Archive for the ‘Iraq’ Category
Wednesday, February 27th, 2013
In the end, what difference does it make if John Brennan is confirmed as CIA Director by the Senate?
1. Well, for one thing, it may be the last chance for the Senate to get control of a failed foreign policy, and to actually put someone in who would complement Secretary of State John Kerry–as a member of a team that can get the nation’s foreign policy back on a track that might avoid further disasters, and maybe even lead to some successes.
Vali Nasr, the Dean of the Johns Hopkins School of International Affairs, is publishing a book, The Dispensable Nation, which is coming out in April and is already making waves as one of the first hard-hitting assessments of Obama’s foreign policy in his first term.. And the story isn’t pretty. Obama has led the nation into one failure after another, but liberals and Democrats have been unwilling to hold him accountable. The president, after all, perfectly represents the mood of the American people, by and large, who just want to get out of Bush’s wars and focus on domestic issues.
But the world exists, regardless of what the public in general want, and it keeps turning. It keeps spinning, in fact, in ways that often seem adverse to U.S. interests, and sometimes it seems even to be spinning out of control.
Brennan’s confirmation will tilt the balance of Obama’s foreign policy team back to the place where it has been for the last four years, with Obama mainly interested in killing terrorists by drones, while at the same time dragging his feet in other international crIsis arenas, such as Syria, Mali, or even Libya (until the French and the British dragged the U.S. into it, once Security Council authorzation was secured). Obama, in the end, is not interested in foreign policy, and doesn’t know how to conduct it. So he, and we, need a strong team.
2. Brennan is the High Priest of the war on terror, the Holy Warrior leading “The Last Crusade” against the Islamic terrorist infidels. And the strategy is simple–simply to kill them before they kill us. He is not plagued by self-doubt. Obama, in becoming a warrior himself, may have modeled himself on Brennan.
The only problem is that we may have been so busy fighting this war of targeted executions that we failed to notice, much less try to influence, strategic developments of enormous significance.
While Brennan was busy managing the “kill lists” and coordinating drone strikes on the infidels, Obama was giving up the ship to Mohamed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, offering Morsi support and not criticism when he launched his legal coup d’etat on November 22, abrogating the rule of law in the nascent democracy of Egypt. Morsi pushed through his illegitimate constitution, shutting down the Constitutional Court with brown-shirt tactics in the street.
What difference does that make?
Well, for one thing, al-Azhar university, which is the highest center of Islamic learning in the city which is the cultural capital of the Arab world, is now facing increasing pressure from the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists to assume a more fundamentalist approach to religious issues. These include those covered by the sharia, or Islamic law, now raised to a position of preeminence in Morsi’s Islamist constitution.
In effect, Brennan was leading Obama to go and try to kill terrorist leaders with drones, while the geotectonic plates of the Middle East were shifting in Egypt. As this was taking place, Obama and Hillary Clinton remained frozen, unable to act as events unfolded in Egypt. Yet the success of terrorism in the Middle East and North Africa is likely to be determined much more by developments at al-Azhar that by mid-level terrorists being killed by drones in Yemen
3. Then there are the moral issues. Torture. Extraordinary renditions to states which torture. Secret CIA “black prisons”, hidden from everyone, even the International Committee of the Red Cross. And targeted executions, including “signature” strikes against unknown individuals who evidenced a pattern of activities indicating they were terrorists. Any male over 14 killed in a drone attack was automatically deemed to be a terrorist, which was one way of keeping civilian casualties down–at least for those living within the White House bubble.
It is interesting how Brennan makes his legal arguments purporting to justify targeted killings. He paints a picture of the ideal case. The real cases, however, where unknown boys 14 years of age or older merit having their guts spattered in the sand, are cases we don’t know about, and whose justifying legal memoranda we will never see, because they are secret, indeed if in individual cases they exist at all. A legal opinion to support an execution would have to be individual, taking the specific facts of the case into account, and public, and presented to a competent judicial authority.
4. There are also issues of individual moral responsibility, and guilt, incurred by killing people outside the civilizing strucures of law, including international law.
Senators voting on Brennan face this moral responsibility, and potentially moral guilt from sanctioning actions which, in strictly legal terms, might be characterized as presumptive war crimes or other international crimes.
Like the Argentine politicians and generals who argued they faced the cancer of terrorism, Brennan’s supporters may find plausible arguments for going along with international crimes.
Then there is the argument that we should let bygones be bygones. Just turn the page, and move on. Of course that was not the position adopted by Justice Robert Jackson at Nuremberg.
If there is one book the Senators might want to read before voting on the Brennan nomination, it is “The Question of German Guilt”, by the famous German philosopher Karl Jaspers. Jaspers, in a series of lectures at the University of Heidelberg in 1948, articulated with elegant distinctions the kinds of criminal, political, moral and existential guilt Germans might feel or be accused of, as the blinders came off about what Hitler and the Nazis had done in the Third Reich. His analysis is exceedingly pertinent to “The Question of American Guilt”.
There are also a few films the Senators might want to watch before voting on the Brennan nomination. One of the best is “The Official Story”, winner of an Academy Award for Best Foreign Film in 1985, which addresses questions of individual moral responsibility in the Argentine context. “Judgment at Nuremberg”, with Spencer Tracy starring as Justice Jackson, would be another.
Given Brennan’s use of the “cancer” metaphor to describe terrorism’s advances, the Senators might benefit from watching “Z”, Costa-Gavras’ film about the right-wing coup in Greece. Then there is always “Missing”, a film starring Jack Lemon which in the context of Agusto Pinochet’s coup in Chile powerfully conveys the impact on individuals and families of those who abandon law in favor of pure force in their battle against the “cancer” of terrorism–as they see it.
5. We must bear witness to the truth and fight to uphold the rule of law. Just as the excesses of the “Palmer raids” in 1919, or the internment of Japanese citizens in World War II, came to be understood as great deviations from the rule of law, so too some day future historians will ask, “Did no one oppose these outrageous violations of fundamental rights, or seek to prevent them from being carried out?”
We and others, at least, must speak out–as loudly and effectively as we can–so that there is some evidence that people opposed these outrages upon the Constitution and the rule of law. The challenges we face are not as great as those faced by Sophie Scholl, who distributed pamphlets in Hitler”s Germany, for which she was executed, or others who faced the power of totalitarian states, yet nonetheless spoke out.
In seeking to answer the historians’ question, the vote of individual Senators on the Brennan nomination will be duly noted, and the judgment of history will be entered, and it will fall upon those who vote, or abstain or are absent, on the Brennan nomination in the Senate.
Did this or that Senator stand up for the rule of law, and vote against a confirmation that would send a clear signal to the world that America endorses holy warriors who have no regard for international law and human rights? Or not?
How did these Senators, on the dates of these votes, define the nature of American Democracy in 2013? That is the question historians will ask, and about which they will write.
