By By Paul Iddon Jan 15, 2013 in Politics With the threat of destruction at the hands of dictators and fundamentalists do the nations of the world have a right and an obligation to protect United Nations World Heritage sites? In Mali we're seeing a government bearing the brunt of an Islamist insurgency not unlike the one that ravaged Algeria during the 1990's. As was the case with Aleppo's ancient 'souk', a massive living piece of history in the Syrian city that was The Islamic fundamentalist obscurantists that took over Iran following the revolution that deposed the autocratic Shah have similarly shown little more than contempt for the ancient heritage sites of the Persian Empire. One particularly nasty cleric, Sadegh Khalkahli, proclaimed that Cyrus the Great was little more than “a tyrant, a liar, and a homosexual.” He accordingly called for the destruction of the Persian palace in Shiraz and the destruction of the ancient city of Persepolis. As with many such regimes the Iranian regime has tortured to the point of banality political dissidents within its borders, carried out heinous terrorist attacks and assassination campaigns outside them and callously murdered countless defenseless political dissidents. Dissidents who weren't formally charged upon their imprisonment and weren't allowed plea their innocence before being murdered in cold blood by the regimes executioners and thugs. Have the clique of clerics who rule Iran, and possess such a grotesque human rights record, the right to tread upon its population and recklessly neglect, instead of upkeep diligently, those ancient monuments of the Persian civilization which they despise? These groups in Mali have entrenched themselves in the northern half of the country. Amongst these Islamist ranks are many al-Qaeda fighters who through such deeds as outlined above have made no secret of their desires to implement a society based on strict Sharia Law. This wing of Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb proclaims itself to be the 'Movement for Oneness and Jihad in West Africa'. They have essentially hijacked a campaign of insurgency that is fighting for the succession of northern Mali, Azawad, where an organization calling itself the 'National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad' (MNLA) is seeking to make that part of the country an independent ethnic homeland for the Tuareg people. Mali has lost control of this massive swath of its northern territory (which constitutes roughly two-thirds of the country's landmass – about the territorial size of France) and we're now seeing these insurgency groups also engaged against the al-Qaeda forces that are coming from other parts of the region hoping to capitalize on the instability. They have gained very substantial ground and are wielding control over many of the cities outside of government control. Oppressing their inhabitants in the process. A rather disturbing report last October stated that these radical forces were gathering lists of mothers who were unmarried leading many to fear these women may come under attack and be tortured or executed. Other women are being forced into marriage and these extremists are also employing children to use as foot soldiers for their cause. The United Nations has given support to France's military intervention into this conflict which is seeing to the technological superiority and prowess of the French military being deployed against these violent Islamist forces. U.N troops are due to be sent to beef up these forces and aid the Malian government in its tough confrontation with these various fighters. Given the destructive nature of the forces these respective military forces are facing down should the United Nations and more capable and advanced military powers intervene where it is possible and absolutely necessary to ensure such forces aren't allowed wantonly terrorize civilians and destroy internationally recognized heritage sites? Mali is already proving to be a case in point when it comes to intervening when you can and where you can, feasibly, proficiently and effectively. We've watched Syria over the course of nearly two years now devolve into a bitter struggle between ragtag armed rebel groups and the Assad regime. In the opposition struggle there too we are seeing Islamist elements infiltrating the opposition and setting their own designs on the Syrian state if the opposition manages to achieve its aim of overthrowing Assad. In the countryside around Aleppo for example they are trying to implement Sharia in a manner reminiscent of the Islamist forces in Mali. Thousands of refugees have fled the destruction and havoc of that war to neighbouring countries such as Turkey, Iraq and Jordan. To date there have been no concrete plans for any intervention. It was the staff of this very online magazine that very Writing in the If the powers of the major powers of the U.N Security Council resolve their difference and agree that an intervention is necessary to force both sides of the conflict to stop and bring to an end the destructive civil war how will they go about it? What kind of intervention could be launched? Would Assad be negotiated with or forced to step down as a result of his failure to consolidate control over his country? If troops are dispatched to Damascus to enforce the U.N declaration that sites of ancient, cultural, religious and social importance are to be protected can they really enforce that declaration with soldiers from various member states? Americans are understandably lukewarm about deploying forces to Middle Eastern countries due to the long and costly war in Iraq. They also recall how devastating of a defeat and loss of life they suffered when the Marines barracks in Beirut was levelled by a truck-bomb in 1983 killing 241 servicemen. But even a no-fly-zone like Owen recommends would only be a limited endeavor, for one thing it would probably see to NATO forces destroy the Syrian Air Force, air defense missile network and probably a great