Syria: is there an end in sight? Peter Kennedy reports on discussion about the Syrian crisis at the recent Asia Pacific Model UN Conference.

• Author: Kennedy, Peter
• Position: CONFERENCE REPORT

On 10 July, as part of proceedings for the 2013 Asia Pacific Model UN Conference, discussion occurred on the topic 'Syria: is there an end in sight?' I was asked to answer the question: Is it likely that the solution to Syria will come from the UN Security Council and/or NATO?

Let me start with the second part of the question: will a solution come from NATO?

NATO's essential purpose is to safeguard the freedom and security of its members through political and military means. The key words are 'its members', which as NATO's name suggests border primarily the North Atlantic, in other words European states, the United States and Canada. Of course, it is open to NATO to determine that its security is infringed by or within countries that do not border it, as happened after 9/11 when NATO forces responded to a UN request to stabilise Afghanistan. But 'out of area' deployments are rare.

There is one country, however, that is not part of the European Union or North America, that does not have the North Atlantic as a sea border, but which, nevertheless, is an important member of NATO. That country is Turkey. In the context of Syria, an incident occurred in October last year when several Syrian mortar shells fell on the Turkish border town of Akcakale, killing five residents. The Turkish government responded to what it termed 'this abominable attack' (1) with artillery strikes in Syria. The Turkish Parliament authorised cross-border military operations. The two nations' militaries exchanged mortar fire for the next two days.

Nervous jitters

All this caused a few nervous jitters within NATO because a key provision of the Washington Treaty that binds all NATO members is Article 5, which states that 'an armed attack against one or more [NATO members] in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all'. Some senior Turkish politicians advocated that NATO invoke Article 5 and treat the incident as an attack on all members. But this incident was never going to lead to invocation of Article 5. In fact Article 5 has been invoked only once in the history of NATO and that was after the 9/11 attacks in--or on--the United States. While the alliance criticised Syria, members made clear they did not want a military conflict. Let us face it, neither would the Syrian regime. They may be ruthless but they are not stupid. Rebels with small arms are one thing, NATO--and in particular NATO air power--is quite another.

Even within Turkey there was...