The Trenchant Observer
Tags: "Missing", "The Official Story", Al-Azhar university, brennan confirmation, brennan senate vote, brennan will tilt the balance of the new foreign policy team, Egypt, Hillary Clinton, Historians will ask how senators voted, human rights, individual moral guilt, individual moral responsibility, International Law, jack lemon, John Brennan, John Kerry, Kark Jaspers, Mohamed Morsi, moral responsibility, Morsi 's coup d'etat, The cancer of terrorism, the question of german guilt, the rule of law, We must bear witness, Z
Posted in Afghanistan, Argentina, Barack Obama, Chile, CIA, Egypt, extrajudicial execution, extraordinary rendering, extraordinary rendition, France, History, human rights, Intelligence, International Law, Iraq, Libya, Mali, NATO, Pakistan, refoulement, self-defense, Somalia, State Department, State Department Legal Adviser, syria, targeted assassinations, targeted killings, Torture, U.N. Charter, U.N. Convention Against Torture, U.N. Security Council, U.N. Torture Convention, U.S. Congress, United States, use of force, war crimes | No Comments »
Friday, December 7th, 2012
See David Ignatius, “Our man in Cairo,” Washington Post, December 7, 2012 (5:01 p.m.)
Mohamed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood have executed a coup d’etat in Egypt, abrogating the rule of law and seeking to impose an Islamist constitution drafted in illegitimacy. The draft’s constitutionality is highly suspect in view of Morsi’s November 22 “constitutional decree” assuming dictatorial powers, and the Nazi “brown shirt” tactics used by Muslim Brotherhood thugs last Sunday to intimidate and threaten the judges of the Constitutional Court, thereby preventing them from meeting to reach a decision on the constitutionality of the constituent assembly and the drafting process for the draft constitution.
Morsi has been utterly unyielding. Instead of olive branches, he has offered only twigs to mollify the opposition, twigs which do not in any sense put the consolidation of the Islamist dictatorship of the Brotherhood and its religious allies into doubt.
Morsi was known as “the enforcer” of internal discipline within the Brotherhood before running for president. Now he seeks to play the role of “the enforcer” for all of Egypt.
Against this background, the White House and the State Department have issued the most cautious of statements, never mentioning human rights or the rule of law.
David Ignatius notes that, “Through this upheaval, the Obama administration has been oddly restrained. After the power grab, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland said: ‘We call for calm and encourage all parties to work together and call for all Egyptians to resolve their differences over these important issues peacefully and through democratic dialogue.’ Not exactly a thundering denunciation.” (“Our Man in Cairo,” above.)
Yesterday Obama called Morsi, not to insist on a return to the rule of law or full guarantees in the constitution for internationally protected human rights, but to state to the Egyptian president that the violence of Thursday night which claimed at least seven lives was “unacceptable”. This was good as far as it went, since much of the violence appears to have been initiated by Brotherhood demonstrators. But it did not speak to the underlying issues.
At once Obama speaks like the king of the world in declaring street violence “unacceptable” to him, while at the same time failing to mention that the United States stands for the rule of law and wishes to see it restored in Egypt.
Obama’s silence on the issue that is tearing Egypt apart–whether the country will be governed by the rule of law and a constitution that provides safeguards for human rights, the separation of powers, and the principle of judicial review–is inexcusable.
If Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist allies succeed in establishing an Islamic dictatorship in Egypt–which the last two weeks have clearly revealed to be their goal, the responsibility of Obama and the leaders of other democratic countries throughout the world will be overwhelming.
The president could threaten to withhold military aid of $1.5 billion per year. He could threaten to block a $4.8 billion standby loan agreement between Egypt and the IMF.
Instead, in defense of the principles of democracy and the protection of human rights for which the United States has stood throughout its history, Obama has said nothing. Absolutely nothing. Radio silence. His silence shatters the eardrums, throughout the world.
Today, on December 7, 2012, 71 years after the attack on Pearl Harbor, Obama by his silence shames America and its devotion to democracy, and dishonors the memory of those who fought and died to defeat fascism in World War II (1941-1945). America is a country which should never pull its punches in standing up for its deepest values, democracy and human rights.
It is a day of shame for the United States, as brave men and women in Egypt fight to defend their revolution and establish the democracy which it promised, while Obama, setting an example for the world, looks on passively, in deafening silence.
Somewhere, somehow, there must be leaders and nations who are willing to speak up to support the defenders of democracy in Egypt. In the United States, Congressmen and Senators should speak out loudly so that the Egyptian armed forces can hear the message that the $1.5 billion of military assistance the U.S. gives to Egypt each year, will not be given to the military of an Islamist dictatorship. Hearings on this aid should be immediately scheduled and held. If this military aid and their relationship with the United States is important to the Egyptian military, they must act to defend democracy and the rule of law. Otherwise they will lose their aid and their support from the United States. That should be the message.
In Europe, leaders of the European Union and its member states should similarly speak out for democracy and international human rights, and let it be known that they will not provide economic assistance to a dictatorship which has abrogated the rule of law.
If President Obama does not want to go down in history as the Democratic president who lost Egypt, who stood by silently when his leadership might have made a difference, he needs to speak out now, loudly and clearly, in defense of human rights and the rule of law in Egypt. Further, his words must have consequences if they are ignored.
Otherwise, he will be known in history as the President who lost Egypt to the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamic dictatorship they and their Salafist allies seek to consolidate. He will be remembered as the President who did nothing when history swayed in the balance, for betraying those fighting for democracy and the rule of law in Egypt, and for losing the most decisive battle in the Middle East for at least the next generation.
Obama is losing Egypt.
Will he speak out and take forceful action? His past suggests the likelihood of continued passivity in the face of looming disaster.
But we would always like to be surprised, and to see him for once not “driving from behind”, from the back seat, but acting like the leader of the free world.
The Trenchant Observer
See also the following articles by The Trenchant Observer:
Is Obama losing Egypt?
December 6, 2012
Morsi’s Putsch: Battle lines are drawn—Details in draft constitution reveal Muslim Brotherhood’s strategy to seize all power in Egypt, as democrats defend the rule of law December 2, 2012
Morsi’s Coup d’Etat and Rushed Draft Constiution for Egypt (with latest English translation)
December 1, 2012
The Muslim Brotherhood’s Coup d’Etat in Egypt; William Butler Yeats and “The Second Coming”
November 28, 2012
“L’État, c’est moi”—Mohamed Morsi and Muslim Brotherhood launch coup d’état in Egypt
November 27, 2012
Tags: a president who governs primarily by words, Agypten, America's shame, bin laden, brown shirts, constitution drafted in illegitimacy, coup d'etat, covert action, David Ignatius, decisiveness of acgtion in foreign affairs, driving from behind, Egipto, Egito, Egypt, Egypte, Europe, Feisal G. Mohamed, governs primarily by words, hardly uttered the words international law, Huffington Post, in the shadows, inexperienced foreign policy team, internationally protected human rights, Islamist dictatorship, khaled Abou el Fadl, leaders of the European Union and its member states, morsi, most incompetent American foreign policy leaders in the last 80 years, Muslim Brotherhood, November 22 "constitutional decree", Obama as the king of the world, Obama's new foreign policy team, Obama's silence and America's shame, Our man in Cairo, Pearl Harbor, previously inexperienced foreign policy team, putsch, Qaddafi, Salafists, the gang who couldn't shoot straight, they keep screwing up, vague and generalized forumlations, without consequences, word that are empty
Posted in Barack Obama, Dictatorship, Egypt, elections, freedom of speech, History, internal supporters of human rights, International Law, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Libya, State Department, State Department Legal Adviser, syria, targeted assassinations, targeted killings, U.S. Congress, U.S. Intervention, United States | No Comments »
Wednesday, November 28th, 2012
With the Muslim Brotherhood’s recent coup d’etat in Egypt, following on other measures it has taken in the last year, a dark pall has fallen over the Middle East.
