Archive for the ‘China’ Category
Tuesday, May 7th, 2013
Introduction to the REPRISE (May 7, 2013)
So, Obama’s “red line” on the use of chemical weapons in Syria turns out to be a red line that leads directly to the Kremlin.
What American diplomacy has failed to achieve, spectacularly, Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry now think they can achieve by talking to Putin and Lavrov.
Well, maybe. But hardly likely. Lavrov and Putin now achieve their goal of holding the conference Kofi Annan conjured up as one of his last “castles in the sky” at the conference held at Geneva on June 30, 2012.
How this will stop the killing in Syria is anyone’s guess.
It is just words, words to get Obama off the hook for his “red line” comment, which have come back to haunt him now that al-Assad has used chemical weapons in Syria.
Now that Obama is once again seeking a solution by going to the Russians, who have steadfastly supported al-Assad in his commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity, we can all breathe a sigh of relief. See the following Reprise from the Trenchant Observer to understand just how pitiful this last move by Obama and “the gang who couldn’t shoot straight” is.
Sadly, our hopes in John Kerry seem to have been misplaced. He appears now to have joined “the gang who couldn’t shoot straight”. His role will be to do Obama’s bidding. Obama will continue to control foreign policy from the White House, guided by assistants such as Ben Rhodes.
If this course is not corrected, the disasters of Obama’s first term are likely to be repeated, on a much grander scale with much graver consequences.
REPRISE: “Looney Toons” at the White House: New York Times article details Obama’s thinking on Syria—Obama’s Debacle in Syria — Update #45 (May 27)
Originally published May 27, 2012
looney-tunes
adj.
[after Looney Tunes, trademark for a series of animated cartoons] [Slang] crazy; demented: also loon’ y-tunes
***
loony
[Slang]
adj.
loon’i-er, looní-est [LUNATIC] crazy; demented
n.,
pl. loon’-ies a loony person Also loon” ey, pl. -eys
***
–Webster’s New Worl Dictionary
**************************************************
In a front-page article in today’s New York Times, Helen Cooper and Mark Landler describe the thinking behind President Obama’s policy towards Syria. They report,
WASHINGTON — In a new effort to halt more than a year of bloodshed in Syria, President Obama will push for the departure of President Bashar al-Assad under a proposal modeled on the transition in another strife-torn Arab country, Yemen.
The plan calls for a negotiated political settlement that would satisfy Syrian opposition groups but that could leave remnants of Mr. Assad’s government in place. Its goal is the kind of transition under way in Yemen, where after months of violent unrest, President Ali Abdullah Saleh agreed to step down and hand control to his vice president, Abdu Rabbu Mansour Hadi, in a deal arranged by Yemen’s Arab neighbors. Mr. Hadi, though later elected in an uncontested vote, is viewed as a transitional leader.
The success of the plan hinges on Russia, one of Mr. Assad’s staunchest allies, which has strongly opposed his removal.
–Helen Cooper and Mark Landler, “U.S. Hopes Assad Can Be Eased Out With Russia’s Aid,” New York Times, May 27, 2012.
President Obama, administration officials said,
will press the proposal with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia next month at their first meeting since Mr. Putin returned to his old post on May 7. Thomas E. Donilon, Mr. Obama’s national security adviser, raised the plan with Mr. Putin in Moscow three weeks ago.
Donilon, who is not a seasoned diplomat, apparently did not impress Putin, judging by the latter’s cancellation of his participation in the G-8 summit at Camp David on May 18-19.
The biggest problem with the Yemen model, several experts said, is that Yemen and Syria are starkly different countries. In Yemen, Mr. Saleh kept his grip on power for three decades by reconciling competing interests through a complex system of patronage. When his authority collapsed, there was a vice president, Mr. Hadi, who was able to assert enough control over Yemen’s splintered security forces to make him a credible transitional leader.
In Syria, by contrast, Mr. Assad oversees a security state in which his minority Alawite sect fears that if his family is ousted, it will face annihilation at the hands of the Sunni majority. That has kept the government remarkably cohesive, cut down on military defections and left Mr. Assad in a less vulnerable position than Mr. Saleh. Even if he leaves, American officials conceded, there is no obvious candidate to replace him.
The sheer incompetence of this White House on foreign policy matters is stunning.
Paradoxically, among a number of news commentators within the Washington bubble, Obama is viewed as doing pretty well on foreign policy, particularly since taking out Osama Bin Laden. None of these commentators are foreign policy experts with any experience, however. Further, Democratic foreign policy experts have largely held their silence, probably out of concern that criticism could help the Republicans in the November elections. Moreover, Obama has since his first days in office charmed the press, and many reporters and commentators are simply unwilling to criticize the administration on foreign policy issues in any fundamental way.
Significantly, the Washington Post, which is the one newspaper read by most government officials in Washington, has simply failed to cover Syria with a reporter, usually being content to just run the AP wire story. What contributions they do make are limited in the main to stories providing information by administration officials, named and unnamed.
The Editorial Board, on the other hand, has written some clear-minded editorials on Syria. The disconnect betwee the Editorial Board and the reporting side of the newspaper is hard to understand, especially in view of the Post’s illustrious history.
Despite the reputed “successfulness” of the administration’s foreign policy leadership–which analytically does not stretch beyond the fact that it has not become an issue which hurts the Obama in the presidential race, the utter lack of serousness of Preident Obama and the White House on Syria is exposed for all to see in today’s New York Times article by Cooper and Landler.
Washington’s response to Moscow’s callous support of al-Assad as he killed thousands of people through war crimes and crimes against humanity is on a par with Éduoard Daladier’s and Neville Chamberlain’s betrayal of Czechoslovakia in October, 1938, when they signed “the Munich Pact”.
One of the first betrayals on Syria was with Turkey:
Secretary Clinton caught her Turkish counterpart off guard during their meeting in Washington last month. Clinton reportedly told Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu that the Obama Administration “preferred going through the Russians” in an attempt to achieve a political solution being shopped by the UN/Arab League’s Special Syrian Envoy Kofi Annan.
–Amb. Marc Ginsberg, “Syria Is Obama’s Srebrenica,” Huffington Post (The Blog), March 28, 2012 .
On the U.S. decision to sell out its regional allies and to work through Russia instead, see
The Trenchant Observer, “The emperor has no clothes”: Foreign policy without a moral core—Obama’s Debacle in Syria — Update #19 (March 29), March 29, 2012.
The Trenchant Observer, “Into the Abyss: Washington’s Fecklessness, Syria’s Fate—Obama’s Debacle in Syria — Update #20 (March 30), March 30, 2012.
The reader is invited to read the Observer’s recent articles on Syria, and to draw his or her own conclusions as to whether Obama, Donilon, Clinton and the rest of the administration’s foreign policy team are conducting a competent foreign policy, first of all in Syria, but also everywhere else.
In the Observer’s opinion, this team is “the gang who couldn’t shoot straight”. For example, the Sixth Summit of the Americas, held in Cartagena, Colombia on April 14-15, was totally overshadowed by the prostitution scandal involving members of the Secret Serivce and the U.S. military. Little press attention was given to the substance of the meeting, the most important of the year with the leaders of the Latin American countries.
See Brian Ellsworth (Cartagena, Colombia), “Despite Obama charm, Americas summit boosts U.S. isolation,” April 16, 1012.
Now, on the Syrian question, by following a path of “working through the Russians”, the Obama administration has given up its last shred of moral legitimacy in the Middle East. Between al-Assad, Russia, China, and Iran, on the one hand, and the people of Syria, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries, on the other, and in the face of immense human suffering and the ongoing commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity by the al-Assad regime, the United States is pursuing a strategy of “working through the Russians.”
Obama is incompetent as a foreign policy leader. Former Ambassador Marc Ginsberg is to be congratulated for his moral courage in speaking out on the question of Syria, in a clear voice.
What the United States needs, desperately, is for other foreign policy experts–and national leaders–to speak out with equal clarity, be they aligned with the Democratic Party in the United States, with the Republicans, or from other countries that are friends of the United States.
