Article Critique of Moscow to insist Russia and China join chemical arms probe by Reuters & AP - Research Paper Example

Article Critique of “Moscow to insist Russia and China join chemical arms probe” by Reuters & AP Political correctness is the main issue at hand as the two warring factions in the Syrian conflict fight on to maintain their supremacy on reserves the right to rule the nation and those who should be ousted. This of controversy leads to the question of fired missiles that led to the death of civilians in Syria. The correctness here is also about admitting or denying responsibility over the deployment of the weapon over civilian populations leading to the death of many, and some under circumstances that cannot be explained. With this in mind, the two warring faction do not want to take responsibility and are therefore blaming one another for the misfortune that one of them caused and led to great damage to the country. The conflict in Syria, which is between rebels and the government has raged on for two years and has caused the deaths of over 70,000 people in the course of its life, that is still going on. The correctness rages on in that the rebels are attempting to take over power from the current government, where the war is beyond taking power for either group. Putting this into perspective means that the group that wins shall not be held accountable for the loss of lives and even the destruction of property that has been experienced country wide, as well as the civil unrest. The loser will solely be responsible, whereby it is upon the loser to admit defeat and accept all that has occurred with no option of redressor appeal. In addition, the article addressing the Syrian conflict brings into perspective the problem of a conflict that is too late to stop as all parties have too much to lose considering that, the government has put its all in the war against the rebels, while the rebels too have done the same. In addition, the rebels are backed by a good section of the civilian population, which means that the government is almost on the losing side due to the presence of civilians. In this case, civilians represent a good bargaining chip for the rebels, as the government is bound by international law not to engage civilians using the military or even by use of unnecessary or excessive force. Consequently, the outcome is that the government is losing, which makes the missile issue even more critical for them as a loss in the war is guaranteed for them to take political and legal responsibility for the war. It is at this point that the missile issue comes up again as it highlights an attempt to foil the attempts of one side of the conflict at clinching or maintaining power. This is evident, and might appear biased towards the rebel side, as logical analysis would show the ability to fire missiles lies with the military. The same military backs the government, where the government is at war with rebels, and the whole situation does not look for the government, but the rebels (Reuters and AP). On the other hand, the missile could be part of intricate plan to oust the current government by forcing it to take responsibility of the said weapon. It is due to this that the international community in the form of the United Nations and the veto powers in it to look at the situation ad and determine the origin and the intent of its launch in relation to the Syrian conflict. The main concern of the international community, however, is not on the use of missiles against a civilian population, but is instead focused on the use of chemicals in the missile. This is a major contravention of the laws of engagement in the event of war in an agreement that goes as far back as the 19th century, where there were signed treaties against the use of chemical warfare against the people, where even soldiers are included. Another perspective of this issue in the use of chemical warfare is what the international community stands to gain. This can be seen by the allegations leveled by Russia against the rebels, which is another case of an attempt at being politically correct owing to the fact that the Syrian government had made the same allegations. Owing to the close relationship between the Syrian government and Russia, it is evident that Russia is attempting to salvage the situation that Syria is in by standing up for them and helping them overcome their current hurdle. In addition, the cordial relationships between the two countries may not survive should the Syrian government be ousted, which makes Russia desperate to save the situation. Still on what the international community stands to gain, there is a distinct difference between different countries, where certain authority figures claim that no such event took place, while other say that the missile contained chemicals. This is an attempt by the international community, and especially the European Union and the United States to ensure that there is no biased opinion, but instead, there is an inquiry to ensure that the facts are laid out and they prove the presence before fingers are pointed. As such, the United States is keeping its hands clean by not interfering in the conflict, which could mean that the nation could be waiting for an event that could shift the status quo so that it learns which side to support. This creates a hypocritical situation for the United States as it means that the United States is not interested in saving the people and ending the conflict, but is solely after protecting its interest in the country. In spite of the stand of the United States and the European Union, there are voices from within the United States that may have access to information privy to the government that asserts the potential knowledge of the facts on the ground. This is because there are citations of similar chemical weapon attacks in Syria for a long time before the most recent one that has captured the attention of the international community (Reuters and AP). The Syrian conflict discussed in the article, in the form of a chemical missile attack also highlights the state of disunity of the international community, and especially among some of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, in which case Britain and France appear to be interfering with the interest of Russia. This is evident with the claims that Russia makes against Britain and France, where it accuses them of wanting to delay the inquiry, while Russia is busy attempting to implicate the Syrian rebels and exonerate the Syrian government. The conflict of interest goes as far as implicating china in the inquiry, where it believes that in the absence of unbiased investigators from China, the whole inquiry will be a sham. China has been quiet on the issue, which could also translate to a similar stand as that of the United States, but is unlikely due to lack of a previous stand on the Syrian conflict, in which case China stands to lose nothing for whichever party that wins (Reuters and AP). Altogether, the Syrian conflict is a multifaceted front for all nations to air their opinions and wrangle out their differences, especially the five veto powers, as well protect their interest. In addition, it is a severe case of political games between the Syrian rebels and the government, in which case the winner in the conflict takes over power and bears no responsibility for the conflict. It also stands for the best interests of the Syrian people, where there is no attempt to quell the conflict, but to find out the source of chemical weapons in the conflict. Work Cited Reuters & AP. “Moscow to insist Russia and China join chemical arms probe”. Gulfnews.com. 2013. Web. 25 March 2013 Read More