanctions against Syria and expressed support for
legitimate measures taken by the Syrian population to protect themselves. This support was to include
communication tools, allowing the Syrian opposition to communicate more securely with each other and with
the outside world.[56]
The expulsion of Syrian diplomats from Western countries
On 29 May 2012 the Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr announced that the highest ranking Syrian diplomat in
Australia, Charg d'Affaires Jawdat Ali, along with one other diplomat, was being expelled in response to the
Houla massacre.[57] Over the following 24 hours many Western Governmentsincluding the US, Britain, Italy,
Canada, Germany, Spain, Bulgaria, Switzerland, and the Netherlandslikewise expelled the highest ranking
Syrian diplomat in their respective countries.[58]
Russia labelled this move by Western countries counterproductive, arguing that the most important channels
to provide constructive impact on the Syrian Government regarding the implementation of the Annan peace
plan had now been closed.[59]
The 30 June Conference on Syria
Following the seeming collapse of UNSMIS, special envoy Annan sought to create a UN Action Group on Syria,
and to hold a multilateral conference to agree on guidelines and principles for a Syrian-led political transition
that meets the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people.[60] There was some controversy over whether Iran
would attend the meeting, with the US threatening to pull out if it did so.[61] In the end, the conference was held
on 30 June 2012 in Geneva, and attended by the five permanent members of the UNSCthe US, Russia, the UK,
France and Chinaas well as ministers from Turkey, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar and a representative from the European
Union.[62]
The action group issued a final communiqu after the meeting, which said, in part:
Action Group members are committed to the sovereignty, independence, national unity and
territorial integrity of Syria. They are determined to work urgently and intensively to bring about an
end to the violence and human rights abuses and the launch of a Syrian-led political process
leading to a transition that meets the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people and enables them
independently and democratically to determine their own future.
...
The key steps in any transition include:
The establishment of a transitional governing body which can establish a neutral environment in
which the transition can take place. That means that the transitional governing body would exercise full
executive powers. It could include members of the present government and the opposition and other
groups and shall be formed on the basis of mutual consent.
It is for the Syrian people to determine the future of the country. All groups and segments of society
in Syria must be enabled to participate in a National Dialogue process. That process must not only be
inclusive, it must also be meaningfulthat is to say, its key outcomes must be implemented.
On this basis, there can be a review of the constitutional order and the legal system. The result of
constitutional drafting would be subject to popular approval.
Once the new constitutional order is established, it is necessary to prepare for and conduct free and
fair multi-party elections for the new institutions and offices that have been established.
Women must be fully represented in all aspects of the transition.[63]
In the context of Russias previous statements on the Syrian uprising, which often emphasised the inadmissibility
of foreign interference, the importance of getting Russian agreement on a plan that calls for a transition in
Syria was noted.[64] However, in the days after the summit there was disagreement between Russia and the West
over the interpretation of the document.[65] Following the meeting US Secretary of State Clinton said that it is
now incumbent upon them to show Assad the writing on the wall.[66] Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov,
conversely, highlighted that the plan does not explicitly call for President Asads removal and that there would
be no attempt in the document to impose on the Syrian people any type of transitional process.[67]
Individual country responses
The manner in which key states have responded to the uprising in relation to the various international initiatives
has been discussed above. The following sections document other important statements and moves by key
countries.
The US response
Statements
The US did not immediately call for the removal of the Asad regime when the uprising broke out. Between March
and August 2011, the US Governments statements incrementally became stronger and more decisive, and
following the Syrian armed forces attacks on Hama and Latakia in July-August 2011, US President Barack Obama
explicitly called on 18 August 2011 for al-Asad to step down. The most important US statements are outlined
below.
On 29 March 2011, after serious protests broke out in the town of Deraa and after the Asad Governments initial
reform promises, US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton urged Syria to keep its promises:
We're ... waiting and watching to see what comes from the Syrian government.
We support the timely implementation of reforms that meet the demands that Syrians are
presenting to their government, such as immediately eliminating Syria's state of emergency laws.
We want to see peaceful transitions and we want to see democracies that represent the will of the
people.