In the meantime, the international community would do well to look elsewhere than to the United States for leadership on the Syrian question.
See The Trenchant Observer, “At least 70 killed nationwide; massacre of 50 in Houla; U.N. International Commission on Syria Update—Obama’s Debacle in Syria — Update # 43 (May 25),” May 25, 2012.
The Trenchant Observer, “Chief of UN Observers confirms massacre at Houla; NGOs report 35 children and total of 110 killed—Obama’s Debacle in Syria — Update #44 (May 26),” May 26, 2012.
The Trenchant Observer
Tags: 1933, Alawite, Barack Obama, Bashar al-Assad, Brian Ellsworth, Camp David, Cartagena, China, Democratic Party, Democrats, dimitri medvedev, doing well on foreign policy, editorial board, Éduoard Daladier, foreign policy experts, foreign policy experts from other countries, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Hadi, Helen Cooper, Iran, John Kerry, last shred of moral legitimacy in the Middle East, Lebanon, looney, Looney Tunes, loony, LOooney Tunes at the White House, marc ginsberg, Mark Landler, Munich Pact, Neville Chamberlain, Obama's Srebrenice, Osama Bin Laden, Qatar, Republicans, Russia, Saleh, Saudi Arabia, Secretary of State, sheer incompetence of the White House, struggle for democracy in syria, Syria is Obama's Srebrenice, the emperor has no clothes, the most imcompetent president on foreign policy since World War II, the Yemen model, Thomas E. Donilon, Turkey, vladimir putin, Washington Post, with Russia's aid, working through the Russians, worst president on foreign policy since WW II, Yemen
Posted in Barack Obama, China, CIA, Crimes Against Humanity, History, human rights, International Law, Iran, Israel, Lebanon, Russia, State Department, State Department Legal Adviser, U.N. Charter, U.S Foreign Relations, U.S. Congress, U.S. Intervention, United Kingdom, United States, use of force, war crimes, Yemen | No Comments »
Friday, April 12th, 2013
The United Nations Charter is the only constitution we have for governance of the planet. It is not likely that it is going to be changed signficantly or that we are going to get a new one.
Therefore, we need to use it to deal with grave threats to international peace and security such as North Korea’s recent threats to attack neighboring countries, perhaps with nuclear weapons.
No one can deny that a grave threat to international peace and security exists.
See, e.g., Jethro Mullen, “North Korea issues new threat to U.S. bases,” CNN, March 26, 2013 (updated 7:38 PM EDT).
Unless we are to go back to the system of the great powers in 19th century, we need to use the international law and institutions that we have, which were created following World War II.
Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter provides in part:
CHAPTER VII: ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION
Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.
…
Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.
Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.
The “threat to the peace” consists of North Korea’s threats to attack its neighbors, in violation of Article 2 paragrpahs 3 and 4 of the U.N. Charter, which provide:
Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
1.The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
2.All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
3.All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4.All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
…
It is time that the Security Council assume its responsibilities for the maintenance of international peace and security under the terms of the United Nations Charter.
This is the world’s constiution. It cannot be taken for granted. Great Powers may think they know what North Korea is going to do. But the time for the Security Council to act is now, not after Seoul or another city has been wiped off the map.
New and additional sanctions should be imposed against North Korea for its recent behavior of actively threatening to launch nuclear attacks on other countries.
If such threats are not sanctioned now, will they become commonplace in the future? And if they do, who can assure the world that they will never be carried out?
The Trenchant Observer
Tags: Article 2 (3), article 2 (4), Article 39, article 42, Chapter VII, grave threats to international peace and security, North Korea, North Korea's recent threats, nuclear threats, The United Nations Charter is the only constitution we have for governance of the planet, U.N. Charter
Posted in Barack Obama, China, History, International Law, North Korea, Nuclear Proliferation, Russia, sanctions, self-defense, State Department, State Department Legal Adviser, U.N. Charter, U.N. Security Council, United States, use of force | No Comments »
Sunday, March 17th, 2013
In an Op-Ed piece by Bill Keller published in the New York Times on March 16, 2013, Keller describes the high probability that “smart drones” will be introduced in the future, in which the aerial-borne robotic machine and its computer will decide which targets and individuals and groups to fire upon, without human intervention. Keller notes that Israel, in fact, has already introduced such an aircraft, the Harpy. Keller notes,
Israel is the first country to make and deploy (and sell, to China, India, South Korea and others) a weapon that can attack pre-emptively without a human in charge. The hovering drone called the Harpy is programmed to recognize and automatically divebomb any radar signal that is not in its database of “friendlies.” No reported misfires so far, but suppose an adversary installs its antiaircraft radar on the roof of a hospital?
–Bill Keller, Op-Ed, “Smart Drones,” New York Times, March 16, 2013.
The entire op-ed piece speaks of advances in warfare based on the underlying assumption that continued warfare is inevitable, and that the most we can aspire to is to limit some forms of warfare or weapons used, such as land-mines. While there is a great deal to be said for international treaties and institutions that limit types and the extent of warfare–international humanitarian law or “the law of war” has precisely that aim, it seems that humanity has fallen into a downward spiral in its thinking and aspirations relating to war, and into what is in fact a profound moral abyss.
In 1945, no one doubted that the goal of international society and the new United Nations Charter and Organization should be the prevention of war, and the maintenance of international peace and security. This goal was almost self-evident to generations which had suffered the ravages of World War I (1914-1918) and World War II (1939-1945).
But today our leaders no longer espouse the goal of international peace. Like President Barack Obama in his Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech or Lecture in 2009, they have no vision of peace as an overriding goal to which other objectives should be subordinated. Rather, permanent war is in the minds of the leaders of today. Obama, in thinking about his pivot to Asia, is thinking about military deployments in the region to check China’s rising military power. In the stand-off with Russia and China in the United Nations Security Council over Syria, the larger question of the goals and vision of international society has been lost, primarily but not exclusively as a result of Russian and Chinese obstinacy.
At best, particularly under Obama, we have a dearth of American leadership in world affairs in general and in the maintenance of international peace and security in particular. Here, France has stepped into the vacuum, first acting as a catalyst in Libya and more recently, acting by introducing French forces into Mali to halt the fall of that country to Islamic terrorist groups and Tuareg guerrillas.
But who, and in which countries, dares today to articulate a powerful vision of peace and how to get there?
Without a powerful vision of peace, such as that originally laid out in 1945 in the Preamble and Articles 1 and 2 of the United Nations Charter, humanity will continue to stumble down the terrible path of war, now to be mechanized with smart drones, and also soon to be characterized by an imminent breakdown in the international nuclear non-proliferation regime.
In five years, or at most 10, Iran will have nuclear weapons. In five years, or at most 10, North Korea will have weapons and delivery vehicles that can land a nuclear bomb in Seattle or Los Angeles, if not Washington, New York, Moscow or London.
Is it not time that we in the United States seek to purify ourselves of the flawed thinking of the Bush and the Obama administrations about the inevitability of war, about the malleability of our most sacred moral values such as the inviolability of the human person, about the central importance of respect for fundamental human rights, of every person–even enemy combatants–and begin to concentrate with all our mental, social and political powers on the question of peace, and how to achieve it?
Is not war, and the pursuit of war, evil, and are not the pursuit of international peace and the fundamental human rights of all persons in all countries goals which embody our highest moral values?
Should we, then, not act on the basis of those values, and turn all of our efforts to developing our visions of peace and our roadmaps on how to get there?
It is perhaps no exaggeration to assert that a positive future for mankind depends on our visions of peace and our efforts to achieve them, far more than it depends on the technological “advances” we might make in developing ever-better machines of war.
Now, let’s think one step further and ask whether peace can be established without international rules that are binding in nature. Is there any realistic vision of peace that does not rest, ultimately, on the development and observance of international law and institutions? That was the vision of the founders of the League of Nations in 1919, and of the founders of the United Nations in 1945.
