Archive for the ‘Saudi Arabia’ Category
Monday, May 13th, 2013
It’s hard to know which of today’s news stories in the U.S. is of greatest significance. Here are a few of the possibilities:
1. Obama continues stonewalling on Benghazi. Credibility in free fall.
2. Jay Carney has lost all credibility for truthfullness, and should resign.
3. Obama punts on chemical weapons “red line”, plays Russians’ game in Syria–Again! Just like one year ago. Obama unable to think or act strategically. Iran understands Obama’s threats are just words, not backed by action. Nuclear program proceeds.
4. Obama escalates news management operation with assault on freedom of the press in AP phone records affair, with chilling effect. If you publish a story the Obama team doesn’t want circulating, they will come after you and hurt you. Meanwhile, Holder’s leaks’ investigations go nowhere.
5. Benghazi subjected to terrorists attacks–today! Middle East in revolutionary turmoil, while U.S. strategy is in a shambles, or non-existent.
6. Kerry allows self to be humiliated by Putin, waiting three hours to see the czar. He came to Moscow begging, with a hopelessly weak hand on Syria. What did he expect? At least he might have left for the airport, and arrived in Washington before Russia’s shipment of a new air defense system arrived in Syria.
7. Maduro consolidates Chavista take-over through fraudulent elections in Venezuela. U.S. has forgotten where Venezuela is exactly–just somewhere near Cuba.
8. U.S., unwilling to lead in Syria, fosters divisions among allies in the Persian Gulf
9. Taking a page from Nixon, Obama targets political opponents through IRS.
10. Little hope for coherent US. foreign policy strategy and implementing actions. Kerry’s ineptitude in Moscow shows “the gang who couldn’t shoot straight” will continue to call the shots from the White House.
11. Who does President Obama remind you of more, Winston Churchill or Neville Chamberlain?
Upon reflection, perhaps it’s better not to write about any of these stories, at least not tonight. The disaster is too big. A larger canvas is needed.
The Trenchant Observer
Tags: Ap phone records, Cameron, Chavista, Iran's nuclear weapons program proceeds, Just words not backed by action, Kerry humiliated by putin, Maduro, Obama, Obama plays russia's game in Syria, Obama's assault on freedom of the press, Obama's chemical weapons "red line", syria, take-over, Terrorist Attacks in benghazi today, Venezuela, Who lost Venezuela?, winston Churchill or Neville Chamberlain?
Posted in Barack Obama, CIA, Dimming Vision of World Affairs, foreign news coverage, History, Iran, Justice Department, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Libya, Nuclear Proliferation, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, State Department, syria, Turkey, United States, use of force, Venezuela | No Comments »
Thursday, February 7th, 2013
Developing story
Check back for updates
Recent News Reports and Commentary
Michael Isikoff (National Investigative Correspondent, NBC News), “Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans; A secretive memo from the Justice Department, provided to NBC News, provides new information about the legal reasoningbehind one of the Obama administration’s controversial policies. Now, John Brennan, Obama’s nominee for CIA director, is expected to face tough questions about drone strikes on Thursday when he appears before the Senate Intelligence Committee,” Open Channel on NBC News.com, February 4, 2013.
Chris McGreal (New York), “John Brennan faces grilling over drone leak as senators demand answers; Nominee for CIA director set for tough confirmation questions from senators angered by lack of White House clarity on drones,” The Guardian, February 5, 2013 (13.51 EST).
Spencer Ackerman, “How Obama Transformed an Old Military Concept So He Can Drone Americans,” Wired, February 5, 2013 (10:16 AM).
Department of Justice, White Paper, “Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen Who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al Qa’ida or an Associated Force,” MSNBC, February 5, 2012.
John Brennan’s Senate Confirmation Hearings to be the Director of the CIA
It is clear that the confirmation of John Brennan by the U.S. Senate should at the very least be delayed until a number of very disturbing questions have been answered relating to the U.S. drone operations and kill lists directed by Brennan from the White House and by other agencies.
The leaking on February 4 and subsequent acknowledgment by government officials of an unclassified “Department of Justice White Paper” on the legal justification forthe killing of U.S. citizens in particular, and the drone operations in general, has raised more questions than it has answered, and led to calls by Senators for release of the full classified legal memorandum upon which it the White Paper was based.
Suddenly, Barack Obama’s secrecy bubble within which he and Executive branch officials convinced themselves that the drone strikes at targets on their kill lists, including the execution of American citizens such as Anwar al Aulaqi, are justified under the U.S. constitution, by domestic law, and under international law, has burst.
Now their legal justifications must be examined in the light of day.
Outside President Barack Obama’s secrecy bubble, the self-assurance of officials who have been talking essentially to themselves for the last four years, and longer, will necessarily give way to to a more objective consideration of their legal arguments, and also of the strained efforts the Bush and Obama administrations have undertaken to keep their actions and legal arguments from judicial review.
The very idea of a “secret” legal memorandum justifying the execution of individuals, including U.S. citizens, is at variance with bedrock principles of democracy and the rule of law. The “state secrets doctrine” used by the government to prevent judicial review of its legal arguments, e.g., in the al-Aulaqi case, turns the Constitution on its head.
One cannot meaningfully speak of “the rule of law” when the legal justifications the government advances for its actions are held in secret.
It is clear that John Brennan’s confirmation by the Senate should be delayed until the many questions raised by his stewardship of the drone executions of individuals on ”kill lists” which he oversaw, to which candidates might be “nominated” by different Executive branch and military officials, has been fully exposed to the light of day, and its legality under both domestic and international law has been fully examined by domestic and international lawyers outside of the Executive Branch, both in and outside the government.
Before Brennan is confirmed to be the Director of Central Intelligence, a fresh look should also be taken by the Senators who must confirm him into his role in the torture policies of the Bush administration, and decisions not to hold accountable officials in the CIA and other parts of government for their role in the design and execution of these torture or “enhanced interrogation techniques programs”.
Brennan’s role in the “extraordinary renditions” carried out by the Bush administration, including the operation recently condemned by the European Court of Human Rights in a case involving Macedonia, should also be thoroughly explored. Senators should confirm whether or not the U.S. has participated since 2009 in any further “extraordinary renditions” or maintained any “black sites” where detainees were secretly held in foreign countries, including allegations that some were being held or had been held at the CIA black site operation in Benghazi prior to the September 11, 2012 attacks and murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens.
