MS Risk Blog

UK Drafts Syria UN Resolution as the World Debates the Possible Intervention

The United Kingdom announced this week that it will put forth a resolution to the United Nations Security Council on Wednesday “authorizing necessary measures to protect civilians” in Syria.  The move comes after intelligence reports indicated that chemical weapons were likely used by the Assad regime against civilians in Syria.  During an emergency cabinet meeting on Wednesday, the UK’s Prime Minister stated that the “world should not stand by” after the “unacceptable use” of chemical weapons by the Syrian government.  The Syrian government has denied any involvement in the suspected chemical attack which was carried out in Damascus on 21 August.  Instead, the regime blames the attack, which resulted in hundreds of people dying, on the opposition.

According to UK Prime Minister David Cameroon, the draft resolution, which will condemn the “chemical weapons attack by Assad,” will be put forward during a meeting of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council which will be held in New York later on Wednesday.  The Prime Minister also indicated that “we’ve always said we want the UN Security to live up to its responsibilities on Syria.  Today they have an opportunity to do that.”  If such an intervention is passed through a UN resolution, it is likely that the United States, France and the UK, along with other regional and international states, will be involved.  Furthermore, the UK, the US and France already have the necessary forces and military equipment stationed in the region which could be diverted to focus on the intervention in Syria.

The announcement of a possible intervention comes as a team of UN weapons inspectors resumed their work on Wednesday, investigating a suspected chemical weapons attack that occurred in Damascus on 21 August.  It currently remains unclear which districts the inspectors were scheduled to visit.  Their work had previously been called because of security concerns after they were shot at by unidentified snipers on Monday.  According to UN officials, one of their cars came under fire from unidentified gunmen as it crossed the buffer zone between the government and rebel-controlled areas.  With their work resuming, and with pressure for an international intervention mounting, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has appealed for the team to be given “time to do its job,” citing that the UN inspectors would require another four days in order to complete their probe and that more time would be needed in order analyze their findings.  He also called on the Council’s permanent members, China France, Russia, the UK and the US, to act together, stating that “the body interested with maintaining international peace and security cannot be ‘missing in action’…the council must at least find the unity to act.  It must use its authority for peace.”  Meanwhile joint UN-Arab League envoy to Syria, Lakhdar Brahimi, has stated that “it does seem clear that some kind of substance was used…that killed a lot of people” on 21 August.  However the envoy emphasized that any military action in Syria would require the UN Security Council’s authorization.

Possible Models for an Intervention in Syria 

Although limited information pertaining to the draft resolution is currently available, signals from Washington and London over the past few days suggest that military action against Syria is a strong possibility.  If the resolution is passed, over the following weeks, contingency plans will be drawn and potential target lists will be reviewed.  However a number of models for the possible intervention in Syria already exist, and will likely aid officials in narrowing down their options.

Codenamed Operation Desert Storm, also known as the Gulf War, the 1991 US-led global military coalition in Iraq was tasked with removing Iraqi forces from Kuwait.  Today, the mission is considered as a perfect case study in international intervention as it had clear and limited objectives, was fully anchored in international law and had an explicit mandate from the UN Security Council.  The Balkans during the 1990’s in which US supplied arms to the anti-Serb resistance in Croatia and Bosnia in defiance of a UN-mandated embargo.  A US-led air campaign against Serb paramilitaries was later carried out.

In December 1992, in response to a humanitarian disaster which was followed by the complete failure of the Somali state, the UN Security Council authorized the creation of an international force with the aim of facilitating humanitarian supplies.  Although initially the US was not involved, Americans gradually began to contribute to the operation in Somalia.

However the US military’s involvement without a clear objective culminated in the 1993 Battle of Mogadishu, also known as Black Hawk Down, in which eighteen US servicemen died on 3 – 4 October.  The tragedy had an immediate impact on American public opinion and resulted in US troops withdrawing from Somalia despite the civil war continuing.  While elements of this model were not used in any future interventions, the mission coupled with the lack of a clear objective has become a classic example of how not to conduct an international operation.

