Syria at the UNSC.

On Wednesday (8/6/11) Britain and France introduced a draft resolution to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) condemning the Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad for violence against peaceful pro-democracy demonstrations. At the time there was much excitement in Britain with seemingly the only question being whether Russia or China would dare to veto the resolution. Since then Britain has gone distinctly quiet on the matter. This is because the resolution failed to gain enough support to even be put to a vote. So on Thursday (9/6/11) Britain and France introduced a second draft of the resolution. Although the text has not been made public it is believed that the new draft removed all condemnation of President Assad and dropped all reference to peaceful pro-democracy demonstrations. Even so this new draft again failed to find enough support to be put to a vote and the matter is currently resting.

Today (10/6/11) Syrian army units have entered the town of Jisr al-Shughour to restore order. As this operation will see the Syrian army go up against armed insurgents, some of whom are believed to be the very same Iraqi insurgents who fought British and American troops in post-invasion Iraq it will result in people being killed. However as it's clear that this situation would not have arisen if the UNSC had not intervened in Libya it poses an important question for the UNSC post-Libya; As they have purposefully lied too and deceived the UNSC in order to start an illegal war of aggression against Libya and then willfully broken the terms laid down in resolution 1973(2011) can Britain and France continue as members of the Security Council?

As for Syria they'll be back up in front of the UNSC in a couple of days. This is because yesterday (9/6/11) the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) referred them to the UNSC over what is essentially a planning dispute about the Deir Alzour nuclear power plant. That'll teach them not to disagree with Israel.