Is it not time for a renewal of hope, of positive goals, of our own deeply-felt visions of peace, and of our own stalwart and courageous actions to secure that peace?
The Trenchant Observer
Tags: A dearth of american leadership inworld affairs, Aerial-bourne robotic machines, Bill keller, France has stepped into the vacuum, Harpy, Harpy. Israel, Humanitarian Law, Humanity in a downward spiral in its thinking and aspirations related to war, in Libya, in mali, in syria, international peace and security, into a profound moral abyss, Israel, lNobel lecture, New York Times, Nobel Prize acceptance speech, smart drones, The assumptiom that war is inevitable, The goal of international peace, thelaw of war, vision of peace
Posted in Barack Obama, China, Crimes Against Humanity, extrajudicial execution, France, human rights, International Law, Iran, Israel, Libya, Nobel Lecture, Nobel Peace Prize, Nuclear Proliferation, State Department Human Rights Country Reports, syria, targeted assassinations, targeted killings, Torture, U.N. Charter, U.N. Convention Against Torture, U.N. Security Council, U.N. Torture Convention, U.S. Military, United States, use of force, vision of peace, war crimes | No Comments »
Wednesday, February 20th, 2013
There is nothing inevitable about international order.
The lessons of two world wars which informed the creation of the United Nations in 1945, and the maintenance of international peace and security for over 60 years, can be forgotten.
It is entirely conceivable that without decisive leadership from either Europe or the United States, the international order that has existed for many decades could start to wobble and even collapse.
And it is nearly impossible to conceive of such leadership emerging any time soon.
The rubble in Syria resembles the rubble in Berlin and the destruction in Germany in 1945, which occurred the last time the international order collapsed.
How bad could it get?
You could have wars like the one in Syria devastating countries in Africa, a nuclear attack on Los Angeles from North Korea, Iran with nuclear weapons and delivery systems within 5-10 years, and Israel surrounded by hostile Islamist states.
Things could fall apart.
Imagine a world without law, without international law governing the use of force which is generally observed and which states seek to uphold when it is violated.
Imagine true anarchy unleashed upon the world.
Imagine a world in which states use force without acknowledging they have acted, and without any obligation to publicly justify the legitimacy of their actions by reference to international law.
That is the direction in which we are heading.
The Trenchant Observer
Tags: Berlin in 1945, Egypt, Illegal use of force, international anarchy, international governing the use of force, Iran withnuclearweapons and delivery systems, Israel surrounded by hostileislamist states, los angeles, North Korea, The collapse of international order, The rubbleinsyria, therubble in berlin in 1945, world without international law
Posted in Afghanistan, Bahrain, Barack Obama, China, CIA, Crimes Against Humanity, debate over the efficacy of torture, Deutschland, Dictatorship, Egypt, extrajudicial execution, extraordinary rendering, extraordinary rendition, France, Germany, History, human rights, International Law, Iran, Israel, Ivory Coast, Lebanon, Libya, Mali, Middle East, Mossad, NATO, Nigeria, Nobel Lecture, Nobel Peace Prize, North Korea, Nuclear Proliferation, Pakistan, refoulement, Russia, self-defense, Somalia, State Department, State Department Legal Adviser, syria, Taliban, targeted assassinations, targeted killings, Torture, Tunisia, U.N. Charter, U.N. Security Council, united arab emirates, United Kingdom, United States, use of force, war crimes, Yemen | 1 Comment »
Wednesday, January 2nd, 2013
Barbarism in a Leaderless World
The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights now estimates there have been “59,648 individuals reported killed in Syria between 15 March 2011 and 30 November 2012.” This number may in fact be well short of the actual number as tens of thousands of people are reported to have disappeared with no word as to their fates.
See United Nations, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, “Data analysis suggests over 60,000 people killed in Syria conflict: Pillay,” United Nations Human Rights, January 2, 2012. See Megan Price, Jeff Klingner, and Patrick Ball, “Preliminary Statistical Analysis of Documentation of Killings in the Syrian Arab Republic,” The Benetech Human Rights Program, 2 January 2013, here.
At such a juncture it is appropriate to reprise the article whose text appears below, yet again. See also Jacques Prévert’s poem “Barabara”, in The Trenchant Observer, “REPRISE: Hommage à Homs: Jacques Prévert, “Barbara” (with English translation); Paul Verlaine, “Ariette III” —Obama’s Debacle in Syria— Update #53 (June 19)
Originally published July 28, 2012
The Opening of the XXX Olympic Games
It was a poignant moment, as world leaders gathered in London last night (July 27) for the opening of the XXX Olympic Games, with the performance of an extraordinary spectacle, in which at one point five Olympic rings appeared suspended in the heavens over the Olympic Stadium. Over a billion people were said to have watched the opening ceremonies on television.
Here, in the very heart of the democratic civilizations of Europe, the Olympic ideal shone brightly.
In ancient Greece, the Olympic Games were preceded by a “Sacred Truce” among the warring city-states, in which athletes were guaranteed safe passage to and from the games, and all fighting was to be halted for a period of one month. This period was eventually extended to allow the athletes and visitors to return home.
The games were held every four years from 776 BC to 393 AD, when they were abolished by the Christian Byzantine Emperor Theodosius I. The ancient Olympic Games lasted for 1170 years. The Modern Olympic Games were initiated in 1896, and have been held every four years or more often since then except for 1916, 1940 and 1944.
–”Brief History of the Olympic Games,” NOSTOS (Hellenic Information Society, UK).
Importantly, the Olympic Games today stand as a symbol for humanity’s goal of one day achieving universal peace. The alternative, it seems, is either the goal of endless war, or the resignation that goes with the sense of helplessness we feel when we reject the goal of peace.
The Battle for Aleppo, and the Response of the World
Meanwhile, in Aleppo in Syria, a country where the international community and the Security Council have been unable to reach agreement to act effectively to halt the atrocities of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, the portents of death and destruction were all too palpable yesterday and today, as the regime’s troops, tanks, artillery, helicopters and war planes began a concerted assault on the lightly armed rebels of the Syrian Liberation Army, in what a pro-Assad Damascus newspaper termed “the Mother of all Battles”.
Today, on Saturday, July 28, the battle was joined in earnest.
For news of recent developments on the ground in Syria, see
Luke Harding (in Anadan, on the Aleppo front line), “Syrian rebels near Aleppo: ‘We are besieging Assad’s army’; Regime forces have been pulverising rebel-held districts using artillery and helicopter gunships. But the rebels are upbeat,” The Guardian, July 28, 2012 (11:35 EDT).
Damien McElroy (in Aleppo), “Badly armed rebels face tanks as Syria’s mother of all battles begins,” The Telegraph, July 28, 2012 (6:57PM BST).
Álvaro de Cózar (Special Correspondent in Marea), “El Ejército sirio avanza para tomar Alepo; Las tropas de El Asad atacan con bombas y tanques los barrios en manos rebeldes; Las líneas de teléfono y el suministro de energía han sido cortados, El País, 28 Julio 2012 (23:45 CET).
Kareem Fahim and Ellen Barry, “Syrian Military Intensifies Assault on Rebels in Aleppo,” New York Times, July 28, 2012
***
Unfortunately, Americans accessing the Internet do not find it easy to gain a sense of what is actually taking place on the ground, due to “The Filter Bubble” which prevents most U.S. observers on the Internet from seeing the search results for newspapers outside of their own country (including, e.g., British and other newspapers which have correspondents on the ground in Syria). To get around The Filter Bubble, see the directions in the bottom right-hand column on the right on our Home Page, or go here.
Thus, as the world turns its attention to the joyful spectacle of athletes from countries throughout the world competing on the basis of individual merit, as humanity comes together for its quadrennial celebration of the richness and diversity of the human family, the people in Aleppo and in Syria are left to face the absolute terror and barbarism of the Bashar al-Assad regime, alone.
Russia and China, along with the Syrian regime, are clearly to blame for this state of affairs, and populations who follow international affairs throughout the world are aware of the role they have have played in thwarting effective U.N. Security Council action. Memories of how they have backed the murderous regime of al-Assad are likely to be long indeed in the Middle East, and also in the democracies of the world.
