What is clear is that the vast majority of candidates for becoming the US president agree to on directly or indirectly is that the United Nations cannot provide a solution to what ails the Middle East.
Demonstrative of that is the UN never really came up in the Republicsn Party debate on security of recent thereby showing how marginalized the number one international organization in the world has become in US foreign policy. Yet middle size countries like Canada could help to reverse that thinking at least to a degree.
The problem is that without give and take at a collective diplomatic level working within international law at the UN, the chance for peace and the defeat of ISIS may be even more remote as all these coalitions collide or go counter to each other.
It should be the UN Secretariat to act as a main facilitator to balance out the interests of these contending coalitions into a UN anti-Isis United force incorporating massive numbers of soldiers from a large variety of UN member countries.This is how to really isolate and defeat ISIS not by ad hoc efforts.
So we have now everyone talking of their own coalition to get rid of Isis. But the Saudis have theirs with different interests than one with Assad and the NATO one lite with primarily Germany, the UK, France and the USA. ISIS can only laugh at seeing the discord between so many on how to deal with them. Then there is Turkey as well, allied with the Turkmen in Syria but fighting the Kurds fairly allied with the USA.
It is a cauldron called Syria that seems to swallow all who go in there partly because of such fractured global and domestic interests there. And a place spitting out millions of refugees now beginning to even challenge the stability and cohesion of Europe.
Then we have Putin who sees Islamists agsinst Assad as terrorists and Obama and Turkey seem to have worked with groups that were extreme or became extreme with major US weapons in hand.
That part of NATO unlike Western Europe has been softer on doing major damage to ISIS, hoping ISIS would get Assad, whose removal is their coequal goal to ISIS being eliminated. Yes, go figure the logic but how to coalesce these different parties to stop then ISIS butchery.
With no possible solution in hand, why do not the nations of the world permit collective security have its chance. Yes, I know the UN has for many become an endless debating club.
But the mess in Syria as I have argued before is too complicated to be left to Republican or Democratic Party candidates to argue out in quick macho sound bites driven with simplistic solutions at time.
We need professional diplomats understanding the complexity of ggeopolitics in the UN Secretariat to be given room to come up with proposals including eventual plans to successfully repatriate Syrisn refugees. At least in the latter the UN is better than anyone.
Let us face it, NATO coalition, Assad-Russian coalition, Saudi Arabia coalition or Erdogan imperative from Turkey cannot solve this mess and neither can Iran.
Let the UN come up with the road map and then implement it with a million peace makers to fight ISIS. Then thereafter ISIS’s defeat to guarantee fair elections in Syria and redevelopment plans including refugee repatriation.
If not,I fear as I already stated before it happened that there will be more accidents that will bring the world closer to World War III such as the downing of the Russian bomber.
The egotistical interests of various coalitions can not get in the way of getting rid of ISIS. Let the UN do the job the US and other founding states set it up for in their collective wisdom. But if the world is collectively determined not to solidify together to get rid of ISIS then the UN should not set itself up to be a global security failure.
Canada, in its great history of fashioning the UN to be an effective peacemaker should with the new more pro UN, Trudeau government look into how the UN can be more effectively used to this end. That would beta good start before ISIS becomes an even greater global spectre.