Archive for the ‘internal supporters of human rights’ Category

Christmas reflections: What Obama has taught the American people about Syria

Wednesday, December 25th, 2013

We owe it to the people of Syria to pause for a moment, on this Christmas Day, and bow our heads in shame for what we, the nations of the civilized world, have not done to protect them.

In this regard, the burden Barack Obama will bear in history not only for his inaction, but also for blocking the actions of others, is enormous.

Since 2011, he has taught the American people that the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity is no longer a matter of grave concern.

He has taught the American people not to act to stop the horrors of Syria, but instead to look the other way.

He has eased any discomfort they might have felt by using the military to make the political argument that using force to halt the atrocities in Syria would be hard.

He has spoken many words about Syria, and offered many explanations of this or that turn in U.S. policy.

In thinking about Obama and what historians will have to say about his policy of inaction toard Syria, however, readers might usefully bear in mind what Theodore Roosevelt had to say when he accepted the 1907 Nobel Peace Prize, about words and deeds:

“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.

Whenever President Obama speaks of Syria, let us remember these words from Teddy Roosevelt.

Let us also, on this Christmas Day, at least not forget to think of the people of Syria, and to say a prayer that some leader or leaders in the world will find the courage not to talk of peace, but to act with force to halt the Syrian government’s ongoing commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity on a massive scale.

See also the following articles by The Trenchant Observer:

“Syria: As Christmas approaches, the assault on civilization continues,” December 22, 2013.

“60,000 killed in Syria—REPRISE II: The Olympic Games, and the Battle for Aleppo, Begin—Obama’s Debacle in Syria — Update #91 (January 2, 2013),” January 2, 2013.

“The Leopard and the Impala: Putin astutely plays Obama for a chump,” September 12, 2013.

“Moral cowardice in Europe and elsewhere: Bad-faith arguments on Syria by Germany and other countries lacking the courage to act,” September 6, 2013.

“Hommage à Homs: Jacques Prévert, “Barbara” (with English translation); Paul Verlaine, “Ariette III”,” February 25, 2012.

“REPRISE: A prayer for the children of Syria,” December 25, 2013.

The Trenchant Observer

The big picture in Egypt: The referendum on the draft constitution on January 14-15, and the government’s crackdown on demonstrators

Monday, December 23rd, 2013

What is going on in Egypt?

The referendum on the draft constitution to be held on January 14-15, 2014 holds the promise of a transition to democracy in the new charter’s text, while the government has cracked down on demonstrations by sentencing three leading human rights leaders to three years in prison.

The referendum will also be a referendum on the “roadmap” for a transition to democracy set out by the Army and the interim government of Adly Mansour, who signed a restrictive law on demonstrations in late November.

See

Patrick Kingsley (Cairo), “Egypt’s interim president Adly Mansour signs ‘anti-protest law’; Rights groups and lawyers say legislation requiring permission to gather will make legal demonstrations almost impossible, The Guardian, 24 November 2013 (11:27 EST).

The government has, in fact, engaged in a number of actions which appear to be anti-democratic and violative of human rights.

While restrictions and violations of human rights should not be condoned, it may be useful to try to understand the strategy the government seems to be pursuing.

The biggest challenge to the government and the draft constitution does not come from human rights activists, but rather from the Muslim Brotherhood. The November law restricting protests was probably aimed at the onongoing protests by Brotherhood supporters above all.

It is important to the military and the government that the referendum be approved both by a high percentage of voters and by a turn-out with broad participation. They are taking no chances that the Brotherhood might turn the referendum to its advantage.

Once the referendum and the “roadmap” have been approved by Egyptian voters, the transition will move into a new phase. After the new constitution enters into force, human rights advocates will have a stronger set of tools with which to wage their struggle for the rule of law. The landscape will shift.

Significantly, two leading liberal parties have just announced that they will join together, and are also calling on other progressive parties to join them. Moreover, they have come out clearly for the holding of presidential elections prior to national assembly elections, which the draft constitution leaves up to the interim government to decide.

Further, liberal political leaders and parties appear to be moving toward acceptance of General Al-Sisi’s running for president, even pledging their support if he decides to run.

See

AP, “Egypt’s Moussa defends draft constitution; As Egypt’s draft national charter set to be put to referendum in near future, head of outgoing constitution-amending committee defends final version,” Ahram Online, December 10, 2013.