The United States and other Western countries warn of an impending massacre in Aleppo, as if anyone but they themselves could save the day.
It is a new role for Americans: Eyewitness News reporters without an inkling of any sense of moral responsibility that might lead them to act. In this role, they are following the lead of their president.
The Americans, the Europeans, top U.N. officials and others loudly deplore the lamentable state of affairs in Syria in general, and the unfolding of the “mother of all battles” in Aleppo, in particular.
Leaderless, they stand helpless and paralyzed before the terror and barbarism of al-Assad.
They provide countless declarations of moral outrage, and call for the nations of the world to increase their “pressure” on the al-Assad regime.
The “pressure” of which they speak is a “pressure” of words, of plaintive moral appeals directed to war criminals whose moral depravity is beyond dispute. Or perhaps the “pressure” may even consist of voluntary economic sanctions, imposed by different countries outside the framework of the U.N. Security Council, whose impact is uncertain and in any event will take much time.
Neither words nor economic sanctions, however, will stop al-Assad’s armies.
These leaders are at once appalled by the terror, the barbarism, the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity before their very eyes, and caught in their own moral cowardice, impotent, helpless, with verbal reproaches the only weapons they have the courage to wield. Paralyzed by their own cowardice, they will not act—not effectively, not in time to save the thousands of additional deaths that the grinding gears of war portend to claim, and of which they so earnestly warn.
Enough with Words!
These leaders can all do the world one big favor: Stop denouncing al-Assad’s atrocities, at least until they are willing to do something really effective to bring them to a halt.
With their moral energies thus freed, they can pay close attention to the facts on the ground, to what is actually happening to thousands of human beings in the maw of war, and then they can seek quiet solace in their churches, their synagogues, their mosques, and the other spiritual refuges in which they must, as individual human beings, come to terms with what they have seen, and what they have not done.
Enough with words!
Enough with the self-absolving declarations these leaders offer to the world, and to themselves, so they can sleep at night, knowing they were present at Srebrenice, present at Auschwitz, present in Rwanda, over a very long period of time, and did nothing.
President Theodore Roosevelt, Recipient of the 1907 Nobel Peace Prize, on Words and Deeds
As for President Obama, who reportedly likes to think of himself as emulating the great American presidents, the words of President Theodore Roosevelt, recipient of the 1907 Nobel Peace Prize, come to mind. Roosevelt declared:
“International Peace”
…
We must ever bear in mind that the great end in view is righteousness, justice as between man and man, nation and nation, the chance to lead our lives on a somewhat higher level, with a broader spirit of brotherly goodwill one for another. Peace is generally good in itself, but it is never the highest good unless it comes as the handmaid of righteousness; and it becomes a very evil thing if it serves merely as a mask for cowardice and sloth, or as an instrument to further the ends of despotism or anarchy. We despise and abhor the bully, the brawler, the oppressor, whether in private or public life, but we despise no less the coward and the voluptuary. No man is worth calling a man who will not fight rather than submit to infamy or see those that are dear to him suffer wrong. No nation deserves to exist if it permits itself to lose the stern and virile virtues; and this without regard to whether the loss is due to the growth of a heartless and all-absorbing commercialism, to prolonged indulgence in luxury and soft, effortless ease, or to the deification of a warped and twisted sentimentality.
Moreover, and above all, let us remember that words count only when they give expression to deeds, or are to be translated into them (emphasis added). The leaders of the Red Terror2 prattled of peace while they steeped their hands in the blood of the innocent; and many a tyrant has called it peace when he has scourged honest protest into silence. Our words must be judged by our deeds; and in striving for a lofty ideal we must use practical methods; and if we cannot attain all at one leap, we must advance towards it step by step, reasonably content so long as we do actually make some progress in the right direction.
[Footnote] 2. The “Terror” is a term characterizing the conduct of power in revolutionary France by the second committee of Public Safety (September, 1793-July, 1794), sometimes identified as the “Red Terror” to distinguish it from the short-lived “White Terror”, which was an effort by the Royalists in 1795 to destroy the Revolution.
–Theodore Roosevelt, 1907 Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech, delivered May 5, 1910.
President Obama and the other leaders of the world would do well to take these words to heart, today, and every day hereafter until they find the courage to take effective action to halt the barbarism and the terror in Syria.
The Trenchant Observer
observer@trenchantobserver.com
www.twitter.com/trenchantobserv
For links to other articles by The Trenchant Observer, click on the title at the top of this page to go to the home page, and then use the “Search” Box or consult the information in the bottom right hand corner of the home page. The Articles on Syria page can also be found here. The Articles on Targeted Killings page can also be found here.
Tags: 60000 killed in Syria, al-Assad, al-Watan, Alep, Alepo, Aleppo, Álvaro de Cózar, Anadan, articles on syria page, atrocities, barbarism, barbarism in a leaderless world, Crimes Against Humanity, Damien McElroy, Debacle in Syria, direct link to statistical analysis, El País, Ellen Barry, Jeff Klingner, Kareem Fahim, Luke Harding, Megan Price, Navi Pillay, New York Times, Nobel Lecture, Nobel Peace Prize, NOSTOS, Obama, Olympic Games, Patrick Bell, Siria, syria, Syrie, Syrien, the Battle for Aleppo, the Benentech Human Rights Program, the filter bubble, The Guardian, the mother of all battles, the response of the world, the sacred truce, tHE tELEGRAPH, the Washington Post, theodore roosevelt, U.N. HIgh Commissioner for Human Rights, UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, war crimes, words and deeds
Posted in Azerbaijan, Barack Obama, China, CIA, Crimes Against Humanity, Deutschland, Egypt, France, Germany, History, human rights, India, Intelligence, internal supporters of human rights, International Law, Lebanon, Libya, Middle East, Poetry, Portugal, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, State Department, State Department Human Rights Country Reports, State Department Legal Adviser, syria, Torture, Turkey, U.N. Charter, U.N. Convention Against Torture, U.N. Security Council, U.N. Torture Convention, U.S. Military, United Kingdom, United States, use of force, war crimes | No Comments »
Wednesday, December 12th, 2012
This article was first published on September 1, 2012
The situation in Syria (is) unfolding “in front of our eyes”, with the regime deploying fighter jets against the people, in addition to heavy artillery and tanks, (Ahmet DAVUTOĞLU, the Foreign Minister of Turkey, told the Security Council on August 30). “How long are we going to sit and watch while an entire generation is being wiped out by random bombardment and deliberate mass targeting?” he asked. “If we do not act against such a crime against humanity happening in front of our eyes, we become accomplice to the crime,” he warned.
As we wrote following the August 30 meeting of the Security Council,
Everyone wants a ceasefire and an end to the killing. Few seem to have come to grips with the fact that the use of force will be required, outside the framework of the Security Council. There can be little doubt that, within the Security Council itself, there is not going to be any agreement to use force (or even to adopt strong economic sanctions) to bring al-Assad’s barbarism to a halt.
This will have to be done outside the framework of the Security Council. What is needed is for one or more countries, preferably but not necessarily acting as a coalition, to just act to set up the safe zones, and one or more accompanying no-fly zones if that is required as a result of al-Assad’s response.
–U.N. Security Council Meets: More “blah, blah, blah”, and no action—Obama’s debacle in Syria — Update #82 (August 30), August 31, 2012.
Such action should be accompanied by a justification under international law.
That justification should stress that the purpose of the action is to protect the population of Syria against the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The stated purpose of the operation should not be to overthrow the government of Bashar al-Assad, which is impermissible under international law. On the other hand, it would be permissible if an operation which protected the population against the commission of such crimes also facilitated a process that would bring to account those in Syria who are responsible for the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
While such fine distinctions may seem of little significance to those not versed in international law, they are in fact quite important in terms of limiting the precedent that would be set and obtaining support from other countries for such action, if not immediately at least over time.