There is a significant possibility that John Brennan, under applicable norms of international law, could in the future be charged in some foreign country with complicity in the international crime of torture, and in war crimes that drone strikes outside the bounds of international law may constitute.
Before he is confirmed, Senators should have clear and persuasive answers to these questions and others related to the legality of drone executions, the Bush torture program, extraordinary renditions, CIA black sites, and John Brennan’s role and actions in each of these areas.
The Trenchant Observer
See also the following articles by Trenchant Observer published earlier, which are listed on the “Targeted Killings Page”, and also below:
The Obama Leaks: The issue is not the leaks, but whether the president lied to the American people
July 4, 2012
“A time to break silence”: Dr. King on the Vietnam war, and President Carter on America’s human rights violations (revised June 28)
June 27, 2012 (updated June 28, 2012)
Holder’s Investigations into Torture and Covert Operations Leaks–An Obama Cover-up?
June 26 2012
Did the White House authorize recent leaks on covert programs?
June 10, 2012
Foreign policy incompetence; further opinion on President Obama as “Executioner in Chief”
June 6, 2012
More news and opinion on President Obama as “Executioner in Chief”
June 3, 2012 (Updated June 4, 2012)
President Obama as “Executioner in Chief”
June 1, 2012
Attorney General Eric Holder offers legal justification for targeted killings of U.S. citizens abroad
March 24, 2012
Obama’s foreign policy juggernaut, including Tom Donilon, and the risks of hubris (updated)
January 27, 2012
Drone Attacks and Other “Targeted Killings” — State Department Legal Adviser Invokes International Law Limits
September 24, 2011
International Law and the Use of Force: Drones and Real Anarchy Unleashed Upon the World
July 17, 2011
Strategic disarray in Afghanistan
October 3, 2010
UPDATE: Anwar al-Aulaqi: Targeted Killings, Self-Defense, and War Crimes
August 6, 2010
Targeted Killings: U.N. Special Rapporteur Alston Publishes Report to U.N. Human Rights Council
June 2, 2010
Targeted Killings by Drone Aircraft: A View From India, and Some Observations
May 20, 2010
Anwar al-Aulaqi: Targeted Killings, Self-Defense, and War Crimes
April 7, 2010
Targeted Assassinations: Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, International Law, and Strategic Implications
February 17, 2010
U.S. Targeted Assassinations Violate Citizen’s Right to Life and Due Process, Undercut International Law
February 3, 2010
Tags: Anwar al-Aulaqi, Barack Obama's secrecy bubble, Chris McGreal, chris stevens, drone assassinations, drone executions, drone killings, executioner in chief, government secrets doctrine barring judicial review, government secrets doctrine turns the constitution on hits head, John Brennan, John Brennan confirmation hearings, legal justifications for drone strikes exposed to the light of day, Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, Michael Isikoff, MSNBC, NBC, rule of law, secret legal justifications, Spencer Ackerman, Target Killings page, the executioner in chief, The Guardian, the John Brennan file, the struggle for the rule of law in the United States, U.S. citizen's right to life and due process, U.S. White Paper on legal ustification for drone attacks, US White Paper on legal justification for drone attacks, White Paper on legal justification for drone attacks
Posted in Afghanistan, Barack Obama, CIA, extrajudicial execution, extraordinary rendering, extraordinary rendition, human rights, Intelligence, International Law, Libya, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, self-defense, Somalia, State Department, State Department Legal Adviser, targeted assassinations, targeted killings, Torture, U.N. Charter, U.N. Convention Against Torture, U.N. Torture Convention, U.S. Congress, U.S. Military, United States, use of force, war crimes | 2 Comments »
Wednesday, January 2nd, 2013
Barbarism in a Leaderless World
The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights now estimates there have been “59,648 individuals reported killed in Syria between 15 March 2011 and 30 November 2012.” This number may in fact be well short of the actual number as tens of thousands of people are reported to have disappeared with no word as to their fates.
See United Nations, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, “Data analysis suggests over 60,000 people killed in Syria conflict: Pillay,” United Nations Human Rights, January 2, 2012. See Megan Price, Jeff Klingner, and Patrick Ball, “Preliminary Statistical Analysis of Documentation of Killings in the Syrian Arab Republic,” The Benetech Human Rights Program, 2 January 2013, here.
At such a juncture it is appropriate to reprise the article whose text appears below, yet again. See also Jacques Prévert’s poem “Barabara”, in The Trenchant Observer, “REPRISE: Hommage à Homs: Jacques Prévert, “Barbara” (with English translation); Paul Verlaine, “Ariette III” —Obama’s Debacle in Syria— Update #53 (June 19)
Originally published July 28, 2012
The Opening of the XXX Olympic Games
It was a poignant moment, as world leaders gathered in London last night (July 27) for the opening of the XXX Olympic Games, with the performance of an extraordinary spectacle, in which at one point five Olympic rings appeared suspended in the heavens over the Olympic Stadium. Over a billion people were said to have watched the opening ceremonies on television.
Here, in the very heart of the democratic civilizations of Europe, the Olympic ideal shone brightly.
In ancient Greece, the Olympic Games were preceded by a “Sacred Truce” among the warring city-states, in which athletes were guaranteed safe passage to and from the games, and all fighting was to be halted for a period of one month. This period was eventually extended to allow the athletes and visitors to return home.
The games were held every four years from 776 BC to 393 AD, when they were abolished by the Christian Byzantine Emperor Theodosius I. The ancient Olympic Games lasted for 1170 years. The Modern Olympic Games were initiated in 1896, and have been held every four years or more often since then except for 1916, 1940 and 1944.
–”Brief History of the Olympic Games,” NOSTOS (Hellenic Information Society, UK).
Importantly, the Olympic Games today stand as a symbol for humanity’s goal of one day achieving universal peace. The alternative, it seems, is either the goal of endless war, or the resignation that goes with the sense of helplessness we feel when we reject the goal of peace.
The Battle for Aleppo, and the Response of the World
Meanwhile, in Aleppo in Syria, a country where the international community and the Security Council have been unable to reach agreement to act effectively to halt the atrocities of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, the portents of death and destruction were all too palpable yesterday and today, as the regime’s troops, tanks, artillery, helicopters and war planes began a concerted assault on the lightly armed rebels of the Syrian Liberation Army, in what a pro-Assad Damascus newspaper termed “the Mother of all Battles”.
Today, on Saturday, July 28, the battle was joined in earnest.