In 2011, France and the UK sought UN Security Council authorization for a humanitarian operation to save the residents of the rebel city of Benghazi from being massacred by forces loyal to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.  Russia and China abstained by did not veto the resolution.  An air offensive continued until the fall of Gaddafi.

Western Military Options 

Western leaders will be faced with a number of military options that range from a short, sharp punitive strike against targets in Syria to a full-scale intervention to end the country’s civil war.  This option would involve both on-the-ground troops and air forces.  With long-lasting military commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, coupled with the recent French-led military intervention in Mali, Western leaders will likely be inclined to focus on a short but deadly strike in Syria, fearing that a full-scale operation may result in Western forces being drawn into an open-ended military commitment.

An unclassified assessment of the military options as seen by the Pentagon was released in mid-July in a detailed letter to Senator Carl Levin that was written by Gen Martin Dempsey.  In the letter, Gen Dempsey lists a number of options that may be used if an intervention in Syria becomes possible.

The first option involves punitive strikes which would aim to get President Assad’s attention in a bid to persuade him not to resort to the use of chemical weapons in the future.  The attraction of this option is that it could be mounted quickly and would result in limited risk to the forces that are involved.  Possible targets in such a mission could include military sites that are linked closely to the region, including headquarters, barracks or elite units.  Although missile production facilities may be targeted, increased caution would have to be exercised if striking chemical weapons production facilities as any leakage of toxic chemicals could lead to significant damages in the area.  In turn, air defense sites and command centers may be hit as a demonstration of the West’s capabilities.

The second option would be to increase support for the Syrian opposition through training and advice.  This option would involve the use of non-lethal force and would effectively be an extension of some of the effort that has already been underway.  At its current scale, this option has already failed as the opposition has seen a growing number of divisions.  It is therefore unlikely that an increase in aid would have any effect.  A third option would be to establish a “no-fly zone,” that would effectively prevent the Syrian regime from using its air forces to strike rebels on the ground.  This option however would involve an increased risk to the US and allied aircraft and it would require the assembling of a significant force, one that would have to be maintained over time.

The fourth option is to focus on preventing the use of chemical weapons, which could be done by destroying portions of Syria’s stockpiles coupled with obstructing the movement of such weapons and seizing key installations.  This option however would result in an increased international involvement, including troops stationed on the ground.  This would also result in forces being stationed in Syria for an indefinite period.

While these are currently just options, and combinations of these varying options may be employed in Syria, what does remain clear is that if a resolution is passed by the UN Security Council, swift action is likely to occur.  Furthermore, the United States, France and the UK already have forces available in the area that can easily be prepared for a strike on Syria.

The US has four destroyers – USS Gravely, USS Ramage, USS Barry and USS Mahan – stationed in the eastern Mediterranean which are equipped with cruise missiles.  It also has two aircraft carriers, the USS Nimitz and the USS Harry S. Truman.  Cruise missiles could also be launched from submarines in the region.  If more firepower is needed, US airbases in Incirlik and Izmir, Turkey could also be used in order to carry out strikes.  The US Navy is reportedly re-positioning several vessels, including its four cruise missile-carrying destroyers and possibly a missile-firing submarine.

The UK’s Royal Navy’s response force task group, which includes helicopter carrier HMS Illustrious and frigates HMS Montrose and HMS Westminster, is also in the region on a previously-scheduled deployment.  An airbase in Cyprus may also be used while cruise missiles could be launched from a British Trafalgar class submarine.

France’s aircraft carrier, the Charles de Gaulle, is currently stationed in Toulon however Raffale and Mirage aircraft can operate from the Al-Dhahra airbase in the UAE.

Piracy on rise in South East Asia amidst continuing security challenges

The regional measures that followed the spike of piracy in South East Asia in the early 2000s are widely, and rightly, hailed as a successful example of maritime security co-operation. However, piracy is now undergoing a dramatic increase again in the region, with Indonesian waters now suffering the largest number of attacks worldwide as the pirates increasingly adapt to the new security situation.