For further discussion of legal justifications for intervention in Syria, see the following articles by The Trenchant Observer and the sources cited therein:
Continuing massacres in Syria, at Daraya and elsewhere; legal justification for military intervention — Obama’s Debacle in Syria —Update #78 (August 26), August 26, 2012
REPRISE: Humanitarian Intervention in Syria Without Security Council Authorization—Obama’s Debacle in Syria— Update #68 (July 25), July 25, 2012
Military Intervention to establish “no-kill zones” and humanitarian corridors—Syria Update #9 (February 25), February 24, 2012
The critical issue with respect to legal justifications for establishing and defending “safe zones” or “no-kill zones” in Syria, and the establishment of no-fly zones if required, is whether such action would violate Article 2 paragraph 4 of the United Nations Charter. Article 2(4) provides:
Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
…
(4) All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
On the face of it, the use of force to enforce a no-fly zone, or to defend a “safe zone” from assaults by Syria’s army, would involve an action against the “territorial integrity” of Syria. This is the horn of the dilemma.
Read literally, any permanent member of the Security Council could, through the use of its veto, block any military action by any state within the territory of another state, except in the case of an “armed attack”, no matter what the circumstances. In principle, such a veto could block any action by the civilized nations of the world to bring to a halt a war crimes and crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing such as occurred in Kosovo, or even genocide such as that conducted by Adolph Hitler during World War II.
Various interpretations of the Charter have proposed ways out of this logical box. One is the so-called “teleological” interpretation, by which Article 2(4) must be interpreted not literally, but rather in the light of the general purposes of the U.N. Charter and its other principles. Using this approach, one might justify the establishment of “no-kill zones” and “no-fly zones” in Syria.
The problem is that such “teleological” interpretations might open Pandora’s box, allowing multiple interpretations and opportunities for abuse by states intervening for their own purposes, e.g., to overthrow the al-Assad regime, while putting a humanitarian argument forward to justify their actions. Or, to cite another example, Israel and the United States might attempt to justify an attack on Iran to take out or greatly degrade its nuclear enrichment capabilities and what they believe is a secret program aimed at developing nuclear weapons, on the rationale that it is necessary to maintain international peace and security.
Alternatively, Israel and the United States could in principle attempt to justify an attack on Iran as an exercise of the right of individual and collective self-defense, an exception to the prohibition in Article 2(4) contained in Article 51 of the Charter, which provides:
Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
The key words in Article 51 are “if an armed attack occurs”, which has been interpreted as embodying the requirements that the armed attack have occurred or be imminent, immediate and leave no time for other actions. Exercise of the right of self-defense has traditionally been subject to the requirements “immediacy, necessity and proportionality”.
See Flavio Paioletti, “The 21st Century Challenges to Article 51,” e-International Relations, June 30, 2011.
The United States and other nations have not always acted within this tight legal framework. In 1999, for example, the United States and NATO conducted a unilateral bombing campaign against Serbia in a successful effort to get the government to stop its policy of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. Despite its humanitarian purpose, no legal justification was advanced by the U.S. Department of State for the action.
In Iraq, the United States sought to justify its 2003 invasion of that country both on the basis of previous Security Council resolutions and on the basis of the “right” advanced by the Bush administration to “pre-emptive self defense”.
The concern of states and legal scholars from around the world is that by allowing “teleological” interpretations of Article 2(4) or expansive interpretations of what constitutes “an armed attack” creating a right of individual and collective self-defense, such interpretations would open the door to increasingly expansive assertions of the right to use force across international frontiers. It is significant that in the case of Kosovo, no legal justification was offered.
So, we are left with the legal regime brilliantly defined by the founders of the United Nations to establish rules and mechanisms to effectively regulate the international use of force, on the one hand, and the fact that as the populations of more and more countries seek to demand respect for their fundamental human rights, and the right to participate in government, existing dictorships may resort to the appalling use of terror and crimes against humanity and war crimes in defending their hold on power, as has happened recently in Libya and Syria.
Unlike domestic laws and the constitution in the U.S., the United Nations Charter and other international agreements are subject to rules of strict interpretation, as established in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. This makes sense, as nations are generally extremely wary of ceding authority to international institutions, and rules of strict interpretation are necessary in order to secure participation in international treaties. While the United Nations Charter is something of a special case, since very few countries would consider withdrawal from the organization, acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice remains voluntary, a fact which underlines the continuing importance of rules of strict interpretation.
Caught in this logical box, are we to stand idly by as tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of human beings are slaughtered, whenever a permanent member of the Security Council exercises a veto?
The United Nations Charter is 67 years old. It has survived the Korean war, the war in Vietnam, the invasions of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Afghanistan (1980), the Balkan wars, genocide in Rwanda and the Sudan, and the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
The fundamental question is whether states should: (1) simply act outside the charter when they feel compelled to do so for humanitarian reasons (e.g., Kosovo); (2) justify their actions on legal grounds, preferably as taken with the support of regional organizations (e.g., NATO) or a broad coalition of nations; or (3) do nothing in the face of acts of barbarism such as those being committed in Syria.
In the case of Kosovo, Russia brought a resolution to a vote in the Security Council which condemned the bombing of Serbia, but the resolution was defeated 12-3.
Perhaps that is as close to 100% compliance with the Charter norms as we can get in the world today.
The ultimate choice is between undertaking effective action that will halt the atrocities in Syria, or sticking with our current policies.
In the case of the U.S., the current policy is carefully calibrated to comply with the requirements on the use of force laid down by the International Court of Justice in 1986 in the Nicaragua case. In that case, the Court held that direction and control of rebel groups was required in order for assistance to rebel groups to constitute an armed attack, thereby triggering a right of individual or collective self defense.
If the decision is made to establish safe zones and associated no-fly zones (if necessary), a final choice is whether to provide some legal justification for such action, or to follow the example of the United States in the NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999, and offer none.
While the choice here is not entirely clear, a strong argument can be made for advancing a highly restrictive legal justification, narrowly tailored to the circumstances in the Syrian case, together with the support of a regional body such as NATO, and undertaken only as a provisional measure of protection until such time as the Security Council can act effectively to protect the population of Syria from the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Russia may bring a resolution condemning such action in the Security Council. Assuming the resolution is defeated by a healthy margin, as occurred in the case of Kosovo, this may be the closest to compliance with the Charter as is possible today.
The Trenchant Observer
Tags: Article 2, Article 2(4), Artículo 2 párrafo 4, Assad, bachar al-assad, Bashar al-Assad, Carta das Nacões Unidas, Carta de las Naciones Unidas, Charte des Nations Unies, China, derecho internacional, direito internacional, droit international, e-International Relations, Flavio Paioletti, humanitarian intervention, il uman il-mutahida, International Law, intervenção militar, Intervention militaire, interventionsverbot, justificação jurídica, justificación jurídica, justificacion juridique, Legal Justications for military intervention in Syria, Legal Justififcation, Militarintervention, military intervention, paragraphe 4, progibición, prohibicão, prohibition of the use of force, Russia, Siria, surria, Syien, syria, Syrie, U.N. Charter, United States, uso de forza, uso de fuerza, Völkerrecht
Posted in Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Barack Obama, China, CIA, Crimes Against Humanity, extrajudicial execution, France, Germany, Guatemala, History, human rights, human rights reports, Intelligence, internal supporters of human rights, International Law, kosovo, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, NATO, Pakistan, Portugal, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, self-defense, Serbia, South Africa, State Department, State Department Legal Adviser, syria, targeted assassinations, targeted killings, Togo, Torture, Turkey, U.N. Charter, U.N. Security Council, U.S. Congress, U.S. Intervention, U.S. Military, United Kingdom, United States, use of force, war crimes, Yemen | No Comments »
Thursday, November 8th, 2012
Chinese Proposal for Syria
It is curious indeed to see China propose a “solution” to the Syrian civil war at this precise moment in time, when power is being transferred to Xi Jinping and a new generation of Communist Party leaders at the Party Congress which opens today.
