Syria's civil war threatens to go international

The recent clash along the border between Syria and Turkey is a reminder of the danger of conflict in one Middle East country spilling over into others.  This latest example began with the Syrian military firing mortars into the Turkish town of Akcakale, killing five people and destroying buildings. 

Turkish troops retaliated by firing back into Syrian territory. It was the first known cross-border incident of what had up to then been seen as an internal conflict. With tensions between the two countries ratcheted up, many now fear a military escalation. 

Turkey’s parliament called an emergency session and gave the government a free hand to order cross-border raids should Syrian troops carry out more incursions.

Coming to Turkey’s aid is Nato, of which Ankara is a full member. Nato condemned Syria and warned against further aggression. 

The UN Security Council issued a statement, noting the Syrian crisis’s “grave impact on regional peace and stability”. The statement would have been stronger had not Russia ordered it watered down.

But reason and restraint held sway. Nato did not invoke Article 5, which states that an attack on one of its members is an attack on all. Turkey had the right to insist that this article be applied, but chose not to. Syria, for its part, apologised for the attack, calling it a “a tragic accident”. 

While this clash might be over, many observers are bracing for an incident that could put the entire region on the brink of war. The international community continues to be at odds as to what to do over Syria, while the United Nations has been unable to make much headway in its effort to stop this 19-month-old crisis from spinning into full-blown civil war. 

Massacres carried out by regime troops are evidence that genocide may be taking place in Syria as atrocities and mass graves pile up. The rest of the world, meanwhile, has been a helpless bystander, watching events unfold. 

The UN was created to resolve just such crises, but the organisation has been unable to do much, partly because its Security Council’s five permanent members are unwilling to make political concessions. China, the US, Russia, France and Britain have locked horns rather than making the situation on the ground their top priority. 

Diplomacy aside, Syria is one of several Middle East regimes reported to possess a huge stockpile of chemical weapons. Given the chaos that now reigns in the country, there is a real threat that those weapons could fall into the wrong hands.

While US attempts to ramp up diplomatic pressure on Syria are being blocked by China and Russia, Washington has made clear its willingness to act should either side in the conflict resort to chemical weapons.

President Barack Obama has warned the Syrian regime, as well as the rebels and other players, that any attempt to use chemical or biological weapons would be crossing a “red line”, and likely bring a swift response from the US military.

Obama is being pressured by presidential rival Mitt Romney for not being forceful enough on Syria. This added pressure only makes it more certain that evidence of chemical-weapon use in Syria will trigger US intervention in a conflict on the brink of going international. 

The US has drawn its red line. Now it’s the turn of China and Russia to come up with their own concrete proposals. This deadlocked game of diplomacy must end, or the slaughter in Syria could spread through the rest of the Middle East.