It is up to the Syrian government, it is up to the leadership, starting with President Bashar al-Asad,
to prove that it can be responsive to the needs of its own people.[68]
By mid-May 2011, after protests had spread throughout Syria and following what became known as the Siege of
Deraa, President Obama said the Syrian people have shown their courage in demanding a transition to
democracy. President Asad now has a choice: he can lead that transition, or get out of the way.[69]
In July, US Government statements continued to come closer to calling for Asads ousting. On 11 July 2011,
following attacks on the US and French Embassies in Damascus by alleged Asad loyalists, the US issued its
strongest condemnation to that point.[70]Secretary of State Clinton stated that President Asad had lost
legitimacy and:
President Asad is not indispensable and we have absolutely nothing invested in him remaining in
power.
If anyone, including President Asad, thinks that the United States is secretly hoping that the regime
will emerge from this turmoil to continue its brutality and repression, they are wrong.[71]
Finally, on 18 August 2011, following mass protests and Government attacks on cities in the lead-up to and
during Ramadan, the US Government called on President Asad to step down. In a coordinated move with Western
European countries (and Australia), President Obama said in a written statement:
The United States has been inspired by the Syrian peoples pursuit of a peaceful transition to
democracy. They have braved ferocious brutality at the hands of their government. They have
spoken with their peaceful marches, their silent shaming of the Syrian regime, and their
courageous persistence in the face of brutalityday after day, week after week. The Syrian
government has responded with a sustained onslaught.
...
The future of Syria must be determined by its people, but President Bashar al-Asad is standing in
their way. His calls for dialogue and reform have rung hollow while he is imprisoning, torturing,
and slaughtering his own people. We have consistently said that President Asad must lead a
democratic transition or get out of the way. He has not led. For the sake of the Syrian people, the
time has come for President Asad to step aside.
The United States cannot and will not impose this transition upon Syria. It is up to the Syrian
people to choose their own leaders, and we have heard their strong desire that there not be foreign
intervention in their movement. What the United States will support is an effort to bring about a
Syria that is democratic, just, and inclusive for all Syrians. We will support this outcome by
pressuring President Asad to get out of the way of this transition, and standing up for the universal
rights of the Syrian people along with others in the international community.[72]
Since this time the Obama administration has continually called for the UNSC to impose sanctions on the Syrian
regime and for President Asad to step down.
On 9 November 2011 the State Departments Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs testified before the (US)
Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the Syrian uprising and US policy. The Assistant Secretarys written
statement provides significant detail on the US Governments opinions on the uprising, what the US is trying to
achieve, and how it is going about it:
Much has changed both within Syria and in the international response to what is happening inside
Syria since the unrest began eight months ago.
...
The Syrian army has been forced to occupy its own country. Even small towns are continuously
occupied by tanks, armored personnel carriers, and battalions of foot soldiers along with plain-
clothes intelligence personnel and regime-sponsored armed groups who do much of the dirty
work. The pressure is starting to wear on the army. It is not just the fast, unsustainable tempo of
operations and unending redeployments ordered to quell every manifestation of dissent the
soldiers of the Syrian army are increasingly rejecting a mission that calls for them to kill and
brutally repress their own countrymen, in some cases people from their own tribes and
hometowns. Military defections, primarily by conscripts and junior officers, are on the rise, and the
pressure on senior officers continues to mount.
...
Turning to the Syrian opposition, one of the more promising recent developments is the
establishment of the Syrian National Council, a coalition including secularists, Christians, Islamists,
Druze, Alawis, Kurds and other groups from both inside and outside Syria who have joined
together to form a united front against the Asad regime. When you consider that for the past forty
years, the Syrian people have been prevented from engaging in any political activity or even
political discussion, it is truly remarkable that in a matter of just a few months, the SNC has
managed to bring together such a broad array of groups into a united coalition, despite the
regimes relentless attempts to thwart their efforts. We have not endorsed any specific opposition
group only the Syrian people can decide who can legitimately represent them. But we take the
advent of the SNC very seriously, and we support the broader oppositions efforts to focus on the
critical task of expanding and consolidating its base of support within Syria by articulating a clear
and common vision and developing a concrete and credible post-Asad transition plan.
...