“Raid on Egyptian rights group widely condemned; Egyptian human rights organisations condemn police raid on Egyptian Centre for Economic and Social Rights and detention of its staff,” Ahram Online , 19 December 2013.

Youssef Hamza, “Egypt’s charter referendum will be a verdict on Islamism, The National (UAE), December 21, 2013 (updated December 22, 2013 at 07:46).

“Egypt’s Maher, Adel and Douma sentenced to 3 years in jail,” CoptsUnited, December 23, 2013.

“Two liberal parties announce merger,” Aswat Masriya, December 22, 2013.

Whether General Al-Sisi decides to run for president, and whether if elected he would respect the new constitution’s provisions, or rather use the blunt instruments of state power in an attempt to re-establish the old order, are questions which can only be answered over time.

In order to have a successful referendum in January, the government of Adly Mansour would do well to demonstrate its respect for the fundamental human rights established in the draft constitution, whose approval by the people of Egypt is so earnestly sought.

The short-sighted use of heavy-handed tactics could defeat the government’s goals of achieving a large turnout for the referendum, and the legitimacy a resounding vote of approval could confer.

Egypt’s future stability lies in the balance.

The Trenchant Observer

For updated news on Egypt from Egptian sources, see

Al-Ahram Weekly

Egypt Independent

Egypt Daily News

Aswat Masriya

CoptsUnited: A Newspaper for All Egyptians

Egypt Online (Egyptian State Information Service. The site contains the official text of the army statement of July 1, 2013.

Daily News Egypt

Egypt: Final negotiations and votes in the “Committee of 50″, and its adoption of draft constitution

Wednesday, December 4th, 2013

For an incisive analysis of the final negotiations and deliberations of the “Committee of 50″ charged with with drafting Egypt’s new constitution, see

“On the right track: Gamal Essam Al-Din reviews the final draft of Egypt’s new constitution,” Al-Ahram Weekly, December 4, 2013 (01:38 p.m. ET).

The Trenchant Observer

REPRISE: Veterans’ Day, 2011: “Where have all the flowers gone, long time passing?”

Monday, November 11th, 2013

First published, November 11, 2011

My uncle died in a field in northern France with a German bullet in his head. To him, and all the other veterans of America’s wars, I am immensely grateful for his, and their, sacrifice.

The Vision of Peace After World War II

At the end of World War II, the leaders of the world had a clear vision of the horrors of war, and acted with resolution to bring wars to a halt through the creation of the United Nations in San Francisco in 1945, and by codifying the international law governing the use of force in Article 2 paragraph 4 and Article 51 of the U.N. Charter. Article 2 paragraph 4 prohibited the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of members of the organization, a prohibition later extended to include all states. Article 51 provided for an exception in the case of an “armed attack”. These provisions have become customary international law and, importantly, also aquired the status of jus cogens or peremptory law from which there can be no exception or derogation by agreement.

A Vision of Perpetual War

Unfortunately, President Barack Obama and the United States are currently embarked on a policy based on the assumption of perpetual war. The implementation of this policy includes targeted assassinations through drone strikes and other means, the establishment of new drone bases throughout the northern part of Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia, and the development of new generations of drones some of which are as small as insects.

This policy has been implemented with little regard for the international law governing the use of force, and even less regard for the duty of the United States to contribute to the development of international law and institutions that can help ensure the security of the United States and other countries in the future.

These actions indicate that the United States has no current vision of peace as an overriding goal to be achieved, and no coherent strategy for actually achieving this objective.

Without the goal of peace, we are not likely to take the actions necessary to achieve peace, or to give those actions the urgent priority they should receive.

Where have all the flowers gone, long time passing?

In these circumstances, one is reminded of Pete Seeger’s famous song entitled “Where have all the flowers gone?” For the lyrics, click here.

Pete Seeger’s performance of this song is available on YouTube here.

See also, pasquetflowerponderings.blogspot.com, “Grandpa’s War – A Veteran’s Day Post,” November 11, 2011, which contains recollections of America’s recent wars, and a link to a clip of Pete Seeger singing ” Where have all the flowers gone” with a moving montage of photographs evoking American experiences of war, created by the TheSpadecaller in 2008.

Joan Baez, in a more recent performance of the song, can be found on YouTube here.

Marlene Dietrich’s recording of this song in English is also found on YouTube here.

