Posts Tagged ‘arab spring’

Egypt’s coming showdown: Boycott of December 15 referendum, opposition demonstrations, and the reactions of the armed forces

Sunday, December 9th, 2012

President Mohamed Morsi has, by his relentless pursuit of an Islamic constitution, an Islamic state, and ultimately an Islamic dictatorship guided by conservative interpretations of the sharia, brought Egypt to the precipice of civil war.

The opposition, faced with a referendum on December 15 on a draft constitution whose birth was made possible by a coup d’etat and the intimidation of the constitutional court by means worthy of a totalitarian state–involving physical threats against the judges and death threats delivered to their phones by Muslim Brotherhood supporters–can only lose if it participates in what is a fundamentally illegitimate referendum. Moreover,  the referendum has not been duly organized while its oversight and vote counting, under the control of Morsi, cannot be trusted to be fair.

Justice Tahani El-Guébali, one of a handful of female judges in the Egyptian judiciary–which has traditionally barred women from its ranks–describes in chilling detail the obstruction and intimidation which prevented the Constitutional Court from reaching a decision on the constitutionality of the constituent assembly elections:

(The French text below may be translated using Google Translate, found here).

Dimanche, alors que les dix-neuf membres de la Haute Cour devaient se réunir pour examiner la légitimité de l’Assemblée constituante, accusée de ne pas représenter le pays, nous avons été bloqués par un barrage de barbus pro-Morsi qui nous ont empêchés de pénétrer dans le bâtiment. Depuis, ils sont des centaines à camper sur place. Chaque fois que je m’y rends, je dois rebrousser chemin sous un déluge d’insultes. J’ai même reçu des menaces de mort sur mon portable. Depuis son coup d’État constitutionnel du 22 novembre, qui interdit tout recours en justice contre ses décisions et contre la Constituante, le nouveau président a accaparé les pleins pouvoirs. Il ­règne en maître au-dessus des lois. Il impose sa dictature.

(English translation)

Sunday, while the nineteen members of the High Court were to meet to discuss the legitimacy of the Constituent Assembly, which is accused of failing to represent the country, we were blocked by a barrage of bearded pro-Morsi supporters which prevented us from entering the building. Since then, hundreds of people are camping on site. Whenever I go there, I must turn back under a deluge of insults. I even received death threats on my mobile phone. Since its constitutional coup of November 22, which prohibits any legal proceedings against his decisions and against the Constituent Assembly, the new president has taken over full powers. He-reigns above the law. He imposes his dictatorship.

Further, Justice Tahani El-Guébali explained the steps Morsi is taking to establish a dictatorship in Egypt, reconstituting the Constitutional Court by eliminating eight positions, including her own:

Les partisans de Morsi assurent que son décret est «temporaire » et qu’il vise à accélérer les réformes…

C’est faux. Les Frères musulmans sont en train de kidnapper la révolution. Ils cherchent à contrôler toutes les institutions, notamment la Haute Cour constitutionnelle. La nouvelle Constitution, qu’ils veulent soumettre à référendum le 15 décembre, réduit ses compétences et propose d’évincer huit de ses membres, dont moi-même. Pendant ce temps, l’institution sunnite al-Azhar se voit, elle, octroyer la tâche d’interpréter la charia…

(English translation)

Morsi’s supporters affirm that the decree is “temporary” and that it aims to accelerate reforms …

This is false. The Muslim Brotherhood is trying to kidnap the revolution. They seek to control all institutions, especially the Supreme Constitutional Court. The new Constitution, which they want to submit to a referendum on December 15, limits its powers and jurisdiction, and seeks to to remove eight of its members, including myself. Meanwhile, the Sunni institution al-Azhar is itself granted the authority of interpreting the sharia (Muslim law)…

–See Delphine Minou, “Égypte: « Morsi a accaparé les pleins pouvoirs » (Interview with Tahani El-Guébali, Vice-presidente de la Haut Cour Constitutionelle d’Egypte), Le Figaro, 5 decembre 2012 (Mis à jour le 06/12/2012 à 11:19).

The opposition’s logical response will be to continue their massive street demonstrations in defense of the democratic revolution and a future Egyptian state governed by the rule of law.

Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood may then respond by calling their supporters to the streets to participate in further clashes with the opposition, like those that claimed seven lives on December 6, or to declare martial law–and even potentially to begin to arrest leading opposition figures.

At that point, the hour of decision will have arrived. Will the military use force against the opposition demonstrators? Will the armed forces and police enforce a declaration of martial law, or repress the rage of millions of opposition demonstrators once their leaders are being arrested?

That is the endgame. Either the military will join the Muslim Brotherhood in repressing the opposition demonstrators in the streets, reprising its role under Hosni Mubarak, or something else will happen.

If the military assists the Brotherhood and its Salafist allies in establishing an Islamic dictatorship in Egypt, the U.S. congress will in all likelihood end the $1.5 billion in assistance the U.S. gives the Egyptian military each year, while relations between the military and the United States are sharply curtailed.