The “proposal” is made of thin air, and seems to have been conjured up on the spot when Lakhdar Brahimi was in Beijing to discuss the Syrian situation with the foreign ministry.
See Colum Lynch (Turtle Bay), “Could China’s Syria ceasefire plan be the path to peace?” Foreign Policy, November 1, 2012. Lynch restates the details of the Chinese proposal, which include:
“A political settlement is the only viable solution in Syria,” Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi said, according to Xinhua, which outlined Beijing’s big idea:
First, relevant parties in Syria should make every effort to stop fighting and violence, and cooperate actively with the mediation efforts of Brahimi. Relevant parties should implement effective steps toward a cease-fire, for example region by region or phase by phase, expand the areas of cease-fire, realize disengagement, and eventually bring an end to all armed conflict and violence.
Second, relevant parties in Syria should appoint empowered interlocutors as soon as possible so that, assisted by Brahimi and the international community, they can formulate through consultations a roadmap of political transition, establish a transitional governing body of broad representation, and implement political transition so as to end the Syrian crisis at an early date. To ensure a safe, stable and calm transition, the continuity and effectiveness of Syria’s governmental institutions must be maintained.
Third, the international community should work with greater urgency and responsibility to fully cooperate with and support Brahimi’s mediation efforts and make real progress in implementing the communique of the Geneva foreign ministers’ meeting of the Action Group for Syria, Mr. Annan’s six-point plan and relevant Security Council resolutions. The positive efforts of the Arab League and countries in the region in search of a political settlement should be valued.
Fourth, relevant parties should take concrete steps to ease the humanitarian crisis in Syria. The international community should increase humanitarian assistance to the Syrian people and ensure proper resettlement of refugees beyond the Syrian border and timely aid for those in need within Syria. The Syrian government and various parties should render full cooperation to the work of the United Nations and relevant neutral institutions to provide humanitarian assistance in all conflict-affected regions and ensure the safety of their personnel. At the same time, humanitarian issues should not be politicized and humanitarian assistance should not be militarized.
The Chinese proposal should simply be ignored. It contains no more than previous “castles in the sky” agreed to by the permanent members of the Security Council, which contained no coercive measures to oblige al-Assad to stop the killing.
See Allison Jackson, “China’s peace plan for Syria: Q & A;
China has proposed a four-point peace plan for resolving the Syrian crisis. But what does it mean? And why now?” GlobalPost, November 7, 2012.
Anyone who believes that an agreement by al-Assad could mean anything, and could lead to an end to the fighting, has–to put it most charitably–either been asleep or not following developments in Syria for the last year.
The Ghost of Kofi Annan Arises
At the same time, the ghost of Kofi Annan has arisen in the form of Lakhdar Brahimi’s latest thoughts on a solution to the on-going civil war. It will be recalled that Brahimi was proposed by Kofi Annan as Russia and China exerted great pressure on Ban Ki-Moon to urgently appoint a successor to Kofi Annan following the latter’s resignation. Obligingly, without any public discussion of the desirability of continuing Annan’s ill-conceived and ill-fated mission, though with a new Special Envoy, Ban Ki-Moon appointed Brahimi at Annan’s suggestion.
Now, in the Chinese proposal with Brahimi, we see the same plan Annan was floating in Geneva on June 30. We see the same worn, rejected ideas resurface in Brahimi’s latest thinking, including–incredibly–the idea of the Syrian government and others in Syria appointing “empowered interlocutors” to negotiate transitional arrangements. Brahimi has in the last few days warned of a collapse of the Syrian state and the “Somalization” of the conflict, while also arguing the June 30 agreement in Geneva should be adopted by the Security Council as a resolution. He seems to be grasping at straws in the face of an increasingly desperate situation.
That these ideas have not died once and for all, after the deaths of tens of thousands of Syrians during the period of Kofi Annan’s mission (which amounted to de facto work on behalf of the Russians and al-Assad himself), is beyond incredible.
It is so incredible that the United States and other nations should rethink their support of the U.N. peacekeeping activities led by current officials, and act, immediately, to defund the office in Geneva which supports Brahimi’s futile and dangerous mission.
The U.N. administration under Ban Ki-Moon’s leadership has contributed exactly zero in efforts to halt the killing by the al-Assad government in Syria, and has acted in fact in ways which have delayed effective action by other states by endlessly holding out unfounded hopes and “castles in the sky“.
Enough! Send Brahimi home. Ignore the illusory “proposal” from China. Ignore the UN clowns! Support action that will provide a counter-force to al-Assad’s tanks and artillery and aircraft which are attacking and bombing the Syrian population.
Above all, the U.S., NATO and Arab states should firmly resist any efforts by Russia, China, or al-Assad to use Special Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi and his mission to save al-Assad and his government from the harsh fate they so richly deserve.
Phrasing the Demand for Change in Syria
The demand for change in Syria should not be literally phrased as one for the ouster of Bashar al-Assad, for that plays into the Russian and the Chinese counterargument that the international community should not be in the business of replacing governments.
Instead, the demand should be phrased in terms of requiring that those responsible for ordering the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity, and tolerating the commission of such crimes by those under their command, should be removed from power, arrested and detained, and prosecuted for their crimes.
The Russians and the Chinese will be on much weaker ground in seeking to rebut this demand. It should be stated as part of a general goal of bringing to a halt the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Syria.
When the commission of such crimes is halted and those responsible for their commission are removed from power and brought to justice, the killing in Syria will stop.
No negotiated agreement with al-Bashar and his fellow war criminals will produce real results.
The only agreements now worth pursuing are ceasefire agreements, with implementation mechanisms, whether arranged locally or at a national level as the regime begins to crumble.
Intense thought should now be given to the establishment of an international force (whether under U.N. auspices, or those of another international coalition), which can effectively oversee that ceasefire and the reconstruction of Syria which should begin the day the guns go silent.
U.N. Security Council Action Required When the Syrian State Starts to Collapse
Once the Syrian state starts to collapse, if not before, the Permanent Members of the Security Council should come together to draft a resolution that would establish a U.N. Transitional Authority in Syria, together with a U.N. Peacekeeping Force in Syria with a mandate for two-five years. This is what will be required, sooner or later, to bring the situation under control following the collapse of the Bashar al-Assad regime.
See The Trenchant Observer, “REPRISE: Goals to guide the international community in Syria—Obama’s Debacle in Syria — Update #62 (July 11),” July 11, 2012.
The Permanent Members of the Security Council should be in continuing and direct consultations with each other as the crisis continues to unfold. They should be talking to each other directly, not through Lakhdar Brahimi (with Kofi Annan offering advice from the wings).
These conversations and negotiations should not be merely delegated to lower-ranking officials, but should include the active involvement of officials at the ministerial and the presidential levels.
The Trenchant Observer
Tags: al-Assad, Allison Jackson, Ban Ki-Moon, Castle in the sky, castles in the sky, ceasefiore agreements, ceasefire agreement, China, Chinese four-point plan, chinese proposal for syria, Chinese proposal made of thin air, chinese solution, Colum Lynch, Crimes Against Humanity, crimes contre l'humanité, crimes de guerre, end, establishment of an international force, foreign policy, Global Post, globalpost, goal of removing war criminals from power, goals to guide the international community on syria, June 30 geneva conference, kofi annanç kofi annan's ghost, Kriegsverbrechen, Kriegsverbrecher, Lied to the American people, negotiations at ministerial or presidential level, no negotiated agreement with bashar al-assad, obama's debacle in syria, oversee the ceasefire, party congress, phrasing the demand for change in syria, rethink support of u.n. peacekeeping activities, Security Council action required when syrian state collapses, send Brahinmi home, Siria, syria, Syrie, Syrien, Turtle Bay, U*.N. Transitional Authority in Syria, U.N. administration, U.N. Peacekeeping Force in Syria, UN clowns, update #89, Verbrechen Wider di Menschlichkeit, war crimes, war criminals, Xi Jinping, Xinhua, Yang Jiechi
Posted in Barack Obama, China, Crimes Against Humanity, extrajudicial execution, human rights, internal supporters of human rights, International Law, Russia, syria, U.N. Security Council, U.S. Intervention, U.S. Military, United Nations Secretary General, United States, war crimes | No Comments »
Thursday, October 11th, 2012
Originally published July 28, 2012
The Opening of the XXX Olympic Games
It was a poignant moment, as world leaders gathered in London last night (July 27) for the opening of the XXX Olympic Games, with the performance of an extraordinary spectacle, in which at one point five Olympic rings appeared suspended in the heavens over the Olympic Stadium. Over a billion people were said to have watched the opening ceremonies on television.