While the United States sympathizes with Syrian military defectors and average citizens attempting
to protect themselves, we urge them to think strategically about how best to accomplish their
goals. We still believe that violent resistance is counterproductive. It will play into the regimes
hands, divide the opposition, and undermine international consensus against the regime. We urge
the opposition, and our regional allies, to continue to reject violence. To do otherwise would,
frankly, make the regime's job of brutal repression easier.
...
What we have to say to President Asad can be summed up very briefly: step aside and allow your
people to begin the peaceful, orderly transition from authoritarianism to democracy. Bashar al-
Asad has proven that he is incapable of reform We will relentlessly pursue our two-track strategy
of supporting the opposition and diplomatically and financially strangling the regime until that
outcome is achieved.[73]
The US Government has also lambasted the two major nominally democratic exercises undertaken by the Syrian
Government since the uprising began: the 26 February 2012 constitutional referendum and the 7 May 2012
parliamentary elections.[74] The US Presidents Press Secretary labelled the referendum laughable, and a US
State Department spokesman stated that the referendum process was just President Asad putting forward a
piece of paper that he controls, to a vote that he controls, in an effort to try to maintain control.[75] As the
referendum was being conducted on 26 February, US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton described the referendum
at the Friends of Syria Group meeting in Tunisia as phony and a cynical ploy by President Asad to justify what
hes doing to other Syrian citizens.[76] Similarly, the US State Department described the parliamentary elections
held on 7 May 2012 as bordering on ludicrous, adding:
It's not really possible to hold credible elections in a climate where basic human rights are being
denied to the citizens and the government is continuing to carry out daily assaultson its own
citizens.[77]
More recently, following the Asad Governments acceptance of the six point Annan Peace Plan, the enacting of
the cease fire on 12 April 2012 and the deployment of unarmed UN monitors to Syria, Secretary of State Clinton
said at a Ad Hoc Ministerial Meeting on Syria:
[W]e continue to support the monitoring mission, even though we are aware that the increased
violence could jeopardize the deployment of the monitors and put their lives at risk. So were in a
dilemma. We think its important to get independent sources of observation and reporting on the
ground, but we do not want to create a situation where those who are sent in to do this mission
themselves are subjected to violence.
Secondly, I think we have to do more to take tougher actions against the Asad regime. We need to
start moving very vigorously in the Security Council for a Chapter 7 sanctions resolution, including
travel, financial sanctions, an arms embargo, and the pressure that that will give us on the regime
to push for compliance with Kofi Annans six-point plan.
...
I also believe we have to increase our support for the opposition. I can only speak for the United
States. I know that others are pursuing different types of support. But we are expanding our
communications, logistics, and other support for the Syrian opposition. And in cooperation with
Turkey, we are considering establishing an assistance hub that will try to co-locate Syrian activists
and help them coordinate the collection and distribution of assistance to opposition groups inside
Syria.[78]
Meetings with the Syrian National Council (SNC)
Secretary of State Clinton has on a number of occasions met with representatives of the SNC, the most well-
known umbrella of Syrian opposition groups, following its formation in September 2011. At a 9 December
meeting in Geneva, Secretary Clinton highlighted the US desire to see the Syrian opposition unite into a credible
alternative government:
[W]e will discuss the work that the Council is doing to ensure that their plan is to reach out to all
minorities, to counter the regimes divide-and-conquer approach, which pits ethnic and religious
groups against one another. The Syrian opposition, as represented here, recognizes that Syrias
minorities have legitimate questions and concerns about their future, and that they need to be
assured that Syria will be better off under a regime of tolerance and freedom that provides
opportunity and respect and dignity on the basis of the consent rather than on the whims of a
dictator.
And we certainly believe that if Syrians unite, they together can succeed in moving their country to
that better future.[79]
Clinton also met with members of the SNC following the Friends of Syria Group meeting in Tunis on 24 February
2012. Following this meeting, Clinton used her strongest words yet about Russia and Chinas actions at the
UNSC, while also commenting on how the US views the SNC:
We do view the Syrian National Council as a leading legitimate representative of Syrians seeking
peaceful democratic change, and as an effective representative for the Syrian people with
governments and international organizations. Its very important that in the coming days, the full
range of opposition groups and individuals inside Syria, including representatives of all ethnic and
religious minorities, come together and make their voices heard outside of Syria and inside around
a shared vision for the future.