For Dietrich’s performance of the song in French, see “Qui peut dire ou vont les fleurs?” here.

For her performance the German version of this song, see “Sag mir wo die Blumen sind”, here.

Marlene Dietrich, in a version of perhaps her most famous song, “Lili Marleen”, written in 1915 and later a hit among troops on both sides during World War II, takes us back to November 11, 1918 and the terrible war that preceded the armistice on that day. Her recording of the song, in English, is found on YouTube here. The original German version of the song is found here.

Obama’s Vision of Perpetual War and International Law

In his Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech in Oslo, on December 10, 2009, President Obama said:

In the wake of such destruction (World War II), and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another world war. And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations – an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this prize – America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide, restrict the most dangerous weapons.

I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations – acting individually or in concert – will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

To begin with, I believe that all nations – strong and weak alike – must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I – like any head of state – reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards, international standards, strengthens those who do, and isolates and weakens those who don’t.

Closely parsed, these statements are full of contradictions, as when President Obama affirms:

(1) “We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations – acting individually or in concert – will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.”
(2) “To begin with, I believe that all nations – strong and weak alike – must adhere to standards that govern the use of force.”
(3) “I – like any head of state – reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation”; and
(4) “Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards, international standards, strengthens those who do, and isolates and weakens those who don’t.”

Affirmation (1) accepts violent conflict as inevitable. (2) states that all nations must adhere to the norms that govern the use of force. (3) states that he, the president, “like any head of state”, reserves the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend his nation; and (4) states he is convinced adhering to “international standards” strengthens those who do.

These contradictions in Obama’s thinking, it is submitted, have contributed to the incoherence of U.S. foreign policy, particularly when measured against the requirements of international law, and the historical burden of strengthening international law and building better international institutions, which is no less important today than it was in 1945.

Reading these excerpts and the whole speech reveals that the president does not have a clear vision of peace as the goal, or a strategy on how to achieve that goal. While he pays lip service to observing international law, he insists that he has the paradoxical right–”like any head of state”–to violate it if necessary, in his view. So much for the concept of international law governing the use of force.

Without the clear and overriding goal of peace or a strategy for achieving peace, it is hard to see how we and other nations can view as the highest priority taking the steps necessary to achieve peace.

President Obama and the United States currently seem to have no overarching vision of peace, or strategy for achieving peace. As a result, their policies and actions are not guided by the pursuance of this goal in a strategic sense, but rather only by the demands of meeting with expediency the challenges of the moment.

By way of contrast, consider, if you will, the vision of the founders of the United Nations in 1945, particularly as set forth in the Preamble and Articles 1, 2, and 51 of the Charter.

We in the United States, like citizens in other countries, need a strong vision of peace and a coherent strategy for achieving it. Consequently, we need a president who has such a vision, and is guided by it.

The Trenchant Observer

Demandas de los expertos de la ONU sobre desapariciones forzadas, la memoria historica, Baltasar Garzon, y la ombra de la injusticia en Espana

Tuesday, October 1st, 2013

(Articulo en desarollo)

Natalia Junwuera, “Naciones Unidas reclama a España juzgar las desapariciones del franquismo,” El Pais, 30 SEP 2013.

Enviados de la ONU piden al Gobierno un plan estatal de búsqueda de fusilados
El franquismo en el banquillo
El Congreso recibe la recomendación de la ONU de tipificar la desaparición forzosa

See English translation here.

The Trenchant Observer
(El Observador Incisivo)

Obama, Putin and Syria: Commentary

Sunday, September 15th, 2013

Roger Cohen, “An Anchorless World,” New York Times, September 12, 2013.

Laure Mandevill, “Syrie : Obama sort de la crise affaibli face à Poutine,” Le Figaro, le 15 septembre 2013.

Tomas Avenarius, Kairo (Kommentar), “Abkommen zu Syrien: Tausche Senfgas gegen Machterhalt,” Süddeutsche Zeitung, 15. September 2013.

“Der Plan zur Vernichtung der syrischen Chemiewaffen wird als diplomatische Meisterleistung beklatscht. Es gibt dem Diktator Assad aber auch Zeit, die Rebellion niederzuschlagen – die Aufständischen werden der russisch-amerikanischen Großmachtpolitik geopfert. Dieser Verrat wäre nur auf eine Weise zu rechtfertigen.”