Here, in the very heart of the democratic civilizations of Europe, the Olympic ideal shone brightly.
In ancient Greece, the Olympic Games were preceded by a “Sacred Truce” among the warring city-states, in which athletes were guaranteed safe passage to and from the games, and all fighting was to be halted for a period of one month. This period was eventually extended to allow the athletes and visitors to return home.
The games were held every four years from 776 BC to 393 AD, when they were abolished by the Christian Byzantine Emperor Theodosius I. The ancient Olympic Games lasted for 1170 years. The Modern Olympic Games were initiated in 1896, and have been held every four years or more often since then except for 1916, 1940 and 1944.
–”Brief History of the Olympic Games,” NOSTOS (Hellenic Information Society, UK).
Importantly, the Olympic Games today stand as a symbol for humanity’s goal of one day achieving universal peace. The alternative, it seems, is either the goal of endless war, or the resignation that goes with the sense of helplessness we feel when we reject the goal of peace.
The Battle for Aleppo, and the Response of the World
Meanwhile, in Aleppo in Syria, a country where the international community and the Security Council have been unable to reach agreement to act effectively to halt the atrocities of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, the portents of death and destruction were all too palpable yesterday and today, as the regime’s troops, tanks, artillery, helicopters and war planes began a concerted assault on the lightly armed rebels of the Syrian Liberation Army, in what a pro-Assad Damascus newspaper termed “the Mother of all Battles”.
Today, on Saturday, July 28, the battle was joined in earnest.
For news of recent developments on the ground in Syria, see
Luke Harding (in Anadan, on the Aleppo front line), “Syrian rebels near Aleppo: ‘We are besieging Assad’s army’; Regime forces have been pulverising rebel-held districts using artillery and helicopter gunships. But the rebels are upbeat,” The Guardian, July 28, 2012 (11:35 EDT).
Damien McElroy (in Aleppo), “Badly armed rebels face tanks as Syria’s mother of all battles begins,” The Telegraph, July 28, 2012 (6:57PM BST).
Álvaro de Cózar (Special Correspondent in Marea), “El Ejército sirio avanza para tomar Alepo; Las tropas de El Asad atacan con bombas y tanques los barrios en manos rebeldes; Las líneas de teléfono y el suministro de energía han sido cortados, El País, 28 Julio 2012 (23:45 CET).
Kareem Fahim and Ellen Barry, “Syrian Military Intensifies Assault on Rebels in Aleppo,” New York Times, July 28, 2012
***
Unfortunately, Americans accessing the Internet do not find it easy to gain a sense of what is actually taking place on the ground, due to “The Filter Bubble” which prevents most U.S. observers on the Internet from seeing the search results for newspapers outside of their own country (including, e.g., British and other newspapers which have correspondents on the ground in Syria). To get around The Filter Bubble, see the directions in the bottom right-hand column on the right on our Home Page, or go here.
Thus, as the world turns its attention to the joyful spectacle of athletes from countries throughout the world competing on the basis of individual merit, as humanity comes together for its quadrennial celebration of the richness and diversity of the human family, the people in Aleppo and in Syria are left to face the absolute terror and barbarism of the Bashar al-Assad regime, alone.
Russia and China, along with the Syrian regime, are clearly to blame for this state of affairs, and populations who follow international affairs throughout the world are aware of the role they have have played in thwarting effective U.N. Security Council action. Memories of how they have backed the murderous regime of al-Assad are likely to be long indeed in the Middle East, and also in the democracies of the world.
The United States and other Western countries warn of an impending massacre in Aleppo, as if anyone but they themselves could save the day.
It is a new role for Americans: Eyewitness News reporters without an inkling of any sense of moral responsibility that might lead them to act. In this role, they are following the lead of their president.
The Americans, the Europeans, top U.N. officials and others loudly deplore the lamentable state of affairs in Syria in general, and the unfolding of the “mother of all battles” in Aleppo, in particular.
Leaderless, they stand helpless and paralyzed before the terror and barbarism of al-Assad.
They provide countless declarations of moral outrage, and call for the nations of the world to increase their “pressure” on the al-Assad regime.
The “pressure” of which they speak is a “pressure” of words, of plaintive moral appeals directed to war criminals whose moral depravity is beyond dispute. Or perhaps the “pressure” may even consist of voluntary economic sanctions, imposed by different countries outside the framework of the U.N. Security Council, whose impact is uncertain and in any event will take much time.
Neither words nor economic sanctions, however, will stop al-Assad’s armies.
These leaders are at once appalled by the terror, the barbarism, the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity before their very eyes, and caught in their own moral cowardice, impotent, helpless, with verbal reproaches the only weapons they have the courage to wield. Paralyzed by their own cowardice, they will not act—not effectively, not in time to save the thousands of additional deaths that the grinding gears of war portend to claim, and of which they so earnestly warn.
Enough with Words!
These leaders can all do the world one big favor: Stop denouncing al-Assad’s atrocities, at least until they are willing to do something really effective to bring them to a halt.
With their moral energies thus freed, they can pay close attention to the facts on the ground, to what is actually happening to thousands of human beings in the maw of war, and then they can seek quiet solace in their churches, their synagogues, their mosques, and the other spiritual refuges in which they must, as individual human beings, come to terms with what they have seen, and what they have not done.
Enough with words!
Enough with the self-absolving declarations these leaders offer to the world, and to themselves, so they can sleep at night, knowing they were present at Srebrenice, present at Auschwitz, present in Rwanda, over a very long period of time, and did nothing.
President Theodore Roosevelt, Recipient of the 1907 Nobel Peace Prize, on Words and Deeds
As for President Obama, who reportedly likes to think of himself as emulating the great American presidents, the words of President Theodore Roosevelt, recipient of the 1907 Nobel Peace Prize, come to mind. Roosevelt declared:
“International Peace”
…
We must ever bear in mind that the great end in view is righteousness, justice as between man and man, nation and nation, the chance to lead our lives on a somewhat higher level, with a broader spirit of brotherly goodwill one for another. Peace is generally good in itself, but it is never the highest good unless it comes as the handmaid of righteousness; and it becomes a very evil thing if it serves merely as a mask for cowardice and sloth, or as an instrument to further the ends of despotism or anarchy. We despise and abhor the bully, the brawler, the oppressor, whether in private or public life, but we despise no less the coward and the voluptuary. No man is worth calling a man who will not fight rather than submit to infamy or see those that are dear to him suffer wrong. No nation deserves to exist if it permits itself to lose the stern and virile virtues; and this without regard to whether the loss is due to the growth of a heartless and all-absorbing commercialism, to prolonged indulgence in luxury and soft, effortless ease, or to the deification of a warped and twisted sentimentality.
Moreover, and above all, let us remember that words count only when they give expression to deeds, or are to be translated into them (emphasis added). The leaders of the Red Terror2 prattled of peace while they steeped their hands in the blood of the innocent; and many a tyrant has called it peace when he has scourged honest protest into silence. Our words must be judged by our deeds; and in striving for a lofty ideal we must use practical methods; and if we cannot attain all at one leap, we must advance towards it step by step, reasonably content so long as we do actually make some progress in the right direction.
[Footnote] 2. The “Terror” is a term characterizing the conduct of power in revolutionary France by the second committee of Public Safety (September, 1793-July, 1794), sometimes identified as the “Red Terror” to distinguish it from the short-lived “White Terror”, which was an effort by the Royalists in 1795 to destroy the Revolution.