...
every one of us would like to see Security Council action. The United States worked very hard to
obtain a resolution from the Security Council that was vetoed by Russia and China, although it
received support from every other member of the Security Council from Latin America to Africa to
Europe to Asia. The entire world, other than Russia and China, were [sic] willing to recognize that
we must take international action against the Syrian regime.
...
I would be willing to go back to the Security Council again and again and again, but we need to
change the attitude of the Russian and Chinese governments. They must understand they are
setting themselves against the aspirations not only of the Syrian people but of the entire Arab
Spring, the Arab Awakening.
...
its quite distressing to see two permanent members of the Security Council using their veto when
people are being murdered women, children, brave young men houses are being destroyed. It
is just despicable. And I ask, whose side are they on? They are clearly not on the side of the Syrian
people.[80]
Finally, Clinton met with the SNC in Istanbul on 1 April 2012, on the sidelines of the Friends of Syria Group
meeting. Following that meeting, she told reporters:
I think what you should know is that people have been working very hard to try to figure out ways
to help those inside Syria who are bearing the brunt of the brutality of the Asad regime. We are
painfully aware of how brutal the actions by the regime have been. And the Syrian National Council
has been working hard to organize different Syrians behind a unified approach because, until
recently, it was hard to know how to help. There was not the kind of organized effort, and there
was no place within Syria that the opposition controlled, which makes it very difficult to assist.
But there is a lot of progress being made in bringing the international community together.
...
there will be more assistance of all kinds for the Syrian National Council, there will be more
humanitarian assistance, that the people inside Syria should know they are not alone.[81]
The US Embassy in Damascus
In 2010, Robert Ford was appointed US Ambassador to Syria, the first resident ambassador since 2005. In July
2011, Ford visited opposition protestors in Hama and Jisr al-Shughour in Idlib Governorate. Subsequently, the
US Embassy in Damascus was attacked by regime supporters, who scaled the embassy walls, raised a Syrian flag,
and tried to gain access to the Ambassadors residence.[82]
In late October 2011, the US temporarily pulled Ambassador Ford out of Syria, fearing that the kinds of
falsehoods that are being spread about Ambassador Ford could lead to violence against him.[83] Ford returned
to Damascus in December 2011, with the US justifying its decision by saying that it was important to have an
Ambassador there to:
[O]versee the gathering of the information to help us to understand what's happening, to help us
understand how we might best play [a] role in ending the violence, and it's important for the Syrian
people to see the U.S. ambassador is there standing with them at the time they are facing
tremendous brutality from their own government.[84]
On 6 February 2012, the US suspended the operations of its embassy in Damascus, saying that the Syrian
regime had failed to provide the embassy with sufficient protection.[85] The UK, France and some Arab countries
have also pulled their diplomatic staff out of Syria.