A historic failure of U.S. leadership has not been the only cause, but it has left the advocates of modernity and democracy without a champion.
It is tragic that President Obama and the United States have not spoken out strongly, unequivocally, for restoration of the rule of law in Egypt.
Historians will have to sort out the causes of the decline of the influence of the West in the Middle East in the last few years, but surely American disinterest and unwillingness to get involved–in solving the Palestinian issue, or dealing with the barbarism of Bashar al-Assad in Syria–will weigh heavily in their accounts. With the United States in retreat since at least March of 2011, the region has been falling into anarchy and the hands of Islamic parties which, collectively, could potentially lead to the establishment of Islamic dictatorships throughout the region. Egypt is of extraordinary significance, for it is the cultural capital of the Arab world.
We are currently witnessing what happened in Iran–as it is actually happening, day by day, in Egypt.
The democratic promise of the Arab Spring, including the overthrow of tyrannical regimes in Tunisia and Libya, has not engendered the financial and other support from the West and other countries that might have helped sustain it, something like a Marshall plan for the New Democracies of the Middle East.
As the Muslim Brotherhood and Mohamed Morsi have just executed a coup d’etat in Egypt, the West—including the United States—stands leaderless, paralyzed, unable to react or to attempt to influence the rush of events in that country.
The United States and the West could consider blocking a $4.8 billion standby loan agreement between the IMF and Egypt, for example, if Morsi does not rescind his constitutional decree and the Brotherhood’s headlong race toward adoption of a constitution without the support of non-Islamic parties. But no one in Washington seems to be paying attention or to be thinking that fast.
Students of history may recall that Adolph Hitler came to power through free elections, but moved swiftly to control or eliminate potential opponents through a process known as the em>Gleichschaltung), or forced coordination.
Above all, the failure of the United States to openly lead a coalition to halt Bashar al-Assad’s atrocities in Syria has resulted in a loss of respect and influence in the region, while producing a covert program of supplying arms to the Syrian rebels through deeply conservative regimes whose interests seem to lie not in democracy, but in defeating Shia’s and empowering conservative and Islamist Sunni militias.
The cumulative policy failures and ongoing withdrawal from Afghanistan, leaving that country in conditions whose dire consequences are likely to be felt, if not immediately at least in the not-too-distant future; and the strategic failure in Iraq to achieve the administration’s central goal of a status of forces agreement–when the U.S. had leverage–and the resultant withdrawal of all U.S. forces leaving the gains from that war to unravel, have given the impression that the West is in retreat, contributing to a sense of impending doom.
Hamas celebrates victory as a result of the Egyptian-brokered truce agreement following its bombardment of Israel with rockets and Israel’s response, while Palestine is granted U.N. Observer status at the U.N., an implicit recognition of a Palestinian state achieved not through negotiation with the Israelis, but through negotiations in the corridors of the U.N.
Everywhere, supporters of democracy and modernity seem to be suffering a sharp decline in fortunes and influence. Unwilling to take a stand for their values in Syria, U.S. and Western supporters should perhaps not be too surprised now as those values are pushed aside.
The Benghazi fiasco is emblematic of the failure of U.S. policy in the region. Its significance is that, like a wartime flare on a dark night, it illuminates the administration’s policy failures throughout the Middle East, how they are connected, and how their consequences are all coming together as they did in Benghazi on the night of September 11, 2012.
The situation is ominous. One is reminded of the “The Second Coming”, William Butler Yeats’ celebrated poem written after World War I, which reads as follows:
The Second Coming (published 1921)
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
William Butler Yeats
The Trenchant Observer
Tags: a dark pall has fallen over the Middle East, atrocities, attacks on U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Barack Obama, barbarism, Bashar al-Assad, Benghazi, Benghazi fiasco, coup d'etat, covert operations, covert supply of weapons to Syria, Crimes Against Humanity, departure from Iraq, Egipto, Egypt, Egypte, Egyptien, emblematic of failure of U.S. policy in the region, historic failure of U.S. leadership, Iraq, Islamic dictatorship, Islamic dictatorships in the middle East, legal coup d'etat, Mohamed Morsi, Muslim Brotherhood, muslim brotherhood coup in Egypt, muslim dictatorship, Obama, Obama 's shameful silence, Obama's silence, Obama's silence on rule of law, poem, Shi'a, Siria, Sunni, syria, Syrie, Syrien, the great sphinx, the second coming, war crimes, william butler yeats, withdrawal from Afghanistan, yeats
Posted in Barack Obama, Crimes Against Humanity, Dictatorship, Egypt, extrajudicial execution, History, human rights, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, Libya, Mali, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, State Department, State Department Human Rights Country Reports, State Department Legal Adviser, syria, targeted assassinations, targeted killings, Torture, Tunisia, Turkey, U.N. Security Council, U.S. Intervention, U.S. Military | No Comments »
Tuesday, November 27th, 2012
Some enterprising jounalist should go back and prepare a compilation that lists the different versions of what happened to the talking points, citing all that is known about and by each source speaking on background, or on the record, and the publication in which the version appeared.
An example of the misleading information being supplied to Congress and to the public is provided by the following excerpt from the Christian Sciene Monitor regarding meetings today (November 27) of Susan Rice and CIA Acting Director Michael Morell with Republican Senators :
…Republican senators said the meeting with Rice and Morell left them with more concerns than before. In a statement McCain, Graham and Ayotte said there was now more confusion about who had made changes in the talking points before they were given to Rice.
Morell told the senators during the meeting that the FBI had removed references to al Qaeda from the talking points “and did so to prevent compromising an ongoing criminal investigation” of the attack on the U.S. mission, the statement by McCain, Graham and Ayotte said.
“However, at approximately 4:00 this afternoon, CIA officials contacted us and indicated that Acting Director Morell misspoke in our earlier meeting. The CIA now says that it deleted the al-Qaeda references, not the FBI. They were unable to give a reason as to why,” the statement said (emphasis added).
The initial draft of the talking points written by the CIA referred to “attacks” carried out by “extremists with ties to al Qaeda.” However by the time Rice received them, “attacks” had changed to “demonstrations” and “with ties to al Qaeda” had been deleted, multiple U.S. sources have said.
A U.S. intelligence official said the CIA changed the reference to al Qaeda for “several valid intelligence and investigatory reasons.”
Among the reasons cited were that “the information about individuals linked to al Qaeda was derived from classified sources, and could not be corroborated at the unclassified level; the links were tenuous and therefore it made sense to be cautious before naming perpetrators; finally, no one wanted to prejudice a criminal investigation in its earliest stages.”
