The Syrian civil conflict: Should Australia become involved?

Mark Grech is a NSW senate candidate for the Australian Protectionist Party (APP) and speaks today on the proposition of Australia’s involvement in the Syrian civil conflict.

Syria is at war. Though, being fair, conflict in the Middle East is hardly a rare occurrence. The entire area has known decade upon decade of conflict from everything from dictatorships in rise or fall, to differing political factions and of course religious ideologies. So why is it that the United Nations is seeking the “West” strongly considering intervening in this particular conflict? Are we or any of our allies under threat? Is there any justifiable mandate for Australia or the USA’s armed intervention in this conflict? The answer to these questions is in fact “No.”

Not clear on why? Allow me to explain:

The UN has made a push for armed intervention because the Syrian government has reportedly used chemical weapons upon its own people. This act (if true) contravenes the UN Geneva Protocol of 1925 (which Syria ratified), and the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993 (which Syria has not ratified). Jointly, these treaties prohibit the development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. So simply put, these two treaties make a uniformed point; They effectively ban the use of chemical weapons – period. However their violation, albeit an inhumane and appalling act, does not in itself authorise another nation to initiate an attack on any country or nation that violates said treaties.

Noting the above, I should add that the United Nations Charter flatly bans military interventions (such as those being proposed) without the express approval of the UN Security Council. This approval will not (and cannot) be forthcoming, as both China and Russia have walked out the discussions, showing their direct opposition to any military intervention.

As if this isn’t enough of a reason to stay out of the civil conflict, then I note the following which is also of great merit:

Aiding the rebels (who were the alleged victims of the chemical weapon attack) means, the West would enter the conflict on the side of – wait for it – alQaeda.

Isn’t this the group which we, as a Western civilisation, have been strongly opposing for the last decade or so, in the “war on terror”? Should we now be helping them in their conflict within Syria? Surely this is not the case . . . I urge all the people of Australia and other political parties (regardless of size) to voice their objection to any military involvement by any Western country. Any Western involvement in this conflict is without mandate, merit, or justification. It remains an internal conflict within Syria, which the UN Security Council should not order intervention upon – despite the claim of chemical weapon usage.

Comments

  1. Let the Syrians fight over Syria,and come what may. It’s not our war. We shouldn’t put our noses in. Our defense forces should only be activated if we’re directly threatened. The government should not make us a target for terrorists. Muslims are who they are. We can’t change them. If they’re not fighting us, they’re fighting each other.
    Let’s learn from failed tours of duty from the past-they’re a waste of time,money and lives.

  2. As the only party I can find that is openly against bombing Syria, you will get my no.1 vote in the senate. BTW I will be voting below the line so you won’t get to control my preferences sorry.

  3. This is simple. Stay out of syria. There is no proof that it was the syrian govt and in my opinion it was the rebels which is Al-quada. Since when do our armed forces fight WITH al-quada.

Leave a Reply to john Cancel reply