United Nations' Peace plan on Syria - a title that was covered in every media channels last week. UN Security Council approved a ceasefire plan for Syria which has been struggling with civil war since 2011. Doesn't UN's plan lead some questions in our mind? For instance, to what extend can someone believe that a plan by UN would end up 'peace'? And, why did it take so long to approve such a plan?
Civil War has left large parts of Syria destroyed
Firstly, we can look at the current situations of the countries where UN or Western states intervened in order to bring peace or stability. Afghanistan, Iraq or Sudan might give some idea about how the intervention resulted. While it would be unfair to expect a total positive outcome from such interventions, it is not acceptable to intervene to a country so as to make the country better but make it worse at the end. Thus, I believe many people are skeptical concerning UN's plan as it would entail anything but peace.
Secondly, hasn't the situation in Syria been already worse enough and need a 'peace' plan before? A battle in Middle East is not against the interest of the West. Additionally, numerous refugees have not started to migrate to Western countries until then. The latter contributed to the decision of a peace plan in Syria. Besides, the plan was provoked when ISIS began to be a serious threat for the West. It is clear from John Kerry's - US Secretary of State - words he has said that it is the time for ending the civil war in Syria just after the attacks in Paris.
UN Security Council approving a peace process for Syria
Therefore, apart from the ambiguity regarding the consequences of the 'peace' plan, I believe that there are more doubts about the 'sincerity' of the Western countries as we witness the 'double standard' that they have been carrying out in several cases. Why does such an organization - United Nations -, whose purpose is to provide the peace and good relations among the countries take action so late? United Nations, which supports solving problems without a war, needs to introduce a plan only when the Western countries are under threat of terrorist attacks. Isn't that enough to have doubts about UN or West?
Likewise, why did Ban Ki Moon - Secretary-General of UN - wait so long to indicate 'the people in Syria have suffered enough'. The Syrian people or people in Iraq have already been suffering enough. Unfortunately, it seems that it has become 'enough' and necessary to introduce a peace plan when there was an influx of several people who threaten the security in Western countries.
U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry during the voting
Consequently, nobody expects that UN or West will solve the problems and bring a full peace. Nevertheless, it is expected more than the attitude of UN. One expects from UN not to ignore some countries' provocations. One expects it to have the equal sensitivity towards the cases happening other parts of the world. After all, United Nations is an intergovernmental organization which includes not only Western countries but also Eastern ones.