U.S. intelligence officials have denied that there was any intent to misinform. The White House has denied making the edits in the talking points, and had no further comment on the subject after the meeting.
–Tabassum Zakaria and Susan Cornwell (Reuters),”Controversy over Susan Rice’s Benghazi comments continues,” Christian Science Monitor, November 27, 2012.
Conclusions
The Observer’s conclusion, having followed the matter of the talking points rather closely, is that the intelligence agencies and the White House have been blowing smoke and using mirrors to hopelessly confuse the public with deliberately misleading or false versions given to different reporters by different background sources since the Benghazi talking points became a hot issue.
On the issue of whether Susan Rice misrepresented the facts known by the administration and by her regarding the nature of the attacks on the Benghazi mission and annex, it appears clear that she was handed deliberately misleading unclassified talking points that downplayed the al-Qaeda ties of the attackers, that she from her own intelligence briefings must have been aware of these ties, and that she deliberately and misleadingly stressed the spontaneous nature of the attacks and the fact they were carried out by individuals or groups of armed individuals (and not, by inference, by organizaed militias or jihadist forces).
She may have been trying, inartfully, to conceal the classified intelligence she had been instructed not to reveal.
But is is clear that she was sent to the five Sunday morning talk shows by the White House, for what we must assume was a particular purpose. That purpose it appears, until evidence to the contrary is made public, was to defuse the explosive issue of the failures at Benghazi and to minimize the impact of the Benghazi fiasco on President Obama’s prospects in the election. One way to do this was to downplay the al-Qaeda and terrorist ties of the attackers. In addition, an important goal must have been to draw attention away from the CIA black operation that was being carried out in Benghazi.
In saying what she said on the Sunday talk shows, there now can be little doubt that she was doing exactly what President Obama wanted her to do. She was and is a loyal, perhaps the closest and most loyal, foreign policy aide to President Obama, having been his primary advisor on foreign policy during the 2008 campaign, and by all reports maintaining a very close relationship with him since.
It seems clear that what Susan Rice said on the Sunday morning talk shows was exactly what President Obama and his campaign wanted her to say.
For that, she deserves credit, and if nominated to be Secretary of State one of her greatest qualifications will be that she has an extremely close relationship with the president, who can count on her to precisely carry out his instructions.
So, it appears that Obama and the Obama campaign did downplay the terrorism and al-Qaeda ties of those who attacked the mission and annex in Benghazi, and that they did so in part for quite natural political reasons, and also to distract attention from the true nature of the CIA’s activities in Benghazi.
So what?
Obama has now been reelected. So, where do we go from here?
It is important that all of the facts regarding the Benghazi attacks be made public as soon as possible, and not relegated to the eventual reports on what happened at Benghazi, which will undoubtedly be wrapped in legalese and, if the evolution of the Benghazi talking points offers any clue, will artfully obfuscate the most important points in disupute.
It is also important that President Obama be held accountable for any misrepresentations to the American people he may be responsible for. He needs to stop being so clever, and as David Ignatius has recommended in an illuminating article on “the Covert Commander in Chief”, come out from the shadows and lead the nation in the open, in the sunlight.
See David Ignatius, “The covert commander in chief,” Washington Post, September 10, 2011.
See also The Trenchant Observer, “U.S. Covert Action in Syria?—Obama’s Debacle in Syria — Update #40 (May 22),” May 22, 2012.
We must assume that Obama has been directing the Benghazi CIA operation, and the administration’s response to the attacks on the Benghazi mission and annex on September 11. If this assumption is correct, Susan Rice’s appearances on September 16 on the Sunday talk shows can be viewed as the successful execution of the President’s instructions, to achieve his objectives.
The closing paragraphs of David Ignatius’ op-ed piece lay out the challenge which now faces the president if he is to have a successful second term:
Perhaps Obama’s comfort level with his intelligence role helps explain why he has done other parts of the job less well. He likes making decisions in private, where he has the undiluted authority of the commander in chief. He likes information, as raw and pertinent as possible, and he gets impatient listening to windy political debates. He likes action, especially when he doesn’t leave fingerprints.
What this president dislikes — and does poorly — is political bargaining. He’s as bad a dealmaker as, let’s say, George Smiley would be. If the rote political parts of his job sometimes seem uninteresting to him, maybe that’s because they seem trivial compared to the secret activities that he directs each morning. If only economic policy could be executed as coolly and cleanly as a Predator shot.
There is a seduction to the secret world, which for generations has charmed presidents and their advisers. It’s easier pulling the levers in the dark, playing the keys of what a CIA official once called the “mighty Wurlitzer” of covert action. Politics is a much messier process — out in the open, making deals with bullies and blowhards. But that’s the part of the job that Obama must learn to master if he wants another term.
On this anniversary of Sept. 11, 2001, America is lucky to have a president who is adept at intelligence. But it needs, as well, a leader who can take the country out of the shadows and into the light.
Beyond the politics of the 2012 presidential campaign, when we get to the bottom of the Benghazi affair what we are likely to find is a covert operation that involved supplying weapons to the Syrian rebels, and which for some as yet unknown reason became the object of vicious armed attacks by one or more militias or other groups with ties to al Qaeda. Tragically, the Benghazi fiasco resulted in the deaths of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
There is much to be learned from the multiple failures which occurred in Benghazi. To get to the bottom of things, however, President Obama and his admnistration need to stop blowing smoke and using mirrors in providing spurious information to reporters and the American people.
The Trenchant Observer
Tags: Benghazi comments, Benghazi talking points, blowing smoke and using mirrors, cia black operation in Benghazi, David Ignatius, into the light, John McCain, Kelly Ayotte, Lindsey Graham, out of the shadows, providing spurious informaiton to the American people, Reuters, Susan Cornwell, susan rice, Tabassum Zakaria, talking points, the covert commander in chief
Posted in Africa, Barack Obama, CIA, elections, Intelligence, International Law, Iraq, Libya, Middle East, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, State Department, State Department Legal Adviser, syria, U.N. Charter, U.N. Security Council, U.S. Intervention, U.S. Military, United States, use of force | 1 Comment »
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 »
Friday, September 14th, 2012
In response to what was reported as a less than robust defense of the U.S. embassay in Cairo by Egyptian security forces on Wednesday, September 12, President Obama called President Mohamed Morsi and demanded effective defense of the embassy and clear statements and efforts aimed at defusing the situation.
See
David D. Kirkpatrick, Helene Cooper and Mark Landler, “Egypt, Hearing From Obama, Moves to Heal Rift From Protests,”
Catherine Poe, “An angry President Obama warns Morsi and Egypt to protect American Embassy or else,” The Washington Times, September 14, 2012.
Morsi and the Egyptian government, headed by the Muslim Brotherhood, got the message. In a letter to the editor of the New York Times, dated September 13, Khairat El-Shater, the Deputy President of the Muslim Brotherhood, wrote the following:
To the Editor:
Today’s world is a global village; nations are closer than ever before. In such a world, respect for values and figures — religious or otherwise — that nations hold dear is a necessary requirement to build sustainable, mutually beneficial relationships.