The future of Egypt may once again be in the hands of the armed forces and the police. How they respond may not necessarily depend on the orders they receive from the new leadership appointed by Morsi, but rather on the soldiers and policemen whose brothers and sisters are also in the street.

Or it may be lost by continuing divisions and a lack of unity on the part of Morsi’s opponents.

The military has now convoked a dialogue on Wednesday between Morsi and his opponents. It is to be held, significantly, at a military venue.

It is a moment of great import. The future of the Arab Spring and the aspirations for democracy of millions of Egyptians, and others in the region, hang in the balance.

The Trenchant Observer

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Africa, Barack Obama, Dictatorship, Egypt, elections, History, human rights, human rights reports, Middle East, State Department, United States | No Comments »

Words and Deeds: President Obama delivers eloquent defense of free speech and democracy at U.N. General Assembly (with text and video links)

Saturday, September 29th, 2012

 

On September 25, U.S. President Barack Obama addressed the United Nations General Assembly, delivering a nuanced and eloquent defense of the right to freedom of speech, liberty, and democracy.

See Remarks by the President to the UN General Assembly, United Nations Headquarters, September 25, 2012. The text of the speech is found here. A video of the speech is found here.

The speech was one of the most significant President Obama has delivered during his presidency. Unlike his Nobel Prize acceptance speech, which was carefully framed with deliberate ambiguity regarding compliance with international law, the September 25 address to the General Assembly constitutes a straightforward and powerful defense of democracy and the values of liberty which it expresses.

In particular, President Obama addressed directly the issue of freedom of speech and violent reactions to protected speech that offends Muslims or members of other religions, including the violent actions that led to the deaths of U.S. Ambassador Chirstopher Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi on the night of September 11-12, 2012.

On Syria, however, the president did not say anything significant or new.

If this speech were to embody the real and guiding principles of a second-term Obama foreign policy, its content would be highly significant.

But as we and others have remarked, there is often a gap between the president’s eloquent speeches and the actions of his administration in the real world. As The Daily Star noted in its editorial following the speech,

A rough translation to English of lyrics to a popular Arabic song goes something like this: “When I hear your words I am fascinated, When I see your actions I am flabbergasted.”

These are the sentiments of many people in this part of the world on the occasion of Tuesday’s speech by President Barack Obama before the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

They might also apply to past addresses there by Obama’s predecessors George Bush, Bill Clinton, and other presidents over the past several decades.

The verbal prowess might differ, but the content is usually the same. People often hear positive, upbeat and principled rhetoric, the kind that used to give hope to the Palestinian people, or the wider Arab world.

While people in this region might have been genuinely impressed with the content of some of these speeches in the past, the audience these days has become considerably more cynical, and with good reason.

In order to realize any of the lofty goals laid out in such addresses, several things are required: political will, the tools to succeed and a feasible time frame.
…
When a politician who enjoys the stature and resources that Obama does makes a decision to talk about the burning issues of the day, he should be prepared to make an effort to put out the fire. Otherwise, the difference between words and actions will lose him more and more of the audience.

–Editorial, “Deeds, not words,” The Daily Star (Beirut), September 26, 2012.

If the speech does represent President Obama’s vision of his foreign policy for a second term, if re-elected, he will have his work cut out for him. For starters, he will have to deal much more effectively with the civil war in Syria, and address the human rights violations that were the subject of President Jimmy Carter’s op-ed piece in the New York Times on June 24, 2012.

See The Trenchant Observer, “’A time to break silence’: Dr. King on the Vietnam war, and President Carter on America’s human rights violations,” June 27, 2012 (revised June 28, 2012).

This would seem to be a tall order for any president. Yet however skeptical if not cynical we may become, we should always hold out some hope that the President, freed from the perceived imperatives of a re-election campaign, might in his search for a place in history find a higher path that leads away from his vision of perrenial warfare, and towards a vision of peace.

If Obama were to focus on visions of peace and how to achieve them, instead of inevitable grinding war and warfare, he might well find in his 2012 address to the General Assembly a skeletal framework for a foreign policy which though deeds could help place him among the great presidents of the United States.

To achieve that goal, as David Ignatius has pointed out, he will need to emerge from the shadows and into the light where the world can see his and America’s actions.  For only from there, in the light of day, can he lead the international community in pursuit of a reinvigorated vision of international peace, and a strategy of concrete actions through which that vision might be achieved.

Without such a shift in approach, President Obama’s place in history will forever be diminished by his foreign policy failures, his violations of human rights and international law, and the failure of his strategic vision for America’s actions in the world.

The Trenchant Observer

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Barack Obama, freedom of speech, human rights, International Law, State Department, syria, Tunisia, U.N. Charter, U.S Foreign Relations, U.S. Military, Yemen | No Comments »

Into the Abyss: Washington’s Fecklessness, Syria’s Fate—Obama’s Debacle in Syria — Update #20 (March 30)

Friday, March 30th, 2012

Latest News Reports and Opinion

Reuters reports from Beirut,

(Reuters) – Syrian artillery hit parts of Homs city and at least 37 people were killed in clashes around Syria on Friday, opposition activists said, as peace envoy Kofi Annan told President Bashar al-Assad his forces must be first to cease fire and withdraw.
–Erika Solomon and Douglas Hamilton (Beirut), “Syrian army must pull back first under Annan plan, Reuters, March 30, 2012 (2:15pm EDT).