US Sanctions
Syria has been listed by the US as a State Sponsor of Terrorism since December 1979, and has had numerous
rounds of autonomous sanctions applied against it since then.[86] Since major protests in Syria began in March
2011, the US has implemented a further series of autonomous sanctions on members of the Syrian Government
and security forces. These include:
prohibition of US companies dealing with the largest bank in Syria (Commercial Bank of Syria) and Syrias largest
telecommunications company (Syriatel)
asset freezes on many individuals (including the President, the Presidents cousin and head of the General
Intelligence Directorate, all four branches of the Syrian intelligence service, the Prime Minister, the Minister of
the Interior, the Foreign Minister, the Minister for Defence, Presidential Spokesperson Bouthaina Shaaban, and
others)[87] and
travel bans on many of the same individuals (but not the President, giving him the option of leaving the country)
The US has maintained a ban on most non-food and medical exports to Syria since May 2004.[88] Due to this,
US officials have on occasion hinted that US sanctions will not have as much impact as, for example, the EU oil
embargo enforced in September 2011.[89]
Arming the Syrian opposition
The US Government has stated on a number of occasions that it is opposed to supplying arms to the Syrian
opposition. For example, on 14 February 2012 State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland told reporters
that we continue to believe that further arms into Syria is not the answer. Silencing the guns is the answer, and
that is the trajectory that we are working on.[90] Likewise, on 30 March 2012 a senior State Department
official outlined US policy on the issue:
Our main focus and the focus that we have with our partners is on trying to get the guns silenced,
first and foremost, Asads guns silenced and then, as Kofi Annan has said, as he takes steps to
implement the promises that he made, then Kofi Annan in the first instance, but everybody with
influence working with the opposition to make clear that their guns should be silenced as well.[91]
More recently a State Department spokesperson stated that the US was providing non-lethal assistance to the
Syrian opposition, without stating what this meant or to what groups the assistance was being given, but noted
that the US did not support armed groups.[92] Even more recently, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov
accused the US Government of providing arms to the Syrian opposition which are being used against the Syrian
government, and there have been media reports that Central Intelligence Agency operatives are helping to
coordinate the flow of weapons through Turkey to members of the armed Syrian opposition.[93]
The European Union (EU) and UK responses
The EU has maintained a similar policy towards Syria to that of the US: first calling for reforms, before imposing
a series of autonomous sanctions, and eventually calling on President Asad to step aside in August 2011. It is
possible that EU sanctions may be more effectual than US autonomous sanctions because the Syrian economy is
more interconnected with European markets than it is with that of the US.
As early as 22 March 2011, EU foreign policy High Representative Catherine Ashton released a statement
expressing the EUs profound concern at the situation in Syria, and noting that the EU strongly condemn[ed]
the violent repression, including through the use of live ammunition, of peaceful protests.[94]
The EU has imposed a progressive set of autonomous sanctions on Syria, which began with an arms embargo
and a travel/asset freeze on a number of individuals (including President Asad), and culminated in a ban on the
importation of Syrian oil imposed in September 2011.[95] As evidence of the strength of this move, prior to the
uprising 95 per cent of Syrias oil exports went to Europe.[96] In May 2012 it was reported that the oil embargo
on Syria was taking a substantial toll on the Syrian economy.[97] By June 2012 a total of 16 rounds of EU
sanctions had been imposed on Syria.[98] Besides the measures alluded to above, these include:
a ban on investment in Syrias oil, gas and electricity production sectors
an asset freeze on Syrias central bank, and a ban on supplying banknotes or coinage to that institution
a ban on trade in gold and other precious metals with Syrian public bodies
a ban on loans or grants by EU-member states to Syria
an export ban on equipment, technology or software which could be used for monitoring or intercepting internet
or telephone communications
a prohibition on Syrian banks opening new branches within the EU, and a prohibition on EU banks opening new
branches or accounts in Syria and
a prohibition on the export of luxury goods to Syria.[99]
On 18 August 2011, the same day as President Obama called for President Asad to step aside, High
Representative Ashton said in a media release:
The EU has repeatedly emphasised that the brutal repression must be stopped, detained protesters
released, free access by international humanitarian and human rights organizations and media
allowed, and a genuine and inclusive national dialogue launched. The Syrian leadership, however,
has remained defiant to calls from the EU as well as the broad international community including
Syria's own neighbours. This shows that the Syrian regime is unwilling to change. The President's
promises of reform have lost all credibility as reforms cannot succeed under permanent repression.