In 2003, piracy reached record highs in South East Asia, with 445 incidents reported in Indonesian waters and similarly high levels in other regional nations. Following this, the nations that border the strategically crucial Straits of Malacca (Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia, with some assistance from Thailand and India) made moves to improve their naval co-operation in order to deal with the growing piracy crisis. Well publicised publicity campaigns with dramatic pictures of large warships patrolling the Straits highlighted a significantly more robust security posture, which saw a drastic reduction in rates of piracy.

This attempt to present a ‘United Front’ masks many legitimate issues between the nations – extremely disparate geographical positions, economies, military expenditure and naval strength all continue to cause friction. However the attempt at regional co-operation was broadly successful for several years, and even now with piracy once more on the rise through South East Asia, the Straits of Malacca themselves remain broadly safe for international shipping (at least compared to the past).

However, with a 440% increase in piracy in Indonesian waters between 2009 and 2012, it appears that the security response is now proving less effective than previously. This is largely because pirates have adapted to the new security situation. Instead of attempting to attack and hijack vessels in transit in the Straits of Malacca, they instead focus on boarding and robbing ships berthed in the Indonesian harbours along the Straits. From 2004 to December last year, Indonesian anchorages were placed on the U.S Coast Guard port advisory list because of their poor security, a ban only lifted following some American investment and training. It is worth noting that the US was concerned primarily with counter-terrorist performance, and many nominal improvements directed at preventing piracy and armed robberies are likely ineffective.

Similarly, pirates have also moved their bases of operations to avoid the naval forces and attack ships entering or exiting the Straits. Instead of their traditional bases actually in the Straits of Malacca themselves, many are now based to the south, using secretive parts of Jambi province for their hideaways. Others have moved east towards the South China Sea, and operate instead on the open seas far from coasts and patrols. The isolated island groups in these areas, such as the Anambas and Natuna islands, are remote and located close to the major international shipping lanes entering the Straits. Another island, Pulau Batam near Singapore, has also emerged as another favoured base of operations – as a source of cheap manufacturing for Singapore, severe economic difficulties and influxes of poor migrants have provided both the motivation and a ready labour pool, including local fisherman, for piracy targeted at ships in the Malacca straits. These coastal regions are remote and covered with mangrove swamps and shallow inlets and estuaries – perfect locations for hiding pirate vessels.

So far, it appears the nations in this region, particularly Indonesia, are failing to make the necessary adaptations to the new environment, leading to the resurgence of piracy in the region. The authorities tend to focus purely on the military and political aspects of piracy, with no attempts to deal with the root economic causes. The large warships that protect the Straits of Malacca are in general too big to track pirates back to their bases, with this task usually left to lower level local law enforcement, often equipped only with small wooden boats. This problem is particularly pronounced in Indonesia, which has the weakest navy in the region and the largest coastline, and as the world’s largest archipelagic nation has over 18’000 islands perfectly suited to hiding pirate activity. Until a new security approach is taken that accounts for the now changed environment, it appears that the trend of increasing piracy in South East Asia will continue.

Somali Federal Government Close to Marking its First Anniversary

Nearly one year into its mandate, the internationally-backed government in Somalia continues to struggle as it’s first anniversary in power approaches.  Al-Qaeda-inspired fighters, breakaway regions, coupled with rival clans and an ongoing climate of insecurity are the continuing threats that are jeopardizing the current government’s initiatives of concluding decades of anarchy.  Although the current government was the first to attain global recognition since the collapse of the hardline regime in 1991, and has since seen billions in foreign aid being poured into the country, officials within the country have struggled to maintain security.  Somalia has taken steps forward, particularly in the coastal capital city of Mogadishu, which is now busy with laborers rebuilding after al-Shabaab fighters fled their city two years ago.  However the situation throughout the rest of the country continues to remain bleak.  Outside the city, the weak central government continues to maintain minimal influence as much of the country is fractured into autonomous regions, including the self-declared northern Somaliland.  Earlier this month, the northeast region of Puntland cut ties with the central government while in the far south, self-declared leaders in the Jubbaland region continue to defy Mogadishu’s authorities.  In turn, multiple armies are fighting for control of southern Somalia, including rival warlords, Islamist extremists and a national army that is backed by the 17,700-strong African Union (AU) force.  Al-Shabaab too remain powerful, despite losing a string of key towns and leaders, the terrorist group continues to carry out attacks.  A suicide attack on a UN compound in June of this year demonstrated al-Shabaab’s ability to strike at the heart of the capital’s most secure areas.  Last month, a report released by the UN Monitoring Group estimated that al-Shabaab still have some 5,000 militants within its group and that they remain the “principal threat to peace and security in Somalia.”  Aid workers are struggling to contain a dangerous outbreak of polio, with the UN warning that while more than one hundred cases have been recorded, there are “probably thousands more with the virus.”  Compounding the problem is an almost impossible environment for aid workers.  In a major blow this month, Doctors Without Borders (MSF), an aid agency used to working in the world’s most dangerous places, pulled out of Somalia after two decades of providing aid in the country.  The agency cited that it could no longer put up with a “barrage of attacks,” including kidnappings, threats, lootings and murder.  Over a million Somalis are refugees in surrounding nations and another million are displaced inside the country, often in terrible conditions, with the UN warning of “pervasive” sexual violence.