For news of recent developments on the ground in Syria, see
Luke Harding (in Anadan, on the Aleppo front line), “Syrian rebels near Aleppo: ‘We are besieging Assad’s army’; Regime forces have been pulverising rebel-held districts using artillery and helicopter gunships. But the rebels are upbeat,” The Guardian, July 28, 2012 (11:35 EDT).
Damien McElroy (in Aleppo), “Badly armed rebels face tanks as Syria’s mother of all battles begins,” The Telegraph, July 28, 2012 (6:57PM BST).
Álvaro de Cózar (Special Correspondent in Marea), “El Ejército sirio avanza para tomar Alepo; Las tropas de El Asad atacan con bombas y tanques los barrios en manos rebeldes; Las líneas de teléfono y el suministro de energía han sido cortados, El País, 28 Julio 2012 (23:45 CET).
Kareem Fahim and Ellen Barry, “Syrian Military Intensifies Assault on Rebels in Aleppo,” New York Times, July 28, 2012
***
Unfortunately, Americans accessing the Internet do not find it easy to gain a sense of what is actually taking place on the ground, due to “The Filter Bubble” which prevents most U.S. observers on the Internet from seeing the search results for newspapers outside of their own country (including, e.g., British and other newspapers which have correspondents on the ground in Syria). To get around The Filter Bubble, see the directions in the bottom right-hand column on the right on our Home Page, or go here.
Thus, as the world turns its attention to the joyful spectacle of athletes from countries throughout the world competing on the basis of individual merit, as humanity comes together for its quadrennial celebration of the richness and diversity of the human family, the people in Aleppo and in Syria are left to face the absolute terror and barbarism of the Bashar al-Assad regime, alone.
Russia and China, along with the Syrian regime, are clearly to blame for this state of affairs, and populations who follow international affairs throughout the world are aware of the role they have have played in thwarting effective U.N. Security Council action. Memories of how they have backed the murderous regime of al-Assad are likely to be long indeed in the Middle East, and also in the democracies of the world.
The United States and other Western countries warn of an impending massacre in Aleppo, as if anyone but they themselves could save the day.
It is a new role for Americans: Eyewitness News reporters without an inkling of any sense of moral responsibility that might lead them to act. In this role, they are following the lead of their president.
The Americans, the Europeans, top U.N. officials and others loudly deplore the lamentable state of affairs in Syria in general, and the unfolding of the “mother of all battles” in Aleppo, in particular.
Leaderless, they stand helpless and paralyzed before the terror and barbarism of al-Assad.
They provide countless declarations of moral outrage, and call for the nations of the world to increase their “pressure” on the al-Assad regime.
The “pressure” of which they speak is a “pressure” of words, of plaintive moral appeals directed to war criminals whose moral depravity is beyond dispute. Or perhaps the “pressure” may even consist of voluntary economic sanctions, imposed by different countries outside the framework of the U.N. Security Council, whose impact is uncertain and in any event will take much time.
Neither words nor economic sanctions, however, will stop al-Assad’s armies.
These leaders are at once appalled by the terror, the barbarism, the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity before their very eyes, and caught in their own moral cowardice, impotent, helpless, with verbal reproaches the only weapons they have the courage to wield. Paralyzed by their own cowardice, they will not act—not effectively, not in time to save the thousands of additional deaths that the grinding gears of war portend to claim, and of which they so earnestly warn.
Enough with Words!
These leaders can all do the world one big favor: Stop denouncing al-Assad’s atrocities, at least until they are willing to do something really effective to bring them to a halt.
With their moral energies thus freed, they can pay close attention to the facts on the ground, to what is actually happening to thousands of human beings in the maw of war, and then they can seek quiet solace in their churches, their synagogues, their mosques, and the other spiritual refuges in which they must, as individual human beings, come to terms with what they have seen, and what they have not done.
Enough with words!
Enough with the self-absolving declarations these leaders offer to the world, and to themselves, so they can sleep at night, knowing they were present at Srebrenice, present at Auschwitz, present in Rwanda, over a very long period of time, and did nothing.
President Theodore Roosevelt, Recipient of the 1907 Nobel Peace Prize, on Words and Deeds
As for President Obama, who reportedly likes to think of himself as emulating the great American presidents, the words of President Theodore Roosevelt, recipient of the 1907 Nobel Peace Prize, come to mind. Roosevelt declared:
“International Peace”
…
We must ever bear in mind that the great end in view is righteousness, justice as between man and man, nation and nation, the chance to lead our lives on a somewhat higher level, with a broader spirit of brotherly goodwill one for another. Peace is generally good in itself, but it is never the highest good unless it comes as the handmaid of righteousness; and it becomes a very evil thing if it serves merely as a mask for cowardice and sloth, or as an instrument to further the ends of despotism or anarchy. We despise and abhor the bully, the brawler, the oppressor, whether in private or public life, but we despise no less the coward and the voluptuary. No man is worth calling a man who will not fight rather than submit to infamy or see those that are dear to him suffer wrong. No nation deserves to exist if it permits itself to lose the stern and virile virtues; and this without regard to whether the loss is due to the growth of a heartless and all-absorbing commercialism, to prolonged indulgence in luxury and soft, effortless ease, or to the deification of a warped and twisted sentimentality.
Moreover, and above all, let us remember that words count only when they give expression to deeds, or are to be translated into them (emphasis added). The leaders of the Red Terror2 prattled of peace while they steeped their hands in the blood of the innocent; and many a tyrant has called it peace when he has scourged honest protest into silence. Our words must be judged by our deeds; and in striving for a lofty ideal we must use practical methods; and if we cannot attain all at one leap, we must advance towards it step by step, reasonably content so long as we do actually make some progress in the right direction.
[Footnote] 2. The “Terror” is a term characterizing the conduct of power in revolutionary France by the second committee of Public Safety (September, 1793-July, 1794), sometimes identified as the “Red Terror” to distinguish it from the short-lived “White Terror”, which was an effort by the Royalists in 1795 to destroy the Revolution.
–Theodore Roosevelt, 1907 Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech, delivered May 5, 1910.
President Obama and the other leaders of the world would do well to take these words to heart, today, and every day hereafter until they find the courage to take effective action to halt the barbarism and the terror in Syria.
The Trenchant Observer
observer@trenchantobserver.com
www.twitter.com/trenchantobserv
For links to other articles by The Trenchant Observer, click on the title at the top of this page to go to the home page, and then use the “Search” Box or consult the information in the bottom right hand corner of the home page. The Articles on Syria page can also be found here. The Articles on Targeted Killings page can also be found here.