Despite our resentment of the continued appearance of productions like the anti-Muslim film that led to the current violence, we do not hold the American government or its citizens responsible for acts of the few that abuse the laws protecting freedom of expression.
In a new democratic Egypt, Egyptians earned the right to voice their anger over such issues, and they expect their government to uphold and protect their right to do so. However, they should do so peacefully and within the bounds of the law.
The breach of the United States Embassy premises by Egyptian protesters is illegal under international law. The failure of the protecting police force has to be investigated.
We are relieved that no embassy staff in Cairo were harmed. Egypt is going through a state of revolutionary fluidity, and public anger needs to be dealt with responsibly and with caution. Our condolences to the American people for the loss of their ambassador and three members of the embassy staff in Libya.
We hope that the relationships that both Americans and Egyptians worked to build in the past couple of months can sustain the turbulence of this week’s events. Our nations have much to learn from each other as we embark on building the new Egypt.
KHAIRAT EL-SHATER
Deputy President, Muslim Brotherhood
Cairo, Sept. 13, 2012
–‘Our Condolences,’ the Muslim Brotherhood Says, Letter to the Editor, New York Times, September 13, 2012.
It may be that Morsi feels he has to consult with other Muslim Brotherhood leaders on critically important issues. That does not justify bad decisions. Still, his reassurances through various channels, though tardy, are welcome.
There can be no excuse for the failure of Egyptian security forces to effectively defend the U.S. embassy in Cairo on Wednesday, September 12. Egypt, and virtually all other countries are obligated to defend and protect foreign diplomatic and consular missions under customary international law and under the specific terms of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
Article 22 of the Vienna Concention on Diplomatic Relations provides, for example,
Article 22
1. The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.
2. The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity (emphasis added).
3. The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.
Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations contains similar language.
There are no reasons whatsoever that would justify the host country (or “the receiving state”, in the language of the treaties) to fail to comply fully with these provisions.
The Trenchant Observer
Tags: 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Article 22, Article 31, Catherine Poe, clear statement, condolences, customary international law, David D. Kirkpatrick, defusing the situation, Egyptian security forces, Helene Cooper, Khairat El-Shater, less than robust defense of U.S. embassy in Cairo, letter to the edigtor of the New York Times, Mark Landler, Mohamed Morsi, Muslim Brotherhood, President Morsi, Washington Post, Washington Times
Posted in Barack Obama, Egypt, Germany, International Law, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Pakistan, religious belief, Saudi Arabia, State Department, Sudan, syria, Tunisia, United States, Yemen | No Comments »
Friday, September 7th, 2012
In March, 2011, as the Obama administration dragged its heels and made clear it had no intention of intervening in Libya, we wrote:
For days, the administration has been signaling its unwillingness to act. First, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates tilted the scales by weighing in heavily against the approval of a no-fly zone….Finally, today, the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, stated in Congressional testimony that Qaddafi was likely to prevail given his advantages in troops and hardware. It is difficult, to say the least, to understand the logic that could have underlain such a tone-deaf and politically maladroit statement. Perhaps it was just inexperience and lack of foreign policy coordination. But it was disastrous in its impact.
Altogether, a most shameful spectacle.
History may well mark the month of March, 2011 as the decisive turning point in America’s leadership in world affairs. America has always been more than a state pursuing its self-interests. That era now seems past, at least under Democratic presidential leadership.
…
Despite its cynical record of dealings with dictatorships in the past, it is now to France, that other beacon of human liberty–since the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, and the defeat of Fascism in 1945 (made possible only with American help), that advocates of democracy and freedom must look.
If America does not want to be a champion of liberty, at least the French, drawing on their own deep traditions, have a possibility of articulating a clear moral vision that might guide us forward toward achievement of the goals of democracy and the rule of law which so many have fought for, at such great sacrifice, for over 70 years.
–The Trenchant Observer, “Libya—America Abdicates Global Leadership in Struggle for Democracy,” March 10, 2011
It seems clear that United States policy on Syria is “locked in” at least until the U.S. presidential elections on November 6, and probably far beyond. This policy is largely secret.
U.S. President Barack Obama has decided to undertake a program of covert operations relating to Syria, consisting of the following two elements:
1) the supply of non-lethal assistance to the Syrian rebels, including communications equipment, and logistical coordination; while mostly covert, these activities have been acknowledged in leaks to the press; and
2) a highly-secret covert operations program the details of which are not public, but which probably include the coordination with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and perhaps other nations of the supply of weapons, the provision to the rebels of actionable intelligence, the coordination of forces and attacks, and financial support for the insurgents, in addition to direct U.S. actions by special forces and other covert operatives within Syria. We can only speculate, as we really don’t know.
See
David Ignatius, “Syria’s eerie parallel to 1980s Afghanistan,” Washington Post, September 3, 2012.
Carlos Munoz, “US surges intelligence operations along Turkey-Syria border,” The Hill, August 6, 2012.
What this policy does not envision is the open use of military force to establish a no-fly zone or to defend safe zones which have been set up within Syria, or other measures which would defend the population of Syria against the murderous onslaughts of the Syrian Dictator.
Moreover, the covert nature of the program entails risks, as reports indicate that the approach used in Afghanistan in the 1980′s after the Soviet invasion of that country is perhaps being followed, with the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar Bin Sultan, playing a key role as he did in the 1980′s effort in Afghanistan when he was the Saudi Ambassador to the U.S.
The covert nature of the program also makes it difficult to mobilize support from other civilized countries, due to the absence of international legal constraints and the inability of such countries to mobilize domestic support for U.S. covert activities.
In any event, what Obama’s covert war in Syria promises is a long, drawn-out conflict and continuing civil war in Syria, which even the departure of Bashar al-Assad might not be able to stop. With the Saudis funding the operations, their affinity for groups that are either Wahabist or otherwise deeply conservative runs the risk of favoring such groups over other more secular groups among the Syrian armed opposition.
With the United States locked into a covert policy in Syria which does not promise to bring the mass crimes of Bashar al-Assad to an early halt, there is a gaping leadership vacuum among the civilized nations of the world which might potentially act, outside the Security Council, to bring the killing to a halt.
Will France step into the breach?
Despite President François Hollande’s initially cautious approach to Syria, there are signs that France is now moving in that direction. France has recently decided to provide financial support to five cities in “liberated” areas of Syria, and there have been reports that it is considering providing artillery to the Syrian armed opposition to help defend certain areas in Syria.
However, a European Union arms embargo may impose restrictions on the supply of arms to the opposition. U.K. Foreign Minister Willian Hague has stated that the supply of arms to rebels in Syria would violate a European Union arms embargo on Syria.
“At the moment we have a European Union arms embargo on Syria, it’s not possible or legal for any EU nation to send weapons to anybody in Syria and therefore our chosen route and is the same route of France and the United States, is to give non-lethal assistance and we’re doing that,” Hague told reporters in response to a question about whether France may be considering providing arms to the Syrian opposition.