New al-Qaeda-Linked Alliance Wages Jihad on France

An al-Qaeda-linked militia that was founded by Islamist commander Mokhtar Belmokhtar announced on Thursday that it would be joining forces with another armed group in order to take revenge against France for its military offensive in Mali.  While this move is no surprise to analysts, as the two groups have previously collaborated in carrying out regional attacks, it does cement the fact that the Sahel region will remain the new focal point for global counter-insurgency efforts.

Reports surfaced on Thursday that Belmokhtar’s Mauritanian-based al-Mulathameen Brigade (the Brigade of the Masked Ones) along with Malian-based terrorist group Movement for Oneness and Jihad in West Africa (MUJAO), which is believed to be led by Ahmed Ould Amer, have joined forces under one banner in a bid to unite Muslims and to target French interests in the West African region.  In a statement that was published by Mauritanian news agency Nouakchott News Agency (ANI), the two groups indicated that “your brothers in MUJAO and al-Mulathameen announced their union and fusion in one movement called al-Murabitoun, to unify the ranks of Muslims around the same goal, from the Nile to the Atlantic.”  Belmokhtar and Ould Amer are said to have ceded control of al-Murabitoun to another leader.  Although he has not been named, reliable sources indicate that the new commander has fought against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980’s and the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in the 2000’s.  Reports also indicate that unlike the leaders of most of the armed organizations in the region, this new leader may not be Algerian.

The merger between the two groups was first reported by ANI, which has long been a reliable source of information pertaining to jihadist activities in West Africa.  In an excerpt of the group’s statement, Belmokhtar indicates that he decided not to assume the leadership of al-Murabitoun in order to “empower a new generation of leaders.”  Further excerpts of al-Murabitoun’s first statement also threaten France and its allies in the region and call upon Muslims to target French interests everywhere.  The document states that “we say to France and its allies in the region, receive the glad tidings of what will harm you, for the mujahideen have gathered against you and they pledged to deter your armies and destroy your plans and projects.  By the grace of Allah, they are more firm and strong in your face, and your new war only increased their certitude, resolve and determination.”

Previously believed to have been killed, Belmokhtar is a one-eyed Algerian former commander of al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM).  In 2003, he was designated a foreign terrorist by the United States, with the State Department offering a US $5 million reward for information that would lead to his capture.  He broke away from AQIM in 2012 in a bid to form a new group that would expand its beliefs of forming an Islamist state.  In March of this year, it had been reported that he was killed in action in northern Mali.  Although the reports of his death were announced by the Chadian military, they were never confirmed by France or the United States.  Currently Belmokhtar remains at large.  He is believed to be the mastermind behind January’s siege of an Algerian gas plant in which thirty-eight hostages were killed.  MUJAO is though to be led by Mauritanian ethnic Tuareg Ahmed Ould Amer, who goes by the nom de guerre “Ahmed Telmissi.”  The group also broke away from AQIM in mid-2011 with the apparent goal of spreading jihad into areas outside of AQIM’s scope.  It was one of a number of Islamist groups that occupied northern Mali last year and was responsible for imposing a strict interpretation of Islamic Sharia Law.

