What began as public protests in Syria in 2011 to express opposition to the Syrian Government and to demand greater political freedom, has given rise to escalating violence over time. Almost three years on, the civil war between the regime’s forces and rebel fighters has claimed more than 100,000 victims with no end in sight. Moreover, neighboring countries like Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan have become vulnerable to any spillover effects of this Syrian civil war, which has the potential to destabilize the region. The civil unrest has mounted to an international crisis wherein recent developments indicate use of chemical weapons in the region.

 

While the situation in Syria has evoked growing concern from the international community, the UN Security Council still appears unable to adopt a single policy line. Given the split in the Security Council and the absence of a UN mandate which ensues,the responsibility to protect Syria’scivilians against crimes by their own state thus devolves upon organizations like NATO. The debate regarding military intervention by NATO in Syria has become increasingly crucial. In these circumstances, there are several issues which need to be addressed by NATO to deter the Syrian government from perpetrating further crimes against humanity. At the very outset, should NATO intervene in Syria? If so, what form should this intervention assume? It must also take into account the culpability of the Syrian government for using chemical weapons, which needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

As Western liberal democracies, NATO endorses ideals such as human dignity, freedom of speech and protection of fundamental human rights. This year, the delegates should be prepared to conciliate their national policies while at the same timeupholding the ideals of the committee to seek a comprehensive resolution for both immediate and long-term issues.