deal of its armies hardware. Then what? Even if Assad goes a conflict not unlike the one that raged in Lebanon could become the case for Syria. Furthermore if none of the major powers intervene by putting boots on the ground what kind of situation will we have? It was greatly to the shame of the coalition that engaged Iraq in 1991 during the Persian Gulf War that Saddam Hussein was left in power and essentially left kill some 250,000 Shiites and Kurds during their desperate attempt to overthrow his brute regime. The mass graves uncovered in Iraq in 2003 attest to the fact that potential Iraqi allies of the American-led coalition were left down. Today Obama has recognized the ragtag rebel opposition of being the Will the international community have any credibility left in the eyes of the oppressed and trodden-upon the world over if they standby when they see such crises transpire and thousands die? Is the Syrian situation one that will decide in the eyes of many whether or not the United Nations is a credible global organization -- and subsequently won't inevitably whither away into obscurity and meet the same fate as the League of Nations -- when it comes to mitigating the effects of such crises and aiding and organizing refuge for its victims? It is clear that the only thing we, as citizens of the world, can do for the meantime is sit on the sidelines as conscious observers and wait and see. Two countries that probably suffered the worse outcomes from the so-called Arab Spring of 2011 would arguably be Syria and Mali. The Syrian nation is engulfed by civil war and strife that has claimed the lives of at least 60,000 people and is showing no signs of any let-up. Major fears are abound concerning the fate of Damascus if that city is completely engulfed by the fighting, like the kind that has already engulfed and devastated large swaths of the country's largest city Aleppo. Damascus's 'old city' and many of its ancient buildings and heritage sites may be completely destroyed. The United Nations has so far been utterly futile and inept in its numerous attempts to bring about a negotiated ceasefire between the two warring blocs.In Mali we're seeing a government bearing the brunt of an Islamist insurgency not unlike the one that ravaged Algeria during the 1990's. As was the case with Aleppo's ancient 'souk', a massive living piece of history in the Syrian city that was completely burned and gutted as a result of the conflict there, a great deal of Mali's historic and religious landmark has been purposely destroyed. The shrines in Timbuktu for instance were destroyed by these Islamist fighters who saw them as mere blasphemous figures. They were also United Nations World Heritage sites. The destruction of these landmarks was eerily reminiscent of the manner in which the Taliban employed artillery, anti-aircraft guns and eventually dynamite to deface and destroy the monumental Buddas of Bamiyan statutes in Afghanistan back in 2001. Fittingly I was only in the midst of writing this article when I read a Syrian student quoted by Reuters state that, “The warplanes of this criminal regime do not respect a mosque, a church or a university.”The Islamic fundamentalist obscurantists that took over Iran following the revolution that deposed the autocratic Shah have similarly shown little more than contempt for the ancient heritage sites of the Persian Empire. One particularly nasty cleric, Sadegh Khalkahli, proclaimed that Cyrus the Great was little more than “a tyrant, a liar, and a homosexual.” He accordingly called for the destruction of the Persian palace in Shiraz and the destruction of the ancient city of Persepolis. As with many such regimes the Iranian regime has tortured to the point of banality political dissidents within its borders, carried out heinous terrorist attacks and assassination campaigns outside them and callously murdered countless defenseless political dissidents. Dissidents who weren't formally charged upon their imprisonment and weren't allowed plea their innocence before being murdered in cold blood by the regimes executioners and thugs. Have the clique of clerics who rule Iran, and possess such a grotesque human rights record, the right to tread upon its population and recklessly neglect, instead of upkeep diligently, those ancient monuments of the Persian civilization which they despise?These groups in Mali have entrenched themselves in the northern half of the country. Amongst these Islamist ranks are many al-Qaeda fighters who through such deeds as outlined above have made no secret of their desires to implement a society based on strict Sharia Law. This wing of Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb proclaims itself to be the 'Movement for Oneness and Jihad in West Africa'. They have essentially hijacked a campaign of insurgency that is fighting for the succession of northern Mali, Azawad, where an organization calling itself the 'National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad' (MNLA) is seeking to make that part of the country an independent ethnic homeland for the Tuareg people. Mali has lost control of this massive swath of its northern territory (which constitutes roughly two-thirds of the country's landmass – about the territorial size of France) and we're now seeing these insurgency groups also engaged against the al-Qaeda forces that are coming from other parts of the region hoping to capitalize on the instability. They have gained very substantial ground and are wielding control over many of the cities outside of government control. Oppressing their inhabitants in the process. A rather disturbing report last October stated that these radical forces were gathering lists of mothers who were unmarried leading many to fear these women may come under attack and be tortured or executed. Other women are being forced into marriage and these extremists are also employing children to use as foot soldiers for their cause.The United Nations has given support to France's military intervention