Despite previously separating themselves from AQIM, citing leadership issues and desires of expanding their control, both groups continued to cooperate and fight alongside AQIM fighters in Mali and in other regions of West Africa.  In late May of this year, the two groups targeted a military barracks in Agadez, Niger and a uranium mine in Arlit which supplies French nuclear reactors.  The attack in Agadez was reportedly executed by a five-man suicide assault team which resulted in the deaths of at least twenty people.  The attack in Arlit was reportedly carried out as a means of attempting to cripple France.  Shortly after the attacks, Belmokhtar indicated that the incidents had been carried out as a form of avenge for the death of Abdelhamid Abou Zeid, an AQIM commander who was killed by French forces in northern Mali earlier this year.  Consequently this merger comes with minimal surprise as MUJAO and Belmokhtar’s forces have already forged a working relationship.  Thursday’s announcement just makes this relationship official.  However many questions still linger as to whether such a merger will have any impact within a region that continues to be rocked by instability.

On the one hand, in examining Mali, the country no longer seems to be the central hub it was a year ago.  The recently held peaceful presidential elections, which resulted in the election of President Ibrahim Boubacar Keita, coupled with 12,600 UN troops that are stationed on the ground, are a move to fill the security vacuum and to stabilize the country by uniting the north and south.  However when looking at the greater Sahel region, many vulnerabilities continue to exist in a region of Africa that is sparsely populated and prone to poverty, food insecurity and estrangement from regional governments.  The Sahel region continues to see high threats of kidnap and terrorist attacks.  These threats, which were further heightened following the French military intervention in Mali, are highly likely to occur again.  Furthermore, there are currently at least thirteen hostages being held in the Sahel and surrounding regions, which includes Algeria, Cameroon, Libya and Nigeria.  Over the years, many have been killed and threats of kidnappings, especially of French and Western nationals, will likely continue.  The surrounding areas also contain threats that may lead to a further destabilization of the region.  Terrorist groups such as Boko Haram in Nigeria are waging their own wars at home.  While reports that Boko Haram militants may have been trained by al-Qaeda-linked operatives in Mali further fuels the notions the movement of terrorists in the Sahel and surrounding regions continues to be unaffected.  The militant groups now joining forces have gained reputations for evading capture and continuing to launch attacks despite security forces’ concentrated efforts to stop them.

On the other hand, given the long history of al-Qaeda-linked forces making and breaking alliances, the real question remains whether this official union will change anything.  Many doubt that al-Murabitoun can bring anything new to the table and that instead this could signify another reorganization in an attempt to strengthen the group, remain relevant and give it a new and better direction.   The timing of this announcement is also critical as it comes just two weeks after elections were held in Mali and a new President was selected.  This alliance may be an attempt to remind regional actors and international officials that while Mali has won a victory by carrying out successful elections, the war is far from over.

Suspected Chemical Weapons Use in Syria

22 August, 2013: Syrian opposition forces have made claims that the Assad government has conducted a massive chemical weapons attack in the East Ghouta region outside of Damascus, resulting in unconfirmed death tolls ranging from the hundreds to over 1,400. Rebel forces claim that rockets with toxic agents were launched early on Wednesday as part of a major bombardment. Limited evidence based on early testimony, photography and video has concluded that the reports are accurate. If the scale of the attack is confirmed, this incident could mark the largest chemical weapons attack since the 1988 Halabja Massacre in Iraq.

Still and video imagery taken from the region of the attack depict gruesome images of rooms full of dead children, and images of young victims twitching and struggling to breath. Close-up images reveal severely constricted pupils. Experts believe that it would be nearly impossible to fake so many dead and injured, including children and babies. The symptoms appear to be in line with use of the chemical weapon sarin.

Was it Sarin?