Tags: 60000 killed in Syria, al-Assad, al-Watan, Alep, Alepo, Aleppo, Álvaro de Cózar, Anadan, articles on syria page, atrocities, barbarism, barbarism in a leaderless world, Crimes Against Humanity, Damien McElroy, Debacle in Syria, direct link to statistical analysis, El País, Ellen Barry, Jeff Klingner, Kareem Fahim, Luke Harding, Megan Price, Navi Pillay, New York Times, Nobel Lecture, Nobel Peace Prize, NOSTOS, Obama, Olympic Games, Patrick Bell, Siria, syria, Syrie, Syrien, the Battle for Aleppo, the Benentech Human Rights Program, the filter bubble, The Guardian, the mother of all battles, the response of the world, the sacred truce, tHE tELEGRAPH, the Washington Post, theodore roosevelt, U.N. HIgh Commissioner for Human Rights, UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, war crimes, words and deeds
Posted in Azerbaijan, Barack Obama, China, CIA, Crimes Against Humanity, Deutschland, Egypt, France, Germany, History, human rights, India, Intelligence, internal supporters of human rights, International Law, Lebanon, Libya, Middle East, Poetry, Portugal, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, State Department, State Department Human Rights Country Reports, State Department Legal Adviser, syria, Torture, Turkey, U.N. Charter, U.N. Convention Against Torture, U.N. Security Council, U.N. Torture Convention, U.S. Military, United Kingdom, United States, use of force, war crimes | No Comments »
Wednesday, December 12th, 2012
This article was first published on September 1, 2012
The situation in Syria (is) unfolding “in front of our eyes”, with the regime deploying fighter jets against the people, in addition to heavy artillery and tanks, (Ahmet DAVUTOĞLU, the Foreign Minister of Turkey, told the Security Council on August 30). “How long are we going to sit and watch while an entire generation is being wiped out by random bombardment and deliberate mass targeting?” he asked. “If we do not act against such a crime against humanity happening in front of our eyes, we become accomplice to the crime,” he warned.
As we wrote following the August 30 meeting of the Security Council,
Everyone wants a ceasefire and an end to the killing. Few seem to have come to grips with the fact that the use of force will be required, outside the framework of the Security Council. There can be little doubt that, within the Security Council itself, there is not going to be any agreement to use force (or even to adopt strong economic sanctions) to bring al-Assad’s barbarism to a halt.
This will have to be done outside the framework of the Security Council. What is needed is for one or more countries, preferably but not necessarily acting as a coalition, to just act to set up the safe zones, and one or more accompanying no-fly zones if that is required as a result of al-Assad’s response.
–U.N. Security Council Meets: More “blah, blah, blah”, and no action—Obama’s debacle in Syria — Update #82 (August 30), August 31, 2012.
Such action should be accompanied by a justification under international law.
That justification should stress that the purpose of the action is to protect the population of Syria against the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The stated purpose of the operation should not be to overthrow the government of Bashar al-Assad, which is impermissible under international law. On the other hand, it would be permissible if an operation which protected the population against the commission of such crimes also facilitated a process that would bring to account those in Syria who are responsible for the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
While such fine distinctions may seem of little significance to those not versed in international law, they are in fact quite important in terms of limiting the precedent that would be set and obtaining support from other countries for such action, if not immediately at least over time.
For further discussion of legal justifications for intervention in Syria, see the following articles by The Trenchant Observer and the sources cited therein:
Continuing massacres in Syria, at Daraya and elsewhere; legal justification for military intervention — Obama’s Debacle in Syria —Update #78 (August 26), August 26, 2012
REPRISE: Humanitarian Intervention in Syria Without Security Council Authorization—Obama’s Debacle in Syria— Update #68 (July 25), July 25, 2012
Military Intervention to establish “no-kill zones” and humanitarian corridors—Syria Update #9 (February 25), February 24, 2012
The critical issue with respect to legal justifications for establishing and defending “safe zones” or “no-kill zones” in Syria, and the establishment of no-fly zones if required, is whether such action would violate Article 2 paragraph 4 of the United Nations Charter. Article 2(4) provides:
Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
…
(4) All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
On the face of it, the use of force to enforce a no-fly zone, or to defend a “safe zone” from assaults by Syria’s army, would involve an action against the “territorial integrity” of Syria. This is the horn of the dilemma.
Read literally, any permanent member of the Security Council could, through the use of its veto, block any military action by any state within the territory of another state, except in the case of an “armed attack”, no matter what the circumstances. In principle, such a veto could block any action by the civilized nations of the world to bring to a halt a war crimes and crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing such as occurred in Kosovo, or even genocide such as that conducted by Adolph Hitler during World War II.
Various interpretations of the Charter have proposed ways out of this logical box. One is the so-called “teleological” interpretation, by which Article 2(4) must be interpreted not literally, but rather in the light of the general purposes of the U.N. Charter and its other principles. Using this approach, one might justify the establishment of “no-kill zones” and “no-fly zones” in Syria.
The problem is that such “teleological” interpretations might open Pandora’s box, allowing multiple interpretations and opportunities for abuse by states intervening for their own purposes, e.g., to overthrow the al-Assad regime, while putting a humanitarian argument forward to justify their actions. Or, to cite another example, Israel and the United States might attempt to justify an attack on Iran to take out or greatly degrade its nuclear enrichment capabilities and what they believe is a secret program aimed at developing nuclear weapons, on the rationale that it is necessary to maintain international peace and security.
Alternatively, Israel and the United States could in principle attempt to justify an attack on Iran as an exercise of the right of individual and collective self-defense, an exception to the prohibition in Article 2(4) contained in Article 51 of the Charter, which provides:
Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
The key words in Article 51 are “if an armed attack occurs”, which has been interpreted as embodying the requirements that the armed attack have occurred or be imminent, immediate and leave no time for other actions. Exercise of the right of self-defense has traditionally been subject to the requirements “immediacy, necessity and proportionality”.
See Flavio Paioletti, “The 21st Century Challenges to Article 51,” e-International Relations, June 30, 2011.
The United States and other nations have not always acted within this tight legal framework. In 1999, for example, the United States and NATO conducted a unilateral bombing campaign against Serbia in a successful effort to get the government to stop its policy of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. Despite its humanitarian purpose, no legal justification was advanced by the U.S. Department of State for the action.