–Theodore Roosevelt, 1907 Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech, delivered May 5, 1910.
President Obama and the other leaders of the world would do well to take these words to heart, today, and every day hereafter until they find the courage to take effective action to halt the barbarism and the terror in Syria.
The Trenchant Observer
observer@trenchantobserver.com
www.twitter.com/trenchantobserv
For links to other articles by The Trenchant Observer, click on the title at the top of this page to go to the home page, and then use the “Search” Box or consult the information in the bottom right hand corner of the home page. The Articles on Syria page can also be found here. The Articles on Targeted Killings page can also be found here.
Tags: al-Assad, al-Watan, Alep, Alepo, Aleppo, Álvaro de Cózar, Anadan, articles on syria page, atrocities, barbarism, Crimes Against Humanity, Damien McElroy, Debacle in Syria, El País, Ellen Barry, Kareem Fahim, Luke Harding, New York Times, Nobel Lecture, Nobel Peace Prize, NOSTOS, Obama, Olympic Games, Siria, syria, Syrie, Syrien, the Battle for Aleppo, the filter bubble, The Guardian, the mother of all battles, the response of the world, the sacred truce, tHE tELEGRAPH, the Washington Post, theodore roosevelt, war crimes, words and deeds
Posted in Azerbaijan, Barack Obama, China, Crimes Against Humanity, Egypt, extrajudicial execution, France, Germany, Guatemala, History, human rights, Intelligence, internal supporters of human rights, International Law, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, NATO, Nigeria, Portugal, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, self-defense, South Africa, State Department, State Department Legal Adviser, syria, Togo, Torture, Tunisia, U.N. Charter, U.N. Convention Against Torture, U.N. Security Council, U.N. Torture Convention, U.S. Intervention, U.S. Military, United Kingdom, United States, use of force, war crimes | No Comments »
Friday, October 5th, 2012
The U.N. Security Council issued a presidential statement on October 4 condemning the shelling of a Turkish town by Syrian forces. The statement has no legal force. The text of the press statement (U.N. Doc. SC/10783) is reproduced below:
***
4 October 2012
Security Council
SC/10783
Security Council Press Statement on Shelling of Turkish Town by Syrian Forces
The following Security Council press statement was issued today by Council President Gert Rosenthal (Guatemala):
The members of the Security Council condemned in the strongest terms the shelling by the Syrian armed forces of the Turkish town of Akcakale, which resulted in the deaths of five civilians, all of whom were women and children, as well as a number of injuries. The members of the Security Council expressed their sincere condolences to the families of the victims and to the Government and people of Turkey.
The members of the Security Council underscored that this incident highlighted the grave impact the crisis in Syria has on the security of its neighbours and on regional peace and stability. The members of the Council demanded that such violations of international law stop immediately and are not repeated. The members of the Security Council called on the Syrian Government to fully respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of its neighbours.
The members of the Security Council called for restraint.
***
Syria as “the Tinderbox of the Middle East”, Turkey, and NATO
Should the attacks from Syria persist, or Turkey become embroiled in hostilities in which the cause can be characterized as “an armed attack” by Syria (by one or more large attacks, or possibly by a continuing series of lesser attacks), Turkey would be entitled to invoke the right of self-defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter in taking military action within Syria. It could also trigger the duty of NATO members to come to the assistance of Turkey in exercising the right of collective self-defense under the terms of Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty (1949), which establishes:
Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.
Syria has become the tinderbox of the Middle East, in a situation in the region somewhat reminiscent of that existing in the Balkans in the summer of 1914.
See Raniah Salloum (Beirut), “Syrische Grenzkonflikte:
Angst vor dem Flächenbrand, Der Spiegel, 5 Oktober 2012.
A raging fire is burning in Syria, which despite the hopes of the United States and leading European powers, does not appear likely to burn itself out. The longer it burns, unchecked, the greater the likelihood that it will spread and produce a general conflagration in the region.
The Trenchant Observer
Tags: 4 october 2012, Akcakale, armed attack, Article 5, Article 51, border exchanges, condemnation, der spiegel, general conflagration in the region, Gert Rosenthal, Guatemala, North Atlantic Treaty, press statement, ragin fire in syria, Raniah Salloum, right of individual or collective self-defense, SC/10783, shellinbg by Syria, shelling of Turkey, Siria, syria as the tinderbox of the middle east, Syrie, Syrien, threat of war, UN Security Council
Posted in Barack Obama, China, International Law, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Middle East, NATO, Russia, self-defense, Serbia, State Department Legal Adviser, syria, Turkey, U.N. Charter, U.N. Security Council, U.S. Military, United States, use of force | No Comments »
Tuesday, September 25th, 2012
Remarks at Media Stakeout Outside Security Council by Guido Westerwelle, German Foreign Minister, September 24, 2012
SC President, Guido Westerwelle (Germany) on Syria – Security Council Media Stakeout, 24 Sep 2012 (video link)- Informal comments to the media by H. E. Mr. Guido Westerwelle, Foreign Minister of Germany and the Security Council President for September on the situation in Syria. [English and German]
Remarks at Media Stakeout Outside Security Council by Lakhdar Brahimi, Joint Special Representative of the United Nations and the League of Arab States, and of Peter Wittig, President of the U.N. Security Council, September 24, 2012.
SC President, Peter Wittig (Germany) and Lakhdar Brahimi, Joint Special Representative of the United Nations and the League of Arab States on Syria – Security Council Media Stakeout (24 September 2012) – 24 Sep 2012 (video link)- Informal comments to the media by H. E. Mr. Peter Wittig, Permanent Representative of Germany to the UN and Security Council President and by Joint Special Representative of the UN and the League of Arab States on the Syrian crisis, Lakhdar Brahimi.
Analysis
Judging from Brahimi’s comments, he plans to settle in for a long period of time as Joint Special Envoy of the United Nations and the League of Arab States, enjoying the perquisites of the 17 member staff set up in Geneva and his tax-free salary of $189,000 per year.
On the positive side, he didn’t say much, though he has begun to hold out false hopes for a breakthrough, just as Kofi Annan did, saying he expected developments that would make an “opening” possible in the not too distant future.
Recommendations:
1. Brahimi’s mission, and his 17-member office in Geneva, should be ended at the earliest opportunity.
2. The Security Council should set up a special working group of the Permanent Members of the Council to meet weekly to roll up their sleeves and work together to find a solution to the impasse in the Security Council. How do Russia and China intend to stop the civil war and the ongoing commission of crimes against humanity and war crimes by the government of Syria? What do they propose beyond watching the slaughter unfold as extremist elements of the armed opposition gain momentum?
Brahimi’s talk of pursuing Kofi Annan’s six-point plan should send all the permanent representatives to the Security Council running for the exits, or running to ensure that Brahimi exits at an early date.
We’ve already done this. We’ve been there. 30,000 Syrians have died while the Security Council failed to deal with the killing in Syria, and Kofi Annan misled the world with false hopes and illusory peace plans, “castles in the sky” lacking any plan to force al-Assad to stop his crimes. Diplomacy focused on the Security Council has failed.
Enough is enough. We don’t need to do this again. What we need to do is to stop the killing. Now. By military action outside the framework of the Security Council, if that is what is required.
The Trenchant Observer
Tags: castles in the sky, Joint Special Representative Lakhdar Brahimi, kofi annan plan. six-point plan, Lakhdar Brahimi, military intervention, no new ideas, security council impasse continues, Siria, situation in Syria, syria, Syrie, Syrien, U.N. Security Council
Posted in Azerbaijan, Barack Obama, Brazil, China, Crimes Against Humanity, Deutschland, Egypt, extrajudicial execution, France, Germany, Guatemala, History, human rights, India, International Law, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, NATO, Portugal, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, syria, Togo, Torture, Tunisia, U.N. Security Council, U.S. Intervention, U.S. Military, united arab emirates, United Kingdom, United Nations Secretary General, United States, use of force, war crimes | No Comments »