The Trenchant Observer

CBS News and PBS: Network of Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite, and PBS, give al-Assad megaphone for propaganda to oppose Obama—ON MONDAY!

Sunday, September 8th, 2013

What we should be seeing now, both on American television and television abroad, are programs which put in perspective the looming question of whether the U.S. and its allies should use force to stop Bashar al-Assad from using chemical weapons and further committing war crimes and crimes against humanity (e.g. bombing or using artillery against civilian neighborhoods). These programs should be putting before the public the factual record of what has occurred in Syria since 2011, in all its bloody detail.

Instead, the coverage is like the coverage of a horse-race: Will Obama receive authorization for military action or not, which Senators and House Members are leaning this way or that way, and what do they have to say?

There is very little coverage of what has actually happened in Syria. This may be based on the premise that it has all been reported before. But the brutal fact about public memory in the age of mass media in 2013, when people don’t read the newspapers much any more, is that people don’t remember what they may have seen on TV a year or two ago, or a month ago. All of the past, all of the facts, are lost in the media in what may be termed “the infinite expansion of the present moment.”

So, we now hear that Charlie Rose has interviewed Bashar al-Assad, and CBS is going to broadcast excerpts from the interview on CBS News on Monday morning, and evening, across all of CBS’ news platforms, and PBS will broadcast the full interview in a special edition of the Charlie Rose Program on Monday night at 9:00 p.m.

For those who live outside of the Washington-New York media and political bubble, like the Trenchant Observer, some developments are so jaw-dropping that one must pinch oneself in the arm to make sure what one is seeing is not just a bad nightmare.

Now, Charlie Rose and CBS News have sounded the death knell for any idea that CBS or Charlie Rose is engaged in objective news reporting, as opposed to the immoral chase of ratings at whatever the cost—the moral cost, the cost to national security, the cost to the democratic process itself, which depends on an informed citizenry and the votes of their elected representatives.

Bashar al-Assad, in the interview, denies that his government was behind the chemical weapons attack on Ghouta on August 21, 2012.

Charlie Rose, who used to have a fairly interesting interview program on PBS, has long since evidenced the lack of preparation necessary to ask difficult questions, as his ambition has led him to also serve as an anchor on the CBS Morning News. His programs are now characterized by interventions which aim to show he knows everyone and everything, while allowing his speakers to say whatever they want without any sharp questioning, particularly any sharp questioning that would require preparation and a deep knowledge of the facts.

CBS News has itself entered the fray now, giving a voice to Syrian propaganda at a critical moment which may affect the Congressional vote on whether or not to authorize military action against Syria.

We can all see now that CBS’ News’ analysis is worthless, or sidelined by commercial considerations which manifest in essence a disloyalty to the United States, which amounts to the same thing.

What were they thinking?

Has CBS News formed no judgments as to what has been going on in Syria in the last two and a half years? Have they reached no conclusions regarding who has been responsible for the commission on a massive scale of war crimes and crimes against humanity, including the use of chemical weapons?

Do they understand they are placing al-Assad on a platform of moral equivalency to the President of the United States by broadcasting the interview with him on Monday, the very day President Obama is seeking to make the case to the American people for military action in Syria, and one night before he formally addresses the nation on the subject?

This is one of the most most shameful spectacles in the history of CBS News, which as we all know has become but a shadow of its former self.

How can outstanding correspondents such as Bob Schieffer and Lara Logan continue to work for such a company, which is now willing to offer its airwaves for the propaganda of one of the greatest war criminals of this or the last century?

I can imagine that CBS News—the 2013 version and not the Edward R. Murrow or the Walter Cronkite version—would broadcast an interview with Adolf Hitler denying the existence of Auschwitz and the gassing of the Jews, as Allied forces closed in on Berlin in 1945.

The promotional ads might sound something like this:

“On the one hand, we have the reports of intelligence and military officials who have confirmed the existence of the gas chambers at Auschwitz, and how they were used. On the other hand, German Leader Adolf Hitler denies these allegations, maintaining that they are fabrications of the Allied Powers’ propaganda machine.

Now, here, we present an interview with Mr. Hitler taped earlier today. You can listen to his arguments, and you yourself can decide which side has the stronger case.”

This action is so offensive that Charlie Rose, and CBS News, can now count on the permanent loss of this viewer. In fact, a boycott of the Charlie Rose program and of CBS News would not be a bad idea for others to consider.