–Lori Hinnant (AP), “French Direct Aid a Dubious Break for Syria Rebels
ABC News, September 7, 2012
The signficance of the reports that France is considering sending arms to Syria is that it now seems on the verge of taking on the mantle of leadership on Syria, or trying to.
Much will depend on whether the United States will attempt to block the French initiative, as it did recently with another initiative when France announced it would recognize a provisional government in Syria when it is formed. Also, any problem with the EU regulation establishing an arms embargo to which Hague referred would need to be resolved, unless France were to resort to the covert operations approach of the Obama administration.
Assuming it can overcome these obstacles, will France lead?
Former President Nicholas Sarkozy has called for intervention in Syria. As the leader of the UMP, the main opposition party, his demands have repercussions within the French political system. At the moment, it can hardly be said that there is any public clamor for intervention in Syria, though that could change. Nonetheless, any Socialist government policy of intervention in Syria that is supported by the UMP would be unlikely to generate strong domestic opposition.
See
Frédéric Gerschel, “Syrie : Bernard-Henri Lévy déçu par François Hollande; Alors que les combats font rage dans le pays, Bernard-Henri Lévy demande au chef de l’Etat d’être plus ferme. Comme son prédécesseur, Nicolas Sarkozy, l’avait été en Libye l’an dernier,” Le Parisien, 3 août 2012.
Bernard-Henri Lévy, “Des avions pour Alep!” Le Monde, 14 août 2012(Mis à jour le 15.08.2012 à 15h40)(opinion).
Frédéric Gerschel, “Hollande a reçu BHL à l’Elysée pour parler de la Syrie,” Le Parisien, 4 septembre 2012.
In principle, it could be in the interests of the United States to let France take the leadership role on Syria in the next two months, at least until after the elections.
There is an urgent need for leadership now, from some quarter, as the situation in Syria spins increasingly out of control. Iraq, it is now revealed, has been allowing Iran to use its air space to transport military personnel and equipment to Syria to support the al-Assad regime. There is sharp disagreement between Israel and the U.S. over whether and when to attack Iran if it continues on its path to nuclear weapons.
See
Michael R. Gordon, “Iran Supplying Syrian Military via Iraqi Airspace,” New York Times, September 4, 2012.
Unfortunately, world events do not march to the drumbeats of the electoral campaign in the United States, or defer to Barack Obama’s determination not to intervene militarily in Syria “regardless of the consequences”.
The big question is, “Will the United States, leading from the rear, allow France and others to lead from the front?”
For the French, the big question is, “Regardless of whatever obstruction the Obama administration may lay in its path, will France seize the mantle of leadership of the civilized nations in the world, and take the lead in acting to halt the destruction of Syria and its people by a murderous regime committing crimes against humanity, war crimes, and every other atrocity in the book?”
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 consult the information in the bottom right hand corner of the home page. The Articles on Syria page can also be found here.
Tags: a most shameful spectacle, actionable intelligence, america's leadership in world affairs, atrocities, Barack Obama, bernard-henri lévy, bhl, covert operations, covert operations in syria, crimenes contra la humanidad, crimenes de guerra, crimens contra a humanidade, crimens de guerra, Crimes Against Humanity, crimes contre l'humanité, crimes de guerre, David Ignatius, democracy and the rule of law, des avions pour alep, eu arms embargo on syria, financial support, fr'déric gerschel, France, françois hollande, fundamental human rights, James Clapper, John Irish, Kriegsverbrechen, leadership, Libya, locked-in, michael r. gordon, no-fly zone, Qaddafi, Robert Gates, safe zone, Siria, syria, syria policy, Syrie, Syrien, that other beacon of human liberty, the mantle of leadership, turning point, urgent need for leadership now, Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit, war crimes, zone d'exclusion aérienne
Posted in Barack Obama, China, CIA, Crimes Against Humanity, Dictatorship, extrajudicial execution, France, Germany, International Law, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, Morocco, Mossad, NATO, Qatar, Russia, sanctions, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, State Department, State Department Legal Adviser, syria, Togo, Torture, Tunisia, Turkey, U.N. Charter, U.N. Convention Against Torture, U.N. Security Council, U.N. Torture Convention, U.S. Intervention, U.S. Military, united arab emirates, United Kingdom, United States, use of force, war crimes | No Comments »
Saturday, September 1st, 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 funamental 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, 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, Brazil, China, Crimes Against Humanity, Dictatorship, Egypt, extrajudicial execution, France, Germany, Guatemala, History, human rights, India, internal supporters of human rights, International Law, Iran, Iraq, Israel, kosovo, Lebanon, Libya, Mossad, NATO, Nuclear Proliferation, Qatar, Russia, sanctions, Saudi Arabia, self-defense, Serbia, South Africa, Spain, State Department, State Department Legal Adviser, syria, Togo, Tunisia, U.N. Charter, U.N. Convention Against Torture, U.N. Security Council, U.N. Torture Convention, U.S. Intervention, U.S. Military, united arab emirates, United Kingdom, United States, use of force, war crimes | Comments Off
Thursday, August 30th, 2012
The situation in Syria was unfolding “in front of our eyes”, with the regime deploying fighter jets against the people, in addition to heavy artillery and tanks, he said. “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.
–Ahmet DAVUTOĞLU, Foreign Minister of Turkey, addessing the Security Council on August 30, 2012. Remarks as summarized and quoted in Security Council Press Release SC/10751 (August 30, 2012).
France chaired the Security Council during the month of August. Wanting to do something on Syria, it came up with the excellent idea, in principle, of convoking a meeting of the Security Council attended by the foreign ministers of the Council’s member states. Unfortunately, of the Permanent Members, only France and the United Kingdom sent their foreign ministers.
The failure of Hillary Clinton to attend revealed that while the Obama administration touts its new approach of leading from the rear, it still wants to call the shots.
In the event, among those countries interested in actually doing something to halt the barbaric acts of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria, the United States doesn’t seem to lead at all, and generally brings up the rear. Moreover, it thwarts the initiatives of others. This is as Barack Obama wants it to be.
The fact that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had the time to travel to a very large number of countries over the summer, but couldn’t find time to attend the ministerial session of the Security Council in New York was simply shameful, both for the country and also personally for the Secretary of State.
While the slogan in Obama’s headquarters may be “Four More Years!”, in Clinton’s headquarters it seems to be “Four More Months!”.
The Obama administration simply doesn’t understand how to conduct diplomacy successfully. On this occasion, a little deference to the French and a little help to them in saving face would not have cost the United States much, even if there was in fact little point in holding the meeting without the Russian and Chinese foreign ministers. Yet being a good ally involves standing up for your allies, even when they pursue ideas that are somewhat short of brilliant.
By not attending the meeting, Clinton also removed the opprobrium from Russia nd China for not sending their foreign ministers.
Such a public display of pique and disagreement among the closest of allies–France, the United Kingdom and the United States–was, again, simply shameful.
The meeting itself focused on the humanitarian issues that require attention as the conflict continues.
The video of the 6826th meeting of the Security Council, August 30, 2012, is found here.
A Press Release (U.N. Doc. SC/10752) summarizing the proceedings at the 2826th meeting of the Security Council, including summaries of the statements made by U.N. officials and Council representatives who intervened at the meeting, is found here.
