UN resolution on IS falls short of being decisive
At first glance, the United Nations Security Council's recent resolution, calling on all countries to “combat by all means” the “unprecedented threat” posed by the Islamic State, looks like a significant global effort to fight the terror group which has killed hundreds in its home ground and is now orchestrating attacks abroad. The phrase, “combat by all means”, is enticing because it opens up the possibility of a large-scale foreign military intervention. The US, the UK, France and Russia among others, are already in the fray but have stopped short of full engagement with the Islamic State. The question is: Will the UNSC resolution pave the way for a serious international military coalition against the Islamic StateIJ This seems unlikely because the resolution was not adopted under Chapter Seven of the UN charter. Hence, there is no UN authorisation for a military operation. Apart from military action, the resolution talks of greater cooperation between member states to “stem the flow of foreign fighters in Iraq and Syria”, “suppress the financing of terrorism” and script a “political resolution”. None of this is a new development. In September 2014, the UN had adopted a resolution dealing with the issue of foreign fighters; in February, it urged member states to turn off the Islamic State's funding tap by cracking down on its illegal oil sales, antiquities trade and by not paying ransom for foreign hostages. Also, peace talks to end the fighting have been on since the civil war broke out.
So, what exactly does the latest resolution bring to the tableIJ World leaders would like us to believe that it shows the putting up of a united front. At one level, this is a fair assessment, but mostly because the bar for international agreement and cooperation, especially on this issue, has been set really low. Over the years, even as the Islamic State has carried out a bloodbath in Syria and Iraq, world leaders have not been able to agree on how best to respond. They have, in fact, often worked at cross-purposes and there’s little to suggest that the situation is better now. For one, the West and Russia still fundamentally disagree on how to deal with Mr Bashar al-Assad and on the role the Syrian President must play in any crisis-resolution mechanism. This is why another anti-Islamic State resolution, drafted by Russia, is yet to be adopted by the UNSC it calls for cooperation with the Governments of all states that face terrorism. The West simply cannot come around to the idea of negotiating with Mr Assad.
That these powers nonetheless came together to adopt Friday's resolution indicates, at best, a sense of urgency, stemming from primarily from the November 13 attacks in Paris, and to a lesser extent, the string of Islamic State strikes in other countries such as Tunisia, Turkey and lebanon. Notably though, another resolution by African states against Boko Haram is still pending with the UNSC, even as its members talk about increased cooperation against terrorism.