And let us bear in mind, to understand how utterly immoral the Washington political-media complex has become, that the brother of Ben Rhodes, one of Obama’s top foreign policy advisers, is the President of CBS News.

Instead of presenting documentaries on what has occurred during the last two and a half years of the civil conflict in Syria, and citing the UN and other reports which have documented in great detail the barbarism and atrocities committed by the al-Assad regime, CBS News and the Charlie Rose Program on PBS give us…SYRIAN PROPAGANDA!

The head of CBS News, and everyone else responsible for this atrocious decision, should be immediately sacked. Charlie Rose should depart CBS News. And PBS should drop the Charlie Rose program forthwith.

What is involved is the nation’s security, at a delicate moment in which the electorate is uninformed, or trying to second guess the decisions of the commander in chief as to what specific military means and objectives should be pursued to safeguard the vital national interests of the country.

Here, the timing is everything, and reveals the utter lack of moral bearings of Charlie Rose and CBS News alike.

The Trenchant Observer

Moral cowardice in Europe and elsewhere: Bad-faith arguments on Syria by Germany and other countries lacking the courage to act

Friday, September 6th, 2013

(Developing article)

Following are the statements and ways German and other European and world leaders use to disguise the moral cowardice of nations that give lip service to universal ideals of truth and justice, but are nowhere to be found when action is required to put those ideals into practice.

1. Military action against Syria would violate the U.N. Charter unless it were backed by an authorization from the Security Council.

Is there anyone making this argument who sincerely believes it will help solve the Syrian crisis, and bring to a halt the atrocities being committed by al-Assad in that country?

Is there anyone unaware of the Russian and Chinese vetoes of draft resolutions in the Security Council, and Russia’s current role in the Council of blocking any effective action?

2. What is needed in Syria is a negotiated solution, which should be achieved through the Geneva II peace conference backed by U.N. Special Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi and U.N Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon.

Has no one studied the history of Kofi Annan’s “castles in the sky”, or failed to understand how he was helping the Russians defer any outside action through his illusory peace proposals, and his last illusion of convening a peace conference in Geneva, to which everyone gave lip service on June 30, 2012—not because they thought it would work, but rather to gain diplomatic cover for looking the other way and doing nothing?

3. Arguments about Syria that proceed from the assumption of a tabula rasa, as if there were no history of what has happend in Syria in the last two and a half years.

So, we can debate whether the rebels gassed their own people, despite the overwheming evidence of this and previous attacks by the Syrian government, and the entire history of al-Assad’s armed forces’ actions in the conflict since 2011.

Why does anyone even listen to the arguments of Russia, Syria and Iran? How stupid can we be?

4. Failure to speak frankly and forthrightly about what is really going on in Syria. and in the United Nations and the Security Council. (Bravo! to Samantha Power for speaking out!)

See Jennifer Rubin, “Hats off to Samantha Power,” Washington Post, September 6, 2013 (8:45 a.m.)

5. Failure to interrupt and immediately rebut statements that are no more than propaganda–propaganda which falls far short of the standards set by Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda minister.

No nation bears greater responsibility for its silence than does Germany, as no nation has a darker history of violating these universal ideals in the past–until 68 years ago, in fact, until 1945. Nor should we forget how Germany blocked decisive action in the Balkans prior to Srebrenice and the Dayton Accords in 1995.

German complacency about war crimes and crimes against humanity in Syria reminds us, sadly, of how complacent Germans were when these same crimes were taking place in their midst.

Obama and other leaders of the feckless West share a huge responsibility for shaping public opinion to support their policies of looking the other way and doing nothing when faced by the utter barbarism of Bashar al-Assad.

Now they must explain to their populations what has actually happened in Syria since 2011, in great and bloody detail, and rally their peoples to confront the greatest threat to Western values of our time.

This threat also engages our most vital national security interests. Tel Aviv is only 134 miles from Damascus. Damascus is closer than we think:

Beirut, Lebanon — 53 miles
Amman, Jordan — 110 miles
Tel Aviv, Israel — 134 miles

If Germany and NATO want to stand idly by, at this critical moment, then the U.S. should give the most urgent consideration to withdrawing from NATO–both militarily and financially.

It is time for the moral cowards in Europe and elsewhere to wake up, and to seek to hear, to speak and, above all, to act upon the truth regarding the situation in Syria, and what has been going on there for two and a half years, as the world averted its eyes.