The Turkish Foreign Minister, in his statement, made the following essential point:
AHMET DAVUTOĞLU, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Turkey, said he understood that the Council would, yet again, be unable to put forward a unified position to stop the humanitarian tragedy. Today’s meeting would not result in a presidential or press statement, let alone a robust resolution. Not even all foreign ministers had attended, but it was to be hoped that their non-participation was not an indication of their level of interest.
The situation in Syria was unfolding “in front of our eyes”, with the regime deploying fighter jets against the people, in addition to heavy artillery and tanks, he said. “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. “We can’t put the United Nations again in such an uncomfortable situation to apologize for the inaction or negligence about the tragic situation in Syria.”
In the delegates’ statements, there was much talk about the need for a ceasefire and a negotiated settlement. France, Turkey and the United Kingdom had other ideas, including the establishment of safe zones within the territory of Syria, but in their public statements to the Security Council they did not elaborate on these ideas.
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 an accompanying no-fly zone if that is required as a result of al-Assad’s response.
Successful diplomacy involves more than traveling and attending meetings and talking. It involves action that produces results. On extremely rare occasions, that action may employ as an adjunct the limited use of force, to secure limited objectives.
Such action is required. Now.
The Trenchant Observer
Tags: 6826th meeting of the Security Council, action is required, Ahmet Davutoğlu, antonio guterres, August 30 Secuirty Council meeting, blah! blah! blah!, Hillary Clinton, humanitarian issues, international law justification, jan eliasson, just words, justification under international law, laurent fabius, legal justification, limited uswe of force, no-kill zones, presss release SC/10752, safe zones, Sc/10752, security council, Siria, syria, Syrie, Syrien, to achieve limited objectives, U.N. Security Council, use of force, video link, video of the meeting, webcast, William Hague
Posted in Azerbaijan, Barack Obama, China, Crimes Against Humanity, Egypt, extrajudicial execution, France, Germany, Guatemala, human rights, India, International Law, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, Libya, NATO, Qatar, Russia, sanctions, Saudi Arabia, self-defense, Spain, State Department, syria, Togo, Torture, Tunisia, U.N. Charter, U.N. Convention Against Torture, U.N. Security Council, U.N. Torture Convention, U.S Foreign Relations, U.S. Intervention, U.S. Military, united arab emirates, United Kingdom, use of force, war crimes | No Comments »
Tuesday, August 28th, 2012
The French text of André Gluckmann’s article on Syria and Vladimir Putin, published in Le Monde on August 11, has now been translated (in rather free form) into English.
See
André Glucksmann, “How Kofi Annan Allowed Putin To Become The Godfather Of Tyrants”, LeMonde/ Worldcrunch, August 14, 2012. from Le Monde, August 8).
Translation from the French, André Glucksmann, “Pendant les JO, la tuerie continue en Syrie,” Le Monde, 11 août 2012 (updated August 13, 2012).
An article by the Trenchant Observer on Glucksmann’s article, with concluding observations, was published here in French on August 13. An English version of that article (drawing on the WorldCrunch translation) is reproduced below.
*****************************************************
André Glucksmann, “The killing continues in Syria”—Obama’s debacle in Syria — Update #74 (August 13) (translation)
André Glucksmann, an important French philosopher and writer, writes in Le Monde of August 11, 2012, that while the Olympic Games fascinate the world’s public and the tanks and the planes of Bashar Al-Assad “spoil, by themselves, the pleasure of sensitive souls,”
the resignation of Kofi Annan is received in a complete summer silence. Nonetheless, when the UN peace envoy to Syria threw in the towel, it marked the end of a shameful fiasco. The affable Ghanaian diplomat and Nobel Peace Laureate, who has been both number one and number two in the international organization, displayed goodwill, humanitarianism and pacifism but yielded only catastrophic results.
As the UN’s number two, responsible for peacekeeping operations in Bosnia and Rwanda, his passivity shielded the Hutu’s genocide of the Tutsi people. In 1994, 800,000 civilians were murdered with machetes over a three-month period whilst Kofi Annan refused to send 5,000 blue helmets to stop the genocide. Ten years later, he released a statement saying he could have personally done more to stop the genocide. Rather than being punished, he was promoted to UN General Secretary, a post he would assume from 1997 to 2006. During that time, he didn’t say a word as Vladimir Putin undertook to slash the living population of Chechnya by a fifth.
Were we to believe that this small people of one million inhabitants included 200,000 terrorists?
Glucksmann exlains why one should not have any hope for a change in the policy of Vladimir Putin, reminding us of his history:
Russia’s geriatric communist leaders have been replaced by a KGB member who knows neither scruples nor restraint. You have to be as naïve as a French diplomat or simply obsessed with elections, like Barack Obama and his European counterparts, to imagine for a second that the “butcher from the Caucasus” would bat an eye at the bloodshed in Aleppo, Homs or Damascus. “20,000 have died in a year!” cries the press and the NGOs. “Is that all?” Putin smirks, you can do better Bashar al-Assad.
Don’t speculate about the charitable sentiments of the Russian leaders. They have felt the wind of the cannonball, offended as they were by the sight of the streets of Moscow submerged by the opposition. Everything that can stop dead the liberating contagion of “the Arab springs” interests the camarilla (entourage of officials) concerned about its own survival. If Putin protects Assad, it is a potential Assad victory that will protect Putin. A bloodily repressed rebellion, like that in Chechnya, would serve as an example and a warning for the Russian people and its close neighbors.
The drama taking place in the Security Council has gone on long enough. We cannot wait forever to see if Putin (and his Chinese comrades) ever becomes a little teary-eyed or if one humanitarian fiber in his body responds to the conflict in Syria. The failure of Kofi Annan is that of an idealist international community: for twenty years it has left its fate up to the phony unanimity of the Security Council, submissive to the diktats of Saint Vladimir, patron of the Lubyanka.
***
From another quarter, Nicholas Sarkozy, former president of France and the person who provoked the world into undertaking the humanitarian intervention in Libya in 2011, has made strong statements critical of the lack of action by the new socialist president, François Hollande, in the face of the developments in Syria.
See Matthieu Alexandre (avec Matthieu Deprieck), “Sarkozy veut coincer Hollande sur le front syrien,” L’Express, 8 août 2012.
As far as the U.N. is concerned, according to reports, Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon is poised to name Lakhdar Brahimi as the new Joint Special Envoy for Syria, Kofi Annan’s successor.
See Mark Leon Goldberg “Can a New Special Envoy Move Syria Diplomacy?” UN Dispatch, August 13, 2012.
Nonetheles, it is important not to lose sight of some points which are essential for analysis of the situation in Syria:
1. The failure of Kofi Annan was at the same time a failure of Ban Ki-Moon, who has been just as responsible for Kofi Annan’s disaster as Kofi Annan himself.
2. Until now, the Secretary General of the United Nations has shown himself to be totally incapable of organizing actions aimed at putting an end to the barbarism in Syria. He wants to continue the talks of Kofi Annan, with a new chief of interviews.