into this conflict which is seeing to the technological superiority and prowess of the French military being deployed against these violent Islamist forces. U.N troops are due to be sent to beef up these forces and aid the Malian government in its tough confrontation with these various fighters. Given the destructive nature of the forces these respective military forces are facing down should the United Nations and more capable and advanced military powers intervene where it is possible and absolutely necessary to ensure such forces aren't allowed wantonly terrorize civilians and destroy internationally recognized heritage sites? Mali is already proving to be a case in point when it comes to intervening when you can and where you can, feasibly, proficiently and effectively.We've watched Syria over the course of nearly two years now devolve into a bitter struggle between ragtag armed rebel groups and the Assad regime. In the opposition struggle there too we are seeing Islamist elements infiltrating the opposition and setting their own designs on the Syrian state if the opposition manages to achieve its aim of overthrowing Assad. In the countryside around Aleppo for example they are trying to implement Sharia in a manner reminiscent of the Islamist forces in Mali. Thousands of refugees have fled the destruction and havoc of that war to neighbouring countries such as Turkey, Iraq and Jordan. To date there have been no concrete plans for any intervention.It was the staff of this very online magazine that very aptly summed up Syria's cultural landmarks and the true cultural allure of that country following their visit there some ten years ago. They aptly point out the fact that 'Thirty-three different civilizations have left their mark on the country in the last 6,500 years, including the Sumerians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, the Crusaders and the Osmans.'Writing in the Telegraph in September of last year David Owen argued that only a no-fly zone brokered with Russia can bring peace to Syria. He asserts, quite rightly in my opinion, that Russia and China should be engaged diplomatically and not dismissed and condemned for their stances with regard to Syria. Otherwise the Security Council will not be a tenable and effective organization when it comes to dealing with crises such as the ongoing one in Syria.If the powers of the major powers of the U.N Security Council resolve their difference and agree that an intervention is necessary to force both sides of the conflict to stop and bring to an end the destructive civil war how will they go about it? What kind of intervention could be launched? Would Assad be negotiated with or forced to step down as a result of his failure to consolidate control over his country?If troops are dispatched to Damascus to enforce the U.N declaration that sites of ancient, cultural, religious and social importance are to be protected can they really enforce that declaration with soldiers from various member states?Americans are understandably lukewarm about deploying forces to Middle Eastern countries due to the long and costly war in Iraq. They also recall how devastating of a defeat and loss of life they suffered when the Marines barracks in Beirut was levelled by a truck-bomb in 1983 killing 241 servicemen. But even a no-fly-zone like Owen recommends would only be a limited endeavor, for one thing it would probably see to NATO forces destroy the Syrian Air Force, air defense missile network and probably a great deal of its armies hardware. Then what? Even if Assad goes a conflict not unlike the one that raged in Lebanon could become the case for Syria. Furthermore if none of the major powers intervene by putting boots on the ground what kind of situation will we have?It was greatly to the shame of the coalition that engaged Iraq in 1991 during the Persian Gulf War that Saddam Hussein was left in power and essentially left kill some 250,000 Shiites and Kurds during their desperate attempt to overthrow his brute regime. The mass graves uncovered in Iraq in 2003 attest to the fact that potential Iraqi allies of the American-led coalition were left down. Today Obama has recognized the ragtag rebel opposition of being the true representatives of the Syrian people. This is a staunch, and in my view, unprincipled stand to take as it consecrates U.S policy in Syria to that of supporting one side instead of encouraging Security Council concordance and cooperation to figure out how to bring an end to the conflict and suffering. It puts the United States in a position whereby if it is going to intervene in Syria it will probably be intervening to aid the rebels in overrunning Damascus and ousting Assad. This could in turn empower the aforementioned Islamist elements in the opposition, who could potentially use the chaos that follows such wars to get their hands on military grade explosives that could level the many heritage sites in Damascus their pathological creeds deem unacceptably blasphemous.Will the international community have any credibility left in the eyes of the oppressed and trodden-upon the world over if they standby when they see such crises transpire and thousands die? Is the Syrian situation one that will decide in the eyes of many whether or not the United Nations is a credible global organization -- and subsequently won't inevitably whither away into obscurity and meet the same fate as the League of Nations -- when it comes to mitigating the effects of such crises and aiding and organizing refuge for its victims? It is clear that the only thing we, as citizens of the world, can do for the meantime is sit on the sidelines as conscious observers and wait and see. This opinion article was written by an independent writer. The opinions and views expressed herein are those of the author and are not necessarily intended to reflect those of DigitalJournal.com More about Damascus, Syria, Syrian civil war, bashar al assad More news from Damascus Syria Syrian civil war bashar al assad