Isis: World powers plan United Nations Security Council resolution to declare war against group in Iraq and Syria

Exclusive: Draft resolution authorising ‘all necessary measures’ in Syria and Iraq could be adopted in days

World powers are poised to forge a single resolution at the United Nations Security Council to declare a common war against Isis and “eradicate” jihadists in Iraq and Syria, The Independent understands.

The attacks in Paris as well as the downing of the Russian jet over the Sinai Peninsula have galvanised a hitherto divided Security Council. And a new reality exists: with its alleged execution this week of a Chinese national, Isis has now slaughtered citizens of all five permanent Security Council members.
French officials said they were formally submitting a draft resolution to the Security Council, pushing aside a competing draft offered by Russia earlier this week. It could be adopted as early as Friday or over the weekend.

The French manoeuvre reflected confidence that its resolution would not provoke Russian or Chinese vetoes and would thus win approval.

The text, shared with the The Independent, calls on member states “with the capacity to do so” to “take all necessary measures, in compliance with international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law, on the territory under the control of Isil [Isis] in Syria and Iraq, to redouble and co-ordinate their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by Isil… and to eradicate the safe haven they have established in Iraq and Syria”.

The resolution “is short, strong, and focused on one primary goal: the fight against the common enemy, Daesh [Isis]”, said France’s ambassador to the UN, François Delattre. “We intend to work with all our Security Council partners to achieve a swift adoption of this project, around which we hope the international community will come together.”
Passage of the French draft would mark a signal moment for the Security Council, where any resolution that explicitly endorses outside interference, particularly military interference, within the borders of a sovereign nation routinely encounters stiff resistance, usually from Russia or China. On Syria alone, the last time the council passed a unanimous resolution was in July of last year – on providing humanitarian aid.

The Russian version is only slightly amended from the one it submitted in September. At the time, it was spurned by London, Paris and Washington because it included provisions seeking the co-operation of governments in the region, including the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria.
There is still nothing to indicate that Moscow is about to cut Mr Assad loose. However, there was cautious optimism in the corridors of the UN that Russia could not contemplate blocking a resolution that condemned Isis, given the Paris attacks and the bombing of one of its own planes.

“There is a momentum to have a Security Council product that condemns the attacks not just in Paris but also Beirut and Sharm el-Sheikh and stresses the unity of the council and its desire to tackle the threat posed by Isis,” one diplomat said.

The draft resolution recalls that, by “its violent extremist ideology, its terrorist acts, its continued gross systematic and widespread attacks directed against civilians” and other crimes, Isis “constitutes a global and unprecedented threat to international peace and security”.

It would be passed, more-over, under the stewardship of Britain as current holder of the rotating Security Council presidency. While the Government would surely welcome a resolution as an important demonstration of world unity, it also believes that the legal basis for strikes against Isis already exists under the UN Charter’s provisions on the right to self-defence.

Adding to the new sense of urgency were reports attributed to US and Iraqi intelligence that Isis is attempting to create a unit to develop and deploy chemical weapons.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I'm kind of scared of this ISIS thing, in modern history there has never been this large of a terror organization seemingly taking complete control of and spreading across the Middle east. The moment they move into EU and start to wage war on places like Greece and Italy since they're so close that will be when I go out and buy my first Firearm. I do not own any, and have never wanted to, but I fear that this movement may be uncontrollable and could spread. We are horribly close to World War III. Russia could still turn on Britain and the USA. Then the whole world could be destroyed with only a handful of survivors. It is all quite terrifying. The only thing to do is what is being done. Obama and Cameron are taking a firm stand. They cannot do more than that.

Once the UN vote for strikes against IS our government will almost certainly involve our forces. Any prevarication by us will almost certainly embolden the homegrown fanatics to try something. Whether we like it or not this "war" will be a long drawn out affair that has to involve the use of troops on the ground. Air strikes should be used as our involvement and leave "local" forces to be used on the ground. Bit late to worry about the threat now cameron, the time has passed for not interfering,they already have us as a target because of our interference in iraq etc. and then you allow them to come here with no vetting and no idea where they are or what they are doing. We should never have got involved in the first place if we wanted to be seen as neutral, now due to the destabalisation we caused a new threat has emerged, a real threat not a bogus one as saddam turned out to be we are responsible for the deaths now and we need to act. a u.n resolution would be pointless now Russia has become so hostile better to seek approval from those threatened by these animals.

Incase you don't know what's happening in the middle east.

President Assad ( who is bad ) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels ( who are good ) started winning ( Hurrah!).
But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State ( who are definitely bad!) and some continued to support democracy ( who are still good.)

So the Americans ( who are good ) started bombing Islamic State ( who are bad ) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) so they could fight Assad ( who is still bad ) which was good.
By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS ( which is a good thing ) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.

Getting back to Syria.
So President Putin ( who is bad, cos he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks including that nice Russian man in London with polonium poisoned sushi ) has decided to back Assad ( who is still bad ) by attacking IS ( who are also bad ) which is sort of a good thing?

But Putin ( still bad ) thinks the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans ( who are good ) who are busy backing and arming the rebels ( who are also good).

Now Iran ( who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel are now good ) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad ( still bad ) as are the Russians ( bad ) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.

So a Coalition of Assad ( still bad ) Putin ( extra bad ) and the Iranians ( good, but in a bad sort of way ) are going to attack IS ( who are bad ) which is a good thing, but also the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) which is bad.

Now the British ( obviously good, except that nice Mr Corbyn in the corduroy jacket, who is probably bad ) and the Americans ( also good ) cannot attack Assad ( still bad ) for fear of upsetting Putin ( bad ) and Iran ( good / bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS ( who are super bad).

So Assad ( bad ) is now probably good, being better than IS ( but let’s face it, drinking your own wee is better than IS so no real choice there ) and since Putin and Iran are also fighting IS that may now make them Good. America ( still Good ) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr Putin ( now good ) and that nice mad Ayatollah in Iran ( also Good ) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now Bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS ( still the only constantly bad group).

To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims ( Assad and Iran ) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War, and the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as Good ( Doh!.)

Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal ( mmm.might have a point.) and hence we will be seen as Bad.

So now we have America ( now bad ) and Britain ( also bad ) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels ( bad ) many of whom are looking to IS ( Good / bad ) for support against Assad ( now good ) who, along with Iran ( also Good) and Putin ( also, now, unbelievably, Good ) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started?

So, now you fully understand everything, all your questions are answered!!!!