The EU notes the complete loss of Bashar al-Asad's legitimacy in the eyes of the Syrian people and
the necessity for him to step aside.[100]
Since then, the EU has consistently called for President Asad to stand down, has been actively involved in the
Friends of Syria Group meetings, and supported the Arab League/Kofi Annan peace plans described above.[101]
The UK[102]
Like the US and EU, Britains statements on the Syrian uprising became gradually stronger between March and
August 2011initially calling for the Syrian Government to respect their people's right to peaceful protest,
before calling on 18 August for President Asad to step aside.[103] On 6 February 2012 Secretary of State for
Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, William Hague, outlined Britains policy on Syria in the House of
Commons.[104] Secretary Hague stated that Britain would:
continue to support the Arab Leagues mediation efforts (including the appointment of the joint Arab League/UN
special envoy then being discussed)
intensify contacts with the Syrian opposition
play an active role in the Friends of Syria Group meetings and
continue to raise the issue at the UNSC.[105]
The British Government has provided small amounts of foreign aid to those affected by the Syrian uprising, and
has lamented both the difficulty in delivering aid to those areas most impacted by the uprising and the Syrian
Governments response.[106]
The UK has temporarily suspended the operations of its embassy in Damascus, and in May 2012 expelled the
Syrian ambassador to the UK (discussed above). The British Government considers the Syrian National Council to
be a legitimate representative of the Syrian people.[107] Despite this recognition, the British Government
opposes arming the Syrian opposition.[108]
As at the end of June 2012 Britain continued to support the Annan peace plan, arguing that at that time it
offer[ed] the best chance to break the ongoing cycle of violence.[109]
Turkeys response
In the 2000s Syrian-Turkish relations improved following decades of hostility concerning territorial, water, and
foreign policy disputes. In 2004, the two countries signed a free trade agreement, and in 2009 conducted joint
military exercises.[110]
Relations soured after the beginning of the Syrian uprising, with Turkey regularly condemning Syrian actions,
granting safe passage to Syrian rebels, and championing the cause of the opposition Syrian National Council
(which the Turkish Government assisted in setting up).[111] During a September 2011 visit to Libya, Turkish
Prime Minister Tayyip Erdoan spoke strongly in support of the Syrian uprising:
Those who repress their own people in Syria will not survive. The time of autocracies is over.
Totalitarian regimes are disappearing. The rule of the people is coming.[112]
Russias response
Russia, a long time ally and provider of arms to Syria, has appeared reluctant to directly criticise the Syrian
regime, and has opposed the application of international sanctions through the UNSC. Russia has also opposed
any UNSC resolution that condemns the Syrian Government without also condemning the Syrian opposition.
Russian officials have attempted to explain their position on Syria through a number of statements. Since the
beginning of the uprising comments by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs have consistently emphasised the
need for an end to violence (from whatever source), the inadmissibility of outside interference, and the need to
carry out political reform in Syria. The Russian Government has also regularly expressed a desire to avoid a
repeat of the Libya situation where, according to Russia, a UNSC Resolution to create a no-fly zone in Libya was
used as a means to carry out regime change.[113]
In June 2011, for example, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov discussed a possible UNSC condemnation of the Syrian
Government:
It is not in the interests of anyone to send messages to the opposition in Syria or elsewhere that if
you reject all reasonable offers we will come and help you as we did in Libya Its a very
dangerous position.[114]
Similarly, in August 2011, following the issuing of the UNSC Presidential Statement discussed above, a Russian
Foreign Ministry media release stated:
Moscow is convinced that the situation in the country must be resolved by the Syrians themselves
without outside interference through an inclusive dialogue, which is the only way to solve the
crisis. It is important that this position found reflection in the statement.
Russia will continue to persist in advocating for accelerating a long-overdue political, economic
and social transformation in Syria along the path of deep-going reforms announced by the
government of the country on the basis of the inadmissibility of violence, the search for a national
consensus and an inclusive political process.[115]
The Russian Government has regularly called for a broad based reform program in Syria, and has on occasion
welcomed the various initiatives announced by the Syrian Government. For instance, in August 2011 the Russian
Ministry of Foreign Affairs called for the:
[S]wiftest possible launch of a comprehensive responsible and meaningful dialogue to address the
pressing domestic political, economic and social problems in the interests of all Syrians, to restore
civil harmony and to ensure a stable democratic development of the country.[116]
Moscow gave cautious support to the constitutional referendum held in Syria on 26 June 2012, describing it in
one statement as an important step towards implementation of the current reformation policy of the Syrian
government and in another as better late than never.[117] Likewise, Russia welcomed the 7 May 2012
parliamentary elections, in which the Baath Party and allied independents won more than 90 per cent of the
seats, arguing that it was a step for implementing necessary reforms.[118]
Russian officials have at times directly criticised the Asad regime or sought to distance themselves from the
Syrian Government. In mid-July 2011 Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said that we need to apply pressure on the
leadership of any country where massive unrest, and especially bloodshed, is happening, and in early August
President Dmitry Medvedev warned Asad of a sad fate if he failed to reform, adding that Asad needs to
urgently carry out reforms, reconcile with the opposition, restore peace and set up a modern state.[119]
Russia has also stated its consistent support for international initiatives by the Arab League and UN/Arab League
Special Envoy Kofi Annan.[120] In addition, Russia has on many occasions called for those with influence on
opposition groups to pressure those groups to desist from violent acts, with Foreign Minister Lavrov arguing in
the context of the April 2012 ceasefire:
It would be better for the United States and other countries with direct access to various Syrian
opposition groups not to point at Russia and China, but to set their levers in motion toforce
everybody to stop shooting at one another.