In Iraq, the United States sought to justify its 2003 invasion of that country both on the basis of previous Security Council resolutions and on the basis of the “right” advanced by the Bush administration to “pre-emptive self defense”.
The concern of states and legal scholars from around the world is that by allowing “teleological” interpretations of Article 2(4) or expansive interpretations of what constitutes “an armed attack” creating a right of individual and collective self-defense, such interpretations would open the door to increasingly expansive assertions of the right to use force across international frontiers. It is significant that in the case of Kosovo, no legal justification was offered.
So, we are left with the legal regime brilliantly defined by the founders of the United Nations to establish rules and mechanisms to effectively regulate the international use of force, on the one hand, and the fact that as the populations of more and more countries seek to demand respect for their fundamental human rights, and the right to participate in government, existing dictorships may resort to the appalling use of terror and crimes against humanity and war crimes in defending their hold on power, as has happened recently in Libya and Syria.
Unlike domestic laws and the constitution in the U.S., the United Nations Charter and other international agreements are subject to rules of strict interpretation, as established in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. This makes sense, as nations are generally extremely wary of ceding authority to international institutions, and rules of strict interpretation are necessary in order to secure participation in international treaties. While the United Nations Charter is something of a special case, since very few countries would consider withdrawal from the organization, acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice remains voluntary, a fact which underlines the continuing importance of rules of strict interpretation.
Caught in this logical box, are we to stand idly by as tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of human beings are slaughtered, whenever a permanent member of the Security Council exercises a veto?
The United Nations Charter is 67 years old. It has survived the Korean war, the war in Vietnam, the invasions of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Afghanistan (1980), the Balkan wars, genocide in Rwanda and the Sudan, and the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
The fundamental question is whether states should: (1) simply act outside the charter when they feel compelled to do so for humanitarian reasons (e.g., Kosovo); (2) justify their actions on legal grounds, preferably as taken with the support of regional organizations (e.g., NATO) or a broad coalition of nations; or (3) do nothing in the face of acts of barbarism such as those being committed in Syria.
In the case of Kosovo, Russia brought a resolution to a vote in the Security Council which condemned the bombing of Serbia, but the resolution was defeated 12-3.
Perhaps that is as close to 100% compliance with the Charter norms as we can get in the world today.
The ultimate choice is between undertaking effective action that will halt the atrocities in Syria, or sticking with our current policies.
In the case of the U.S., the current policy is carefully calibrated to comply with the requirements on the use of force laid down by the International Court of Justice in 1986 in the Nicaragua case. In that case, the Court held that direction and control of rebel groups was required in order for assistance to rebel groups to constitute an armed attack, thereby triggering a right of individual or collective self defense.
If the decision is made to establish safe zones and associated no-fly zones (if necessary), a final choice is whether to provide some legal justification for such action, or to follow the example of the United States in the NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999, and offer none.
While the choice here is not entirely clear, a strong argument can be made for advancing a highly restrictive legal justification, narrowly tailored to the circumstances in the Syrian case, together with the support of a regional body such as NATO, and undertaken only as a provisional measure of protection until such time as the Security Council can act effectively to protect the population of Syria from the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Russia may bring a resolution condemning such action in the Security Council. Assuming the resolution is defeated by a healthy margin, as occurred in the case of Kosovo, this may be the closest to compliance with the Charter as is possible today.
The Trenchant Observer
Tags: Article 2, Article 2(4), Artículo 2 párrafo 4, Assad, bachar al-assad, Bashar al-Assad, Carta das Nacões Unidas, Carta de las Naciones Unidas, Charte des Nations Unies, China, derecho internacional, direito internacional, droit international, e-International Relations, Flavio Paioletti, humanitarian intervention, il uman il-mutahida, International Law, intervenção militar, Intervention militaire, interventionsverbot, justificação jurídica, justificación jurídica, justificacion juridique, Legal Justications for military intervention in Syria, Legal Justififcation, Militarintervention, military intervention, paragraphe 4, progibición, prohibicão, prohibition of the use of force, Russia, Siria, surria, Syien, syria, Syrie, U.N. Charter, United States, uso de forza, uso de fuerza, Völkerrecht
Posted in Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Barack Obama, China, CIA, Crimes Against Humanity, extrajudicial execution, France, Germany, Guatemala, History, human rights, human rights reports, Intelligence, internal supporters of human rights, International Law, kosovo, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, NATO, Pakistan, Portugal, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, self-defense, Serbia, South Africa, State Department, State Department Legal Adviser, syria, targeted assassinations, targeted killings, Togo, Torture, Turkey, U.N. Charter, U.N. Security Council, U.S. Congress, U.S. Intervention, U.S. Military, United Kingdom, United States, use of force, war crimes, Yemen | No Comments »
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 »
Thursday, November 22nd, 2012
DRAFT–developing
Intelligence agencies use deception as a standard operating procedure. CIA operations are by nature secret, and intelligence agencies go to great lenghts to keep them secret, even if their existence sometimes may be leaked if it suits the president’s purposes.
It should come as no surprise, therefore, that the reporting by American reporters on the Benghazi attacks has been mostly based on off-the-record interviews with administration officials, and that the latter have presented their revelations and confirmations in ways which pursue their own objectives, on background, usually on deep background where even the agency of the source is not revealed. Such reporters seem quite content to simply pass on the latest “revelations”, without vetting them against other known facts and statements. Often, it does not add up.
The constantly evolving narrative of the CIA “talking points” used by Susan Rice on the Sunday talk shows on September 16 illustrates the confusion of such spinning by intelligence officials whose modus operandi is deception and secrecy. First we learn that the so-called talking points were drafted by the CIA. Then we learn they were changed by someone, but all the intelligence chiefs testified that they didn’t know by whom. Then we learn that the CIA draft was not changed by the intelligence agencies, but sent up to the NSC Deputies Committee. Wednesday we learn that the DNI now says that they edited the talking points, as did other agencies.
None of the edits were necessary for national security reasons, in the original opinion of the CIA. Intelligence officials on background justify their edits on the grounds that leaving in the references to al-Queda affiliates and sympathizers would have revealed methods and sources, thereby revealing methods and sources.
On Wedneday, Susan Rice reiterates that she only told the talk shows what was in the talking points. The media fail to point out that she also included references in her statements on those shows to “armed individuals” and “small groups of armed individuals” in an effort to stress the disorganized nature of the attack, when such presumably classified information was not in her “talking points”.
