The article “EU: Syrian Leadership Will Be Held Accountable” by Robert Wielaard discuss the difficulties of Syrian intervene given the current Syrian civil war and atrocities committed by the Syrian government. For example, The EU has promised to step up sanctions and document the war crimes so that reparations can be made upon peace. On the other hand, the United Nations has not step in or condemned the atrocities because China and Russia do not support such actions. The political implications of third party intervention can be very contentious when members of international organizations have economics stakes in a country. Therefore, peace agreements can be tricky to reach and once they are reached there effects can be minimal.
My paper hypotheses that peace agreements that include third party signatures are less effective than peace agreement between warring parties that do not include third party signatures. This article shows that within third parties dissention can diminish their authoritative power and even be apologetic to the offending warring party. China and Russia are hindering the UN’s ability to be an authoritative condemning force capable of encourage Syrian government to consider discussing peace resolutions.
After the conflict in Syria has ended and conditions for peace are being negotiated, I believe that UN intervention will be undermined due to China and Russia. Even though the majority of the international community has condemned Syrian violence, they have no real power to intervene and stop it unless they invest troops and lots of money. This intervention could result in a temporary suppression of violence but not a real resolution.
Article Link:
melanierader 
This article is very interesting in that it describes how efforts made to create peace may in fact actually increase it. I think it will be interesting to see if your research proves true in relation to this article. It would also be an interesting issue for the U.S. to consider due to them getting involved in a great deal of global affairs. It would a smart idea for the United States to look into. It would be beneficial in terms of the U.S. balancing the pros and cons of getting involved in foreign conflicts, and if us helping actually has as much value to these countries as we feel it does.
Melanie–This is great. What is it about the signature itself that is important? Do you know of examples where perhaps a third party intervened, but overall support was low? In this case, how does the signature affect the outcome? –EKF