We want once again today to call on all opposition (groups) and all states that have influence on
the political and especially the armed opposition to use the influence with the aim of an immediate
ceasefire by all sides.[121]
Russia does not take part in the Friends of Syria Group meetings, arguing that the meetings have a one-sided
character and are contrary to the objectives of the peaceful settlement of the civil conflict.[122]
The BBC has estimated that Russia currently has arms contracts worth US$1.5 billion with Syria. It was also
reported that at least one major shipload of Russian ammunition was delivered to Syria in January 2012.[123]
Chinas response
About a month after the uprising in Syria began, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson outlined Chinas
policy on Syria at that time:
Syria is a country of major influence in the Middle East Region. China believes that when it comes
to properly handling the current Syrian situation, it is the correct direction and major approach to
resolve the internal differences through political dialogue and maintain its national stability as well
as the overall stability and security of the Middle East.
The future of Syria should be independently decided by the Syrian people themselves free from
external interference.[124]
Chinas public position has remained consistent since April 2011. In March 2012 a Chinese Foreign Ministry
spokesperson outlined Chinas current policy in some detail:
1. The Syrian Government and all parties concerned should immediately, fully and unconditionally
cease all acts of violence, particularly violence against innocent civilians. Various factions in Syria
should express political aspirations through non-violent means.
2. The Syrian Government and various factions should bear in mind the long-term and
fundamental interests of their country and people, immediately launch an inclusive political
dialogue with no preconditions attached or outcome predetermined through impartial mediation of
the Joint Special Envoy of the UN and the Arab League, agree on a comprehensive and detailed
road-map and timetable for reform through consultation and implement them as soon as possible
with a view to restoring national stability and public order.
3. China supports the UN's leading role in coordinating humanitarian relief efforts. China maintains
that under the precondition of respecting Syria's sovereignty, the UN or an impartial body
acceptable to all parties should make an objective and comprehensive assessment of the
humanitarian situation in Syria, ensure the delivery and distribution of humanitarian aid. China is
ready to provide humanitarian assistance to the Syrian people. We oppose anyone interfering in
Syria's internal affairs under the pretext of humanitarian issues.
4. Relevant parties of the international community should earnestly respect the independence,
sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of Syria and the right of the Syrian people to
independently choose their political system and development path, create conditions and provide
necessary and constructive assistance for the various political factions of Syria to launch dialogue,
and respect the outcome of dialogue. China does not approve of armed interference or pushing for
regime change in Syria, and believes that use or threat of sanctions does not help to resolve this
issue appropriately.
5. China welcomes the appointment of the Joint Special Envoy on the Syrian crisis by the UN and
the Arab League and supports him in playing a constructive role in bringing about the political
resolution of the crisis. China supports the active efforts made by the Arab states and the Arab
League to promote a political solution to the crisis.