The first duty of a journalist used to be to get to the bottom of things, to sort out all the conflicting evidence and tell the audience what it means, not simply to pass it on. The Washington press corps has, by and large, failed to get to the bottom of things. That is why, two months and 11 days after the attacks at Benghazi, we the public still don’t know for sure exactly what happened, or exactly what the CIA black operation was doing in Benghazi.
Were they providing arms to the Syrian rebels?
The press has failed, spectacularly, to provide an answer to this question, which lies at the heart of the Benghazi affair.They have done so, presumably, because they were asked to withhold those details by the Obama administration’s intelligence agencies. With very few and limited exceptions, the fact that they have published no further details about the CIA’s black operation in Benghazi demonstrates the extent to which the Washington press corps has become a servile instrument of the Obama administration’s foreign policy.
The fact that the administration was able to control the media’s reporting of the CIA’s black operation in Benghazi should be a matter of extraordinary concern to citizens of a free country who are utterly dependent on a free press, and a free press which to be meaningful must aggressively seek out and publish the facts even when the government wants to keep them secret.
Indeed, more broadly, there has been precious little fundamental criticism of Obama’s foreign policies and the details and quality of their implementation.
What were the CIA’s operatives doing in Benghazi?
The answer is of overriding importance for the development and implementation of an effective U.S. foreign policy. From a policy perspective, there is a fundamental question of whether the nation’s interests have been served by Obama’s covert operations relating to Syria, or would have been better served by an open and public policy of support for those forces in Syria who are seeking to bring to an end al-assad’s barbarism, involving widespread commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Such attacks have not been seen in a modern state at least since the Balkan wars of the 1990′s, and possibly since the atrocities of the German Nazi state of Adolph Hitler before and during World War II.
Some 40,000 Syrians have died as a result of the inaction of the international community, and the failure of leadership of the Obama administration. Obama has even blocked the efforts of other states to bring force to bear to halt Bashar al-Assad’s assault on the civilization and people of Syria.
Quite simply, the United States has failed to lead, and whatever beneficial results it has achieved through covert operations have come at a heavy cost. The Saudi defense minister is reportedly playing a key role in coordinating the covert supply of weapons to the Syrian opposition, just as he did with respect to supplying the insurgents in Afghanistan in the 1980′s following the Soviet invasion of that country, when he was ambassador to Washington. We are still dealing with the “blowback” from that operation, as the war in Afghanistan grinds on in its 11th year.
It should come as no surprise that Islamist groups are benefitting from this arrangement at the expense of more secular groups. This is a direct result of the U.S. pursuit of a covert policy in Syria, instead of an open policy that might have led to early confrontation with al-Assad and the saving of tens of thousands of lives.
The spill-over effects of this covert war are being felt throughout the region. Hamas was emboldened by the visit of the leader of Qatar in recent weeks. A looming confrontation between Syria and Turkey, with NATO involvement in supplying Patriot missiles to Turkey while Russia vehemently objects, demonstrations in Jordan including calls for the end of the monarchy, and a continuing threat against the independence of Lebanon, are only some of the knock-on effects of Obama’s covert policy and lack of leadership on Syria. In the
The foreign policy of the United States towards Syria should be debated in public, and carried out in public.
The press has a crtical role to play in guaranteeing that this occurs. Its job is to search out the truth and to report it to its readers and its electronic audience. That truth, and only that truth, can guide the nation in choosing a wise and effective foreign policy.
The Trenchant Observer
Tags: armed individuals small groups of armed individuals, attacks on bengazi, Barack Obama, Bashar al-Assad, Benghazi, cia black operation in Benghazi, cia operatives in benghazi, cia talkking points, David Petraeus, duty of journalkists, duty of reporters, duty of the press, duty to get to the bottom of things, evotlution of talking points narrative, Free press, other classified information, revelaing methods and sources, supply of weapons to syria from benghazi, susan rice, syria, talking points, talking points narrative, U.S. press, U.S. reporters
Posted in Afghanistan, Barack Obama, CIA, coverage of foreign events, Crimes Against Humanity, Dimming Vision of World Affairs, Egypt, electronic curtain, extrajudicial execution, foreign correspondents, foreign news coverage, freedom of speech, Intelligence, internal supporters of human rights, Iran, Israel, kosovo, Lebanon, Libya, Middle East, NATO, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, State Department, State Department Legal Adviser, syria, Taliban, targeted assassinations, targeted killings, television, Torture, Turkey, U.N. Security Council, U.S Foreign Relations, U.S. Congress, U.S. Intervention, U.S. Military, U.S. news coverage, United States, use of force, war crimes | No Comments »
Thursday, October 11th, 2012
Originally published July 28, 2012
The Opening of the XXX Olympic Games
It was a poignant moment, as world leaders gathered in London last night (July 27) for the opening of the XXX Olympic Games, with the performance of an extraordinary spectacle, in which at one point five Olympic rings appeared suspended in the heavens over the Olympic Stadium. Over a billion people were said to have watched the opening ceremonies on television.
Here, in the very heart of the democratic civilizations of Europe, the Olympic ideal shone brightly.
In ancient Greece, the Olympic Games were preceded by a “Sacred Truce” among the warring city-states, in which athletes were guaranteed safe passage to and from the games, and all fighting was to be halted for a period of one month. This period was eventually extended to allow the athletes and visitors to return home.
The games were held every four years from 776 BC to 393 AD, when they were abolished by the Christian Byzantine Emperor Theodosius I. The ancient Olympic Games lasted for 1170 years. The Modern Olympic Games were initiated in 1896, and have been held every four years or more often since then except for 1916, 1940 and 1944.
–”Brief History of the Olympic Games,” NOSTOS (Hellenic Information Society, UK).
Importantly, the Olympic Games today stand as a symbol for humanity’s goal of one day achieving universal peace. The alternative, it seems, is either the goal of endless war, or the resignation that goes with the sense of helplessness we feel when we reject the goal of peace.
The Battle for Aleppo, and the Response of the World
Meanwhile, in Aleppo in Syria, a country where the international community and the Security Council have been unable to reach agreement to act effectively to halt the atrocities of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, the portents of death and destruction were all too palpable yesterday and today, as the regime’s troops, tanks, artillery, helicopters and war planes began a concerted assault on the lightly armed rebels of the Syrian Liberation Army, in what a pro-Assad Damascus newspaper termed “the Mother of all Battles”.
Today, on Saturday, July 28, the battle was joined in earnest.
