This brings on the table the ongoing debate of the veto power and whether it should cease to exist. The most clear-cut response to that debate is that it is completely academic. Revising the UN Charter requires that such decision will have to win the approval of the veto-wielding permanent members and asking them to voluntarily give up some of their privileges. This will certainly not happen. So the reality is one: The veto is here to stay.

Ever since the establishment of the UN, year after year, the veto-wielding members, and in particular, China, the United States and Russia, have not failed to use, misuse or waste their Security Council power, allowing powerful nations to shape international peace and security. But by far, the worst offenders among the five are the United States (usually for resolutions against Israel) and China.

The UN has certainly failed to endorse its responsibility to protect Syria. “Action to stop Crimes Against Humanity should not be held prisoner to sectional political interests and convenient alliances. This veto will cost lives in Syria,” said Dr Simon Adams, Executive Director of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect.

The responsibility to protect is to some degree a statement of the evident. It is the duty of a government is to protect its citizens from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. But the importance of this principle is that the United Nations agreed in 2005 that the international community has to acknowledge its own responsibility to protect when a government is unable or unwilling to protect its people. This means that decisions on military intervention now have to be taken with recognition that the international community cannot now avoid taking blame by simply laying back and watching.

Violence in Syria has reached a level that’s impossible to ignore and arguments for why the so called Responsibility to Protect doctrine does not apply in the country but does apply in other cases like Libya are wearing thin. And it is much better to be done legally with regional backing than if it is done unilaterally by NATO, as in the case of Kosovo or in the case of the U.K and U.S in Iraq. Since the United Nations has accepted the responsibility to protect, the buck must stop here. Someone, somewhere must be willing to take action to stop and punish atrocities against civilians.

Επιμέλεια: JJ

As the government continues to ban many forms of social media and foreign reporters from entering Syria, the people of Syria still find ways to get their stories out. The mobile phone has proven highly effective in fueling the Syrian uprising. In a repressive country like Syria, cell phones can enable protesters to communicate, rally support for uprisings and film events of the revolution making its users what are often referred to as citizen journalists.

Many still remember the 1982 Hama massacre, when there was no such a thing as citizen journalism and social media networks, the government killed 10.000-40,000 according to Amnesty international in a few weeks. It also managed to hide the massacre from the world for a long period of time.

But this is no longer possible. It’s been almost ten months since the “Arab Spring” fever hit Syria and the same government is reported to have killed more than 5,250 people, a number far lower than the 1982 death toll. They carried forward the rallying cry into Syria last March, using mobiles to document their own protests and inspire an ever-growing number of Syrians to join the movement. In Syria’s case the mobile might indeed be mightier than the gun; only the process seems bloodier.

Through the use of mobile phones Syrians have risked their lives to film crackdowns on protesters by the government’s armed and security forces. The images of tortured and mutilated bodies have undoubtedly made their contribution in heavily censored Syria as they provide some of the only images of the struggle there. These videos are uploaded on websites such as Facebook and YouTube to keep the world informed of events during this difficult time in many parts of the country. In fact, according to a study conducted by the World Bank mobile phones appear as the most predominant and most rapidly growing form of communication in developing economies throughout the world. This is mainly due to its vast network, its ubiquity and to inexpensive mobile service in emerging countries.

And while smartphones like the iPhone may be another hot topic, they are out of the economic reach of most due to their high cost. The Syrian opposition has launched an iPhone app called Souria Wa Bas which roughly translates to Syria and that’s all to disseminate news and information according to Mobile online Portal. This application broadcasts breaking news, videos, photos and even jokes about the incumbent regime. This application is not likely meant to reach only the people in Syria but also people abroad. Shortly after this application was released, the German Association Press reported that the Syrian government had banned the use and import of iPhones in Syria.

Mobile technology is providing opposition groups a unique and unprecedented opportunity to disseminate news and propaganda about their cause, something that previously would have been crushed by government censors.

Επιμέλεια: JJ