Is the ground for a military intervention laid in Syria?

Turkey has called on a meeting of the NATO member states on the coming Tuesday, to discuss its response to the shooting down of one of its warplanes by Syrian forces over the Mediterranean. Ankara has invoked the Article IV of the Atlantic charter that stipulates: “The parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the parties is threatened”. This may be a first step of invoking article V of the Atlantic Charter that calls for a collective self-defense as enshrined in the article 51 of the UN Charter. This may pave the way for a long-standing demand of some of the Western countries to militarily intervene in Syria. Considering the precarious security situation in the Middle-East and North Africa, a military intervention in Syria may destabilize the already volatile region. Libya is still coping with a civil war and a government that fails to exercise effective control over its territories. The role of NATO - which is a defensive military alliance - has already been widely criticized due to its offensive role in Libya. Military intervention in Syria may also result in the rise of Islamists in addition to a protracted civil war.

The international community is facing a dilemma: on one hand they are blamed for their inaction to protect the civilians from the massacre at the hands of the Assad regime; and on the other hand they are afraid that Syria may follow the course of Libya; a protracted civil war; mass-migration; and no effective government. This is indeed a tough call for the NATO members. The invocation of Article V of the Atlantic treaty along with the article 51 (Self-defense) of the UN charter gives a way-out to the WEST to intervene without a Chapter VII resolution of the UN Security Council. Keeping in mind the Russia’s unconditional support to the Assad’s regime and the failure of the Annan plan, this scenario could provide the only possible legal option for a military intervention in Syria. Despite the legality of military intervention, the repercussions of the intervention are not very bright, which might impede a quick decision. Sooner or later, a military intervention in Syria is inevitable.

The transforming role of Turkey is also very important. Turkey restrained from using force last years when nine of its citizens were killed by the Israeli military forces during the flotilla incident. Turkey also refused to provide passage to the US, during the occupation of Iraq. In case of Syria, Turkey has been a very vocal critique of the Assad regime; Turkey was the first country to organize a meeting of the Syrian opposition in Istanbul. Public opinion in favor of a military intervention is increasing with the rising death toll of the Syrian population. The recent statement by the French President François Hollande – that he will not rule out a possibility of a military intervention in Syria – also shows the increasing willingness of the international community to intervene in Syria on humanitarian grounds. With the strong opposition of Russia and China the invocation of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is least likely to be possible. Hence the recent incident gives an opportunity to militarily intervene without a UNSC resolution under chapter VII. Whatever the NATO member states decide in their meeting on the coming Tuesday, will determine the pace of political change in Middle-East; and it will not be an easy decision.