6. Members of the Security Council should strictly abide by the purposes and principles of the UN
Charter and the basic norms governing international relations. As a permanent member of the
Security Council, China is ready to earnestly fulfill its responsibilities, engage in equal-footed,
patient and full consultation with other parties on the political solution to the Syrian crisis in an
effort to safeguard the unity of the Security Council.[125]
In pursuing this policy, China has joined with Russia in vetoing two UNSC Resolutions and has opposed the
imposition of international sanctions through the UNSC. The use of the UNSC veto by China has historically been
a rare occurrencesome have claimed Chinas vetoes concerning Syria simply represent Chinas long-held policy
of non-interference, or a reaction to what occurred in Libya, or a means to build on its relationship with
Russia.[126]
Australias response
The Australian Government initially called for restraint in the Syrian authorities response to protests, and
called on the Asad regime to implement genuine political and economic reform without delay.[127] From April
2011, Australia applied a rolling set of targeted autonomous sanctions on Syria, which involved financial
sanctions on key regime figures, an arms embargo, and restrictions on trade in the hydrocarbon, financial
services and telecommunications sectors.[128] The most recent round of sanctions was applied on 25 June
2012.[129]
In June 2011, the then Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd announced that Australia had written to the UNSC asking that
body to refer President al-Asad to the International Criminal Court. Australia was one of the first countries to call
for this action.[130]
On 19 August 2011, following similar calls from the US and other Western countries, Australian Acting Foreign
Minister Craig Emerson called on President al-Asad to step down. Emerson added that the people of Syria must
be allowed to engage in peaceful political activity and be given the chance to determine their own future.[131]
On 15 February 2012 Foreign Minister Rudd gave a statement on Syria and Iran in the House of Representatives.
It provides a summary of Australias policy in relation to the Syrian Government and the uprising:
The regime has been emboldened by lack of action by the United Nations Security Council. The
attacks in Homs are ongoing. And a humanitarian crisis of tragic proportions is unfolding.
...
We cannot stand by and watch this violence continue to unfold. Last week I called in the Syrian
Charg, Mr Jawdat Ali, to underline the Australian Governments grave concerns about the
worsening crisis in Syria and ongoing bloodshed. I underlined that the Asad regime had lost its
legitimacy when it started deploying arms against its own people and that it was time for Asad to
leave. I said this view was now virtually universal as demonstrated not only by the United Nations
Security Council vote where 13 of the Councils 15 members voted in support of the proposed
resolution, but more importantly, by the collective position of the Arab League.
...
The Arab League has been actively pursuing efforts to bring peace to Syria and end the bloodshed
despite the lack of support by some members of the UN Security Council. Members of the Arab
League most recently met on 12 February in Cairo to discuss next steps [and approved the Arab
League peace plan cited above].
...
I have signalled in the past, including in this place, Australias strong support for the efforts of the
Arab League. It has shown resolve and leadership to see an end to the appalling bloodshed in Syria
and to help lift the hand of oppression of the regime from its people. We owe it to them, and to the
Arab League, to likewise maintain our resolve and support.
...
Russia and China need to reconsider their commitment to the Syrian people.[132]
The current Australian Foreign Minister, Bob Carr, has basically continued Rudds approach. In early April, Carr
announced that Australia would provide $5 million to meet humanitarian needs in Syria. Of this, $2 million was
to go to the UNs Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and $3 million to the World Food
Program.[133] Carr also voiced the Australian Governments support for the Annan Peace Plan and the UNSCs
support for that plan, and has condemned the suicide bombings in Syria.[134]
As was noted above, Australia expelled the highest ranking Syrian diplomat, Charg d'Affaires Jawdat Ali, on 29
May 2012, a move that was followed by many other Western countries. In another significant move, on 16 June
2012 Foreign Minister Carr met with the newly elected President of the Syrian National Council, Abdulbaset
Sieda.[135] Carr said of this meeting that we support efforts to coordinate and organise opposition parties and
to provide a voice for the Syrian people in the international domain.[136]

Conclusion
Over the 16-month Syrian uprising, the position of Western countries has slowly evolved from calling for
democratic reforms, to calling for the ousting of the President Bashar al-Asad, to more recently providing some
support for the (armed and unarmed) Syrian opposition. Russia and Chinas positions have remained more
stagnant, although the final communiqu issued after the 30 June 2012 UN Conference on Syria might indicate
some shifting in the position of both those countries.
The various international initiatives attempting to halt the violence or to find a solution to the Syrian crisis have
largely failed, and violence in June 2012 was probably as high as at any stage over the last 16 months. It remains
to be seen whether the agreement which resulted from the UN Conference on Syria will contribute to ending the
crisis, or whether it will go the same way as international initiatives that preceded it.