Sarin is a man-made liquid that can be converted to gas. It was originally developed as a pesticide in Germany in 1938, but is now classified as a nerve agent. Of the known agents used in chemical warfare, nerve agents are the most toxic and fast acting. In liquid form, pure sarin is a clear, colourless, tasteless, and odourless. It mixes easily with water, which could result in contamination of drinking water or foods grown in areas exposed to the agent. However, sarin can be evaporated into vapour (sarin gas), which can be released and spread into the environment, exposing people through breathing air, or exposing the agent to skin or eyes. Sarin is a heavy gas, meaning it is likely to settle in low-lying areas, creating greater risk exposure for individuals in low lying areas. Following exposure to sarin vapour, a person’s clothing absorbs and can release sarin, resulting in the possible exposure of the gas to others.  Exposure to large doses of sarin can cause convulsions, loss of consciousness, paralysis, and respiratory failure, possibly leading to death.

Doctors treating patients in the area have reported that the chemical solution contained “extremely high” concentrations of sarin, as opposed to more diluted attacks in previous months. The director of the Douma city medical office, calling himself Khaled ad-Doumi, stated “Atropine, the chemical used to curb the effects of these chemical attacks, has had only limited effects.” However, Gwyn Winfield, editor for a trade journal dedicated to unconventional weapons, does not believe that pure sarin was involved. After examining video and still images, Winfield noted the lack of mucus or saliva, stating “No doubt it’s a chemical release of some variety — and a military release of some variety … But it’s too weak for a pure sarin release.”

Still others do not believe that a nerve agent was released, but do agree that the attack was a chemical one.  Michael Ellman of the International Institute for Strategic Studies says,  an attack on this scale “would have had to involve a large amount of chemical agent, which means it would have had to be delivered in a very deliberate fashion, and that would be a strong indicator that it was deliberate use or not accidental use, or just spraying munitions, which may be what happened in the past – we don’t know.”

The Red Line

One year ago, the Obama administration declared a “red line” at the use of chemical weapons. In July 2012, the Syrian government admitted that Syria had stocks of chemical weapons. Opposition parties have accused the Assad regime of chemical weapons use on multiple occasions, however only a few of those attacks have been confirmed. Despite the evidence that chemical weapons were used, the US government has remained hesitant to engage in full-scale conflict over what they consider relatively small-scale incidents. The failure to react to these smaller incidents has ignited criticism from within the US government. Democrat Eliot Engel of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said, “If we are to salvage what remains of our credibility in the region, we must act soon.”

However, an attack on this scale could trigger outside intervention. UK Foreign Secretary William Hague said that if confirmed, the attacks indicate a “shocking escalation in the use of chemical weapons in Syria.” The US and UK, along with 33 UN member states, have called for a formal United Nations investigation.

A statement from U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon assured that a UN chemical weapons team in Damascus was discussing the matter with Syrian authorities. Chief U.N. Weapons Inspector Ake Sellstrom arrived in Syria on 18 August to investigate the alleged use of nerve gas in three other villages, including Khan al-Assal, where 26 people were killed in March. But it is unlikely that Syria will allow investigators to visit the East Ghouta region.

Stalemate

Timeliness is critical. The half-life of sarin gas is approximately 5 minutes, and other chemical weapons have a half life of approximately 30 minutes. Traces of the gas could disappear within days, and a delay in investigations means evidence of their dispersal methods could be removed. Still, while chemical experts may be able to identify the nature of the weapons used in the region, they will be unable to determine the party responsible for the attack. Some have questioned if the finding will still result in a net-zero impact.

The Syrian regime has called claims of the attack “absolutely baseless,” and insisted that the rebels either initiated the attack, or are lying to cover the number of losses they have recently experienced. Within the UN, member nations have reached a stalemate on actionable impact. China and Russia blocked the used of strong press statements condemning the Syrian government. The Russian foreign ministry has pointed out that the report coincided with the arrival the UN chemical weapons inspection team to Syria, saying, “This makes us think that we are once again dealing with a premeditated provocation.” In the past, China and Russia have vetoed UN efforts to impose penalties on Assad.

A watered down statement has been released by the UN, calling for a cessation of hostilities throughout Syria, where over 100,000 people have been killed in the past 28 months. It is uncertain how findings by UN weapons inspectors will impact international action in the region.