For news of recent developments on the ground in Syria, see
Luke Harding (in Anadan, on the Aleppo front line), “Syrian rebels near Aleppo: ‘We are besieging Assad’s army’; Regime forces have been pulverising rebel-held districts using artillery and helicopter gunships. But the rebels are upbeat,” The Guardian, July 28, 2012 (11:35 EDT).
Damien McElroy (in Aleppo), “Badly armed rebels face tanks as Syria’s mother of all battles begins,” The Telegraph, July 28, 2012 (6:57PM BST).
Álvaro de Cózar (Special Correspondent in Marea), “El Ejército sirio avanza para tomar Alepo; Las tropas de El Asad atacan con bombas y tanques los barrios en manos rebeldes; Las líneas de teléfono y el suministro de energía han sido cortados, El País, 28 Julio 2012 (23:45 CET).
Kareem Fahim and Ellen Barry, “Syrian Military Intensifies Assault on Rebels in Aleppo,” New York Times, July 28, 2012
***
Unfortunately, Americans accessing the Internet do not find it easy to gain a sense of what is actually taking place on the ground, due to “The Filter Bubble” which prevents most U.S. observers on the Internet from seeing the search results for newspapers outside of their own country (including, e.g., British and other newspapers which have correspondents on the ground in Syria). To get around The Filter Bubble, see the directions in the bottom right-hand column on the right on our Home Page, or go here.
Thus, as the world turns its attention to the joyful spectacle of athletes from countries throughout the world competing on the basis of individual merit, as humanity comes together for its quadrennial celebration of the richness and diversity of the human family, the people in Aleppo and in Syria are left to face the absolute terror and barbarism of the Bashar al-Assad regime, alone.
Russia and China, along with the Syrian regime, are clearly to blame for this state of affairs, and populations who follow international affairs throughout the world are aware of the role they have have played in thwarting effective U.N. Security Council action. Memories of how they have backed the murderous regime of al-Assad are likely to be long indeed in the Middle East, and also in the democracies of the world.
The United States and other Western countries warn of an impending massacre in Aleppo, as if anyone but they themselves could save the day.
It is a new role for Americans: Eyewitness News reporters without an inkling of any sense of moral responsibility that might lead them to act. In this role, they are following the lead of their president.
The Americans, the Europeans, top U.N. officials and others loudly deplore the lamentable state of affairs in Syria in general, and the unfolding of the “mother of all battles” in Aleppo, in particular.
Leaderless, they stand helpless and paralyzed before the terror and barbarism of al-Assad.
They provide countless declarations of moral outrage, and call for the nations of the world to increase their “pressure” on the al-Assad regime.
The “pressure” of which they speak is a “pressure” of words, of plaintive moral appeals directed to war criminals whose moral depravity is beyond dispute. Or perhaps the “pressure” may even consist of voluntary economic sanctions, imposed by different countries outside the framework of the U.N. Security Council, whose impact is uncertain and in any event will take much time.
Neither words nor economic sanctions, however, will stop al-Assad’s armies.
These leaders are at once appalled by the terror, the barbarism, the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity before their very eyes, and caught in their own moral cowardice, impotent, helpless, with verbal reproaches the only weapons they have the courage to wield. Paralyzed by their own cowardice, they will not act—not effectively, not in time to save the thousands of additional deaths that the grinding gears of war portend to claim, and of which they so earnestly warn.
Enough with Words!
These leaders can all do the world one big favor: Stop denouncing al-Assad’s atrocities, at least until they are willing to do something really effective to bring them to a halt.
With their moral energies thus freed, they can pay close attention to the facts on the ground, to what is actually happening to thousands of human beings in the maw of war, and then they can seek quiet solace in their churches, their synagogues, their mosques, and the other spiritual refuges in which they must, as individual human beings, come to terms with what they have seen, and what they have not done.
Enough with words!
Enough with the self-absolving declarations these leaders offer to the world, and to themselves, so they can sleep at night, knowing they were present at Srebrenice, present at Auschwitz, present in Rwanda, over a very long period of time, and did nothing.
President Theodore Roosevelt, Recipient of the 1907 Nobel Peace Prize, on Words and Deeds
As for President Obama, who reportedly likes to think of himself as emulating the great American presidents, the words of President Theodore Roosevelt, recipient of the 1907 Nobel Peace Prize, come to mind. Roosevelt declared:
“International Peace”
…
We must ever bear in mind that the great end in view is righteousness, justice as between man and man, nation and nation, the chance to lead our lives on a somewhat higher level, with a broader spirit of brotherly goodwill one for another. Peace is generally good in itself, but it is never the highest good unless it comes as the handmaid of righteousness; and it becomes a very evil thing if it serves merely as a mask for cowardice and sloth, or as an instrument to further the ends of despotism or anarchy. We despise and abhor the bully, the brawler, the oppressor, whether in private or public life, but we despise no less the coward and the voluptuary. No man is worth calling a man who will not fight rather than submit to infamy or see those that are dear to him suffer wrong. No nation deserves to exist if it permits itself to lose the stern and virile virtues; and this without regard to whether the loss is due to the growth of a heartless and all-absorbing commercialism, to prolonged indulgence in luxury and soft, effortless ease, or to the deification of a warped and twisted sentimentality.
Moreover, and above all, let us remember that words count only when they give expression to deeds, or are to be translated into them (emphasis added). The leaders of the Red Terror2 prattled of peace while they steeped their hands in the blood of the innocent; and many a tyrant has called it peace when he has scourged honest protest into silence. Our words must be judged by our deeds; and in striving for a lofty ideal we must use practical methods; and if we cannot attain all at one leap, we must advance towards it step by step, reasonably content so long as we do actually make some progress in the right direction.
[Footnote] 2. The “Terror” is a term characterizing the conduct of power in revolutionary France by the second committee of Public Safety (September, 1793-July, 1794), sometimes identified as the “Red Terror” to distinguish it from the short-lived “White Terror”, which was an effort by the Royalists in 1795 to destroy the Revolution.
–Theodore Roosevelt, 1907 Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech, delivered May 5, 1910.
President Obama and the other leaders of the world would do well to take these words to heart, today, and every day hereafter until they find the courage to take effective action to halt the barbarism and the terror in Syria.
The Trenchant Observer
observer@trenchantobserver.com
www.twitter.com/trenchantobserv
For links to other articles by The Trenchant Observer, click on the title at the top of this page to go to the home page, and then use the “Search” Box or consult the information in the bottom right hand corner of the home page. The Articles on Syria page can also be found here. The Articles on Targeted Killings page can also be found here.