The Trenchant Observer

New strategy and accompanying military action needed in Syria; Justification under International Law

Sunday, August 25th, 2013

President Barack Obama’s strategy for dealing with Syria has demonstrably failed.

That strategy consisted mainly in looking the other way, providing fitful and ineffectual covert support, and actively blocking the efforts of others to mount some form of military action that might have brought the widespread commission by the al-Assad regime of war crimes and crimes against humanity to a halt. These have now culminated in the use of chemical weapons by al-Assad on a large scale against his own people.

The covert action has had minimal results, involving coordination of the supply of arms by Qatar and Saudi Arabia to the insurgents, apparently with the assistance of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The results of this policy, as long predicted here and by knowledgeable experts, has been a brutal civil war in Syria whose death toll now exceeds 100,000, according to the latest U.N. update.  However, the number is  growing by hundreds if not thousands every week, and likely to be much higher than even this appalling number.

Military action to stop the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity by the al-Assad regime in Syria has been needed for a long time, but now must be undertaken by the West and allied Arab countries in order to avoid an exploding regional conflict between Shi’a and Sunni militias and regimes, on the one hand, and to prevent Syria from becoming the first chemical weapons battleground since the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988), if not since World War I, with the concomitant acquisition of chemical WMD by al-Qaeda affiliated and other terrorists groups, on the other.

The options available to the West and the Arab states, following two and a half years of dithering and blocking actions by the Obama administration, are not enviable.

Nonetheless, what is needed is a military and diplomatic strategy that will produce results and outcomes that safeguard the vital interests of the West, the Arab countries, and other civilized nations in the world.

Before considering that strategy, it will be useful to highlight mistakes that have been made and which must not be repeated.

First, the illusion of a negotiated agreement with Bashar al-Assad should be discarded at the outset. Al-Assad has not kept a single agreement with the international community, from the Arab League peace plan of November 2, 2011, to the agreements reached with Kofi Annan regarding the cessation of hostilities in the first half of 2012. Moreover, al-Assad has proven, time and time again, that he is a master of playing off different countries one against the other, with promises of this or that, or negotiations on this or that to get his approval, all coming to naught.

The lesson is clear: The new strategy should not seek al-Assad’s agreement to any kind of peace agreement short of an agreement to hand administration of the country over to a NATO or United Nations Authority under the protection of a NATO-led or United Nations Peacekeeping Force, in a manner similar to the establishment of IFOR under the agreements reached with Slobodan Milosovich of Serbia and the leaders of Bosnia and Croatia by Richard Holbrooke and the United States in Dayton, Ohio on November 21, 1995.

Second, with over a year and a half of experience with the Russians following their and the Chinese veto of a mild U.N. Resolution on February 4, 2012, the West and the Arab states should not waste their efforts on negotiating anything with the Russians in the Security Council which does not include:

1) the immediate authorization of the International Criminal Court to investigate and prosecute the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Syria; and

2) immediate steps for the implementation of a binding cease-fire in Syria,  which is obligatory on Syria with or without its consent under the terms of Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.

The use of military force should be aimed at securing these objectives, not the agreement of al-Assad to this or that proposal. Above all, no negotiation of the final political and military arrangements should be undertaken before a cease-fire takes effect. The disastrous precedent of Kofi Annan and the U.N. seeking to negotiate elements of the outcome with al-Assad in exchange for his cessation of the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity should not be repeated. Ever.

The military campaign against al-Assad’s government and its ongoing atrocities should be pressed until the commission of these crimes ceases, and a NATO-led or U.N. force and accompanying International Authority for Syria are established and put in place.

The military actions required to achieve the above strategic objectives should be publicly justified under international law, along the lines suggested here in earlier articles, as temporary measures of protection undertaken to protect the population of Syria against the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity and their effects. The justification should be very narrowly tailored to the facts of the Syrian case, as suggested previously here.

On justifications under international law for military intervention in Syria, see the following articles by The Trenchant Observer:

Syrian Options: The White House’s sophomoric understanding of International Law, June 14, 2013.

The U.N. Charter, International Law, and Legal Justifications for Military Intervention in Syria—Obama’s Debacle in Syria — Update #83 (September 1), September 1, 2012.