3. The problem in Syria is a military problem, not a diplomatic problem. To turn it into a problem susceptible of a diplomatic solution in the future, it is necessary now to utilize methods that are more energetic than words.
4. At the present, there is no valid reason for the appointment of a successor to Kofi Annan as Special Envoy. That is the game of the Russians. One must simply not play it!
5. In the event Lakhdar Brahimi is appointed Special Envoy for Syria, (a) he should not accept the position; and (b) in the event he does, the countries which are tired of playing this game with the Russians at the U.N. should not collaborate with him, given the fact that his mission tends to attract all of the attention of the international press to his efforts and to what the Russians think, or say, or accept or do not accept. The time for this should be finished.
6. The Russians, like the Chinese, have played a role of acting in bad faith, of supporting the murderous crimes of the Bashar al-Assad regime. Now, the West and the Arab countries and the other civilized countries of the world should search for a solution to the Syrian crisis on the path of facts, of actions, and never again on the roads of a dream world of formulations of beautiful words.
The Trenchant Observer
Tags: 11 auût 2012, André Glucksmann, crimes contre l'humanité, crimes de guerre, dimitri medvedev, en syrie, envoyé spécial, Jeux Olympiques, JO, KGB, KGBiste, kofi annan, La Russie, la tuerie continue en Syrie, le bourreau du Caucase, Le Monde, Mark Leon Goldberg, Matthieu Alexandre, Matthieu Deprieck, processus de médiation, Rwanda, successeur à Kofi Annan, Tchétchcénie, UN Dispatch, Vladimir Poutine, vladimir putin, WorldCrunch
Posted in Azerbaijan, Barack Obama, China, CIA, Crimes Against Humanity, extrajudicial execution, France, Germany, human rights, Intelligence, International Law, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Middle East, NATO, Portugal, Qatar, Russia, sanctions, Saudi Arabia, State Department, State Department Legal Adviser, syria, Togo, Torture, Turkey, U.N. Charter, U.N. Convention Against Torture, U.N. Security Council, U.N. Torture Convention, U.S Foreign Relations, U.S. Intervention, U.S. Military, U.S. news coverage, United Kingdom, United Nations Secretary General, United States, use of force, war crimes | No Comments »
Lies, Spies and Politics: The Incredible Evolution of the Benghazi “Talking Points” Narrative–Part II
Tuesday, November 27th, 2012Some enterprising jounalist should go back and prepare a compilation that lists the different versions of what happened to the talking points, citing all that is known about and by each source speaking on background, or on the record, and the publication in which the version appeared.
An example of the misleading information being supplied to Congress and to the public is provided by the following excerpt from the Christian Sciene Monitor regarding meetings today (November 27) of Susan Rice and CIA Acting Director Michael Morell with Republican Senators :
Conclusions
The Observer’s conclusion, having followed the matter of the talking points rather closely, is that the intelligence agencies and the White House have been blowing smoke and using mirrors to hopelessly confuse the public with deliberately misleading or false versions given to different reporters by different background sources since the Benghazi talking points became a hot issue.
On the issue of whether Susan Rice misrepresented the facts known by the administration and by her regarding the nature of the attacks on the Benghazi mission and annex, it appears clear that she was handed deliberately misleading unclassified talking points that downplayed the al-Qaeda ties of the attackers, that she from her own intelligence briefings must have been aware of these ties, and that she deliberately and misleadingly stressed the spontaneous nature of the attacks and the fact they were carried out by individuals or groups of armed individuals (and not, by inference, by organizaed militias or jihadist forces).
She may have been trying, inartfully, to conceal the classified intelligence she had been instructed not to reveal.
But is is clear that she was sent to the five Sunday morning talk shows by the White House, for what we must assume was a particular purpose. That purpose it appears, until evidence to the contrary is made public, was to defuse the explosive issue of the failures at Benghazi and to minimize the impact of the Benghazi fiasco on President Obama’s prospects in the election. One way to do this was to downplay the al-Qaeda and terrorist ties of the attackers. In addition, an important goal must have been to draw attention away from the CIA black operation that was being carried out in Benghazi.
In saying what she said on the Sunday talk shows, there now can be little doubt that she was doing exactly what President Obama wanted her to do. She was and is a loyal, perhaps the closest and most loyal, foreign policy aide to President Obama, having been his primary advisor on foreign policy during the 2008 campaign, and by all reports maintaining a very close relationship with him since.
It seems clear that what Susan Rice said on the Sunday morning talk shows was exactly what President Obama and his campaign wanted her to say.
For that, she deserves credit, and if nominated to be Secretary of State one of her greatest qualifications will be that she has an extremely close relationship with the president, who can count on her to precisely carry out his instructions.
So, it appears that Obama and the Obama campaign did downplay the terrorism and al-Qaeda ties of those who attacked the mission and annex in Benghazi, and that they did so in part for quite natural political reasons, and also to distract attention from the true nature of the CIA’s activities in Benghazi.
So what?
Obama has now been reelected. So, where do we go from here?
It is important that all of the facts regarding the Benghazi attacks be made public as soon as possible, and not relegated to the eventual reports on what happened at Benghazi, which will undoubtedly be wrapped in legalese and, if the evolution of the Benghazi talking points offers any clue, will artfully obfuscate the most important points in disupute.
It is also important that President Obama be held accountable for any misrepresentations to the American people he may be responsible for. He needs to stop being so clever, and as David Ignatius has recommended in an illuminating article on “the Covert Commander in Chief”, come out from the shadows and lead the nation in the open, in the sunlight.
We must assume that Obama has been directing the Benghazi CIA operation, and the administration’s response to the attacks on the Benghazi mission and annex on September 11. If this assumption is correct, Susan Rice’s appearances on September 16 on the Sunday talk shows can be viewed as the successful execution of the President’s instructions, to achieve his objectives.
The closing paragraphs of David Ignatius’ op-ed piece lay out the challenge which now faces the president if he is to have a successful second term:
Beyond the politics of the 2012 presidential campaign, when we get to the bottom of the Benghazi affair what we are likely to find is a covert operation that involved supplying weapons to the Syrian rebels, and which for some as yet unknown reason became the object of vicious armed attacks by one or more militias or other groups with ties to al Qaeda. Tragically, the Benghazi fiasco resulted in the deaths of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
There is much to be learned from the multiple failures which occurred in Benghazi. To get to the bottom of things, however, President Obama and his admnistration need to stop blowing smoke and using mirrors in providing spurious information to reporters and the American people.
The Trenchant Observer
Tags: Benghazi comments, Benghazi talking points, blowing smoke and using mirrors, cia black operation in Benghazi, David Ignatius, into the light, John McCain, Kelly Ayotte, Lindsey Graham, out of the shadows, providing spurious informaiton to the American people, Reuters, Susan Cornwell, susan rice, Tabassum Zakaria, talking points, the covert commander in chief
Posted in Africa, Barack Obama, CIA, elections, Intelligence, International Law, Iraq, Libya, Middle East, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, State Department, State Department Legal Adviser, syria, U.N. Charter, U.N. Security Council, U.S. Intervention, U.S. Military, United States, use of force | 1 Comment »