Tags: al-Assad, al-Watan, Alep, Alepo, Aleppo, Álvaro de Cózar, Anadan, articles on syria page, atrocities, barbarism, Crimes Against Humanity, Damien McElroy, Debacle in Syria, El País, Ellen Barry, Kareem Fahim, Luke Harding, New York Times, Nobel Lecture, Nobel Peace Prize, NOSTOS, Obama, Olympic Games, Siria, syria, Syrie, Syrien, the Battle for Aleppo, the filter bubble, The Guardian, the mother of all battles, the response of the world, the sacred truce, tHE tELEGRAPH, the Washington Post, theodore roosevelt, war crimes, words and deeds
Posted in Azerbaijan, Barack Obama, China, Crimes Against Humanity, Egypt, extrajudicial execution, France, Germany, Guatemala, History, human rights, Intelligence, internal supporters of human rights, International Law, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, NATO, Nigeria, Portugal, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, self-defense, South Africa, State Department, State Department Legal Adviser, syria, Togo, Torture, Tunisia, U.N. Charter, U.N. Convention Against Torture, U.N. Security Council, U.N. Torture Convention, U.S. Intervention, U.S. Military, United Kingdom, United States, use of force, war crimes | No Comments »
Tuesday, October 9th, 2012
Governor Mitt Romney has delivered an important speech on his vision of U.S. foreign policy.
Pundits and Obama supporters have already criticized and rebutted the speech, revealing again that, with few exceptions, they cannot hear criticism and respond constructively to it.
See “SPEECH TEXT: Mitt Romney Delivers Foreign Policy Address to the Virginia Military Institute,” National Journal, October 8, 2012. The text of the speech can be found here.
The speech, which is well-written and at times eloquent, merits a close and direct reading.
Obama and his supporters would be well-advised to try to put down their defenses and really hear the essential criticisms contained in the speech, whether or not they agree with them.
Perhaps the greatest weakness of Obama and his foreign policy team has been that they have been unable to hear and respond to criticisms. Romney’s October 8 speech provides them with a new opportunity to do some deep thinking and self-examination.
If Obama has no more to offer in response to Romney’s critisims than the typical defensive statements (“you just don’t understand, these are the facts”), he will will be hurt by Romney in the forthcoming debate on foreign policy issues.
The Trenchant Observer
Tags: barackm obama, foreign policy speech, Iran, Libya, libye libia, lybyen, Middle East, Mitt Romney, obama foreign policy team, october 8, romney, romney foreign policy, Siria, syria, Syrie, Syrien, u.s. foreign polkicy, virginaia military academy, vmi
Posted in Afghanistan, Barack Obama, Egypt, freedom of speech, History, human rights, internal supporters of human rights, Lebanon, Libya, Mitt Romney, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, State Department Human Rights Country Reports, syria, Taliban, Tunisia, Turkey, U.S Foreign Relations, U.S. Congress, U.S. Intervention, U.S. Military, United States, use of force, vision of peace | No Comments »
Tuesday, September 25th, 2012
Remarks at Media Stakeout Outside Security Council by Guido Westerwelle, German Foreign Minister, September 24, 2012
SC President, Guido Westerwelle (Germany) on Syria – Security Council Media Stakeout, 24 Sep 2012 (video link)- Informal comments to the media by H. E. Mr. Guido Westerwelle, Foreign Minister of Germany and the Security Council President for September on the situation in Syria. [English and German]
Remarks at Media Stakeout Outside Security Council by Lakhdar Brahimi, Joint Special Representative of the United Nations and the League of Arab States, and of Peter Wittig, President of the U.N. Security Council, September 24, 2012.
SC President, Peter Wittig (Germany) and Lakhdar Brahimi, Joint Special Representative of the United Nations and the League of Arab States on Syria – Security Council Media Stakeout (24 September 2012) – 24 Sep 2012 (video link)- Informal comments to the media by H. E. Mr. Peter Wittig, Permanent Representative of Germany to the UN and Security Council President and by Joint Special Representative of the UN and the League of Arab States on the Syrian crisis, Lakhdar Brahimi.
Analysis
Judging from Brahimi’s comments, he plans to settle in for a long period of time as Joint Special Envoy of the United Nations and the League of Arab States, enjoying the perquisites of the 17 member staff set up in Geneva and his tax-free salary of $189,000 per year.
On the positive side, he didn’t say much, though he has begun to hold out false hopes for a breakthrough, just as Kofi Annan did, saying he expected developments that would make an “opening” possible in the not too distant future.
Recommendations:
1. Brahimi’s mission, and his 17-member office in Geneva, should be ended at the earliest opportunity.
2. The Security Council should set up a special working group of the Permanent Members of the Council to meet weekly to roll up their sleeves and work together to find a solution to the impasse in the Security Council. How do Russia and China intend to stop the civil war and the ongoing commission of crimes against humanity and war crimes by the government of Syria? What do they propose beyond watching the slaughter unfold as extremist elements of the armed opposition gain momentum?
Brahimi’s talk of pursuing Kofi Annan’s six-point plan should send all the permanent representatives to the Security Council running for the exits, or running to ensure that Brahimi exits at an early date.
We’ve already done this. We’ve been there. 30,000 Syrians have died while the Security Council failed to deal with the killing in Syria, and Kofi Annan misled the world with false hopes and illusory peace plans, “castles in the sky” lacking any plan to force al-Assad to stop his crimes. Diplomacy focused on the Security Council has failed.
Enough is enough. We don’t need to do this again. What we need to do is to stop the killing. Now. By military action outside the framework of the Security Council, if that is what is required.
The Trenchant Observer
Tags: castles in the sky, Joint Special Representative Lakhdar Brahimi, kofi annan plan. six-point plan, Lakhdar Brahimi, military intervention, no new ideas, security council impasse continues, Siria, situation in Syria, syria, Syrie, Syrien, U.N. Security Council
Posted in Azerbaijan, Barack Obama, Brazil, China, Crimes Against Humanity, Deutschland, Egypt, extrajudicial execution, France, Germany, Guatemala, History, human rights, India, International Law, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, NATO, Portugal, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, syria, Togo, Torture, Tunisia, U.N. Security Council, U.S. Intervention, U.S. Military, united arab emirates, United Kingdom, United Nations Secretary General, United States, use of force, war crimes | No Comments »
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 »