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

Military action without clear strategic objectives will not be effective. The sooner the West comes to grip with these harsh realities, the better the outcome will be.

When a strategy has failed, spectacularly, the most important thing is that it not be pursued further, and that it be abandoned as an approach to the solution of the conflict.

Military action is now urgently required. But it should be undertaken as a means for securing the goals of an effective strategy, not just to satisfy the demands of the press or other countries to take some action in response to the massacre of Syrian citizens by the use of chemical weapons on a large scale.

The Trenchant Observer

For previous articles on Syria by The Trenchant Observer, see the Articles on Syria Page, or click here.

Egyptian military reverses Morsi’s November 22 coup, restores nation to democratic path (with full text of Army’s July 3, 2013 statement)

Wednesday, July 3rd, 2013

Statement of General Abdul Fatah Khalil al-Sisi, head of Egyptian Armed Forces, announcing the overthrow of President Morsi

Following is the statement delivered by General Abdul Fatah Khalil al-Sisi, the head of the Egyptian Armed Forces, on July 3, 2013, regarding the military takeover and road-map for the future in Egypt:

The Egyptian Armed Forces first declared, is still declaring and will always declare that it stands distant from political forces. The Armed Forces, based on its insightfulness, has been called by the Egyptian people for help, not to hold the reins of power, yet to discharge its civil responsibility and answer demands of responsibility. This is the message received by the EAF and heard in all of the country.

In turn this call was heeded by the EAF, and it has understood the essence of this message. Before it has come close to the political scene adhering to its responsibility, the EAF over the past month has inserted efforts, direct and indirect to contain the situation within and achieve national reconciliation among all institutions, including the presidency.

Since the past, the army has called for national dialogue, yet it was rejected by the presidency in the last moment. Many calls, initiatives followed until to date. The EAF similarly on more than one occasion presented a strategic assessment domestically and internationally, which contained the most eminent (this part unclear).

The EAF as a patriotic institution to contain division and confront challenges and perils to exit the current crisis. As we closely monitored the current crisis, the command of EAF met with the president on June 2nd where it presented the opinion of the AF on the state of (the country) and (relayed) the cause of masses and Egyptian people. Hopes were all pinned on national conciliation. Yet, the address of the president yesterday and before the expiry of the 48-hour ultimatum did not meet the demands of the people.

As a result, it was necessary for the EAF to act on its patriotic and historic responsibility without sidelining, marginalising any party, where during the meeting a road map was agreed upon which includes the following:

Suspending the constitution provisionally; The chief justice of the constitutional court will declare the early presidential elections; Interim period until president elected. Chief Justice will have presidential powers; A technocrat, capable national government will be formed; The committee will offer all its expertise to review the new constitution; The Supreme Constitutional Law will address the draft law and prepare for parliamentary elections;

Securing and guaranteeing freedom of expression, freedom of media. All necessary measures will be taken to empower youth so they can take part in decision making processes. The EAF appeal to the Egyptian people with all its spectrum to steer away from violence and remain peaceful. The Armed Forced warn it will stand up firmly and strictly to any act deviating from peacefulness based on its patriotic and historic responsibility.

May God save Egypt and the honorable, defiant people of Egypt.

–”Transcript: Egypt’s army statement; Statement of Abdul Fatah Khalil al-Sisi, head of Egyptian Armed Forces, announcing the ovethrow of President Morsi,” Al-Jazeera, July 3, 2013 (last modified 20:59).

See also:

Mary Mourad, “Revolution part 2: The fall of Mohamed Morsi; In response to millions of Egyptians taking to streets, army and number of political and religious leaders propose roadmap aimed at ending year of unrest,” ahramonline, July 3, 2013.

Those who have followed the details of developments in Egypt since Mohamed Morsi’s coup d’etat on November 22, 2012, will readily understand that the Army’s military takeover was an intervention to re-establish the constitutional order in Egypt. This fact was made abundantly clear by the highly symbolic selection of the president of Egypt’s Constitutional Court to act as interim leader of the government.

Foreign news reporters and analysts should fully inform themselves before simply labeling the Egyptian Army’s action as a military “coup d’etat”. A good place to begin would be with a legal analysis of Morsi’s actions, which can be found in previous articles published here.

For links to prvious articles by The Trenchant Observer on developments in Egypt since November, type “Morsi” into the Search box in the upper right-hand corner of the home page.

The Trenchant Observer