The Syria conflict and the United States’ failure to develop and execute an effective policy to deal with the atrocities in Syria is likely to spill over into international efforts to halt the development of a nuclear weapons capability in Iran, as suggested by Turkish Prime Minister’s reported statements to Khamanei in Tehran.

See Elad Benari. “Khamenei: Syria’s Anti-Israel, So We’ll Defend It; Ayatollah Ali Khamenei tells Turkish PM Erdogan: Iran will defend the Syrian regime due to its anti-Israeli stance, Arutz Sheva (7), March 30, 2012 (www.israelinationalnews.com).

The Telegraph provides an overview of the situation at the end of the day in London:

Ruth Sherlock (Beirut), “Syria activists lose hope that they will unseat Bashar al-Assad; Syrian activists were losing hope of unseating President Bashar al-Assad from power as regime troops continued to attack dwindling rebel strongholds, ignoring international demands for a ceasefire,” The Telegraph, March 30, 2012 (7:39PM BST).

Der Spiegel, which has consistently provided up-to-date and comprehensive reporting on events on the ground in Syria, describes the impact of “Annan’s deadly peace plan” including its fatal flaws and its effects on the ground:

See Ulrike Putz (Beirut), “Annans tödlicher Friedensplan; Syriens Rebellen toben, Experten sind entsetzt: Der Uno-Friedensplan von Kofi Annan bringt dem Assad-Regime vor allem jede Menge Zeit, um im Land weiter zu morden und zu foltern. Am Ende könnte der Diktator sogar im Amt bleiben – die Opposition will das mit Gewalt verhindern, ” 30 März 2012.

Regarding Obama’s posture toward Russia as revealed in Seoul, see Charles Krauthammer, “The ‘flexibility’ doctrine,” The Washington Post, March 29, 2012. Krauthammer quotes the audio picked up at the open microphone incident, as follows:

“On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved, but it’s important for him [Vladimir Putin] to give me space. . . . This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.”
— Barack Obama to Dmitry Medvedev, open mike, March 26

Analysis

What can be added to what has been written before? See the Articles on Syria page.

Obama is determined not to get involved in Syria in an election year, “regardless of the consequences”.

He is not moved, not moved to action, by seeing thousands of Syrians killed by al-Assad’s forces, with dozens and sometimes hundreds of new victims added to the list each day.

He supported the Kofi Annan plan, which in effect prevented potential pressures on the ground against al-Assad, while providing a smokescreen behind which the United States could hide its feckless failure to act to halt the killing. Worse than that, the Annan plan thwarted the efforts of others–Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, in particular–from providing arms to Syrian citizens with which they could defend themselves against the onslaught of a modern army and state security apparatus, and from establishing a safety zone inside Syria to which they could retreat to escape the killing.

The response of the U.S. and others to events in Syria is worse than Srebrenice, because the events have unfolded in slow motion and the United States has had plenty of time to think, to react, and to act to stop the killing.

Now the world can draw its own conclusions about the current leadership of the United States, which as we have pointed out has a foreign policy without a moral core.

The saddest thing is that we can now also draw our conclusions about Barack Obama, and the kind of foreign policy “leader” he really is.

He has bungled our exit from Iraq, and further embroiled us in a hopeless war to uphold a corrupt dictator and political elite in Afghanistan, a narco-state.

He has also thrown international law to the wind as he pursues the defense of the United States by enhancing and using the capabilities of drones and special operations forces to simply kill our perceived enemies, throughout many countries in the world.

In doing so, with no vision of peace and no credibility in appealing for the support of the populations of allied countries to undertake joint endeavors based on shared moral values and principles, including those embodied in international law, he has given the world a prospect of endless war–without the moderating force of law.

He is who he is.

And we are who we are. In the United States, we have a vote in the upcoming presidential elections. For some of us, who find the domestic programs of the Democrats far more sensible than those put forward by Republican candidates in the presidential primaries, and who are gravely concerned about the future composition of the Supreme Court, the presidential elections in November, 2012 are shaping up to present a wrenching choice.

In the meantime, we–and the Syrians demonstrating and fighting for a democratic government which guarantees the protection of their fundamental human rights–must look elsewhere for leadership to halt the commission of crimes against humanity, war crimes, and other grave violations of human rights in Syria.

The Trenchant Observer

observer@trenchantobserver.com
www.twitter.com/trenchantobserv

For links to other articles by The Trenchant Observer on this topic, and others, 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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Barack Obama, China, corruption, Crimes Against Humanity, Dictatorship, elections, extrajudicial execution, History, human rights, Intelligence, internal supporters of human rights, International Law, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, Middle East, NATO, Nuclear Proliferation, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, self-defense, State Department, State Department Human Rights Country Reports, State Department Legal Adviser, syria, targeted assassinations, targeted killings, Torture, Turkey, U.N. Charter, U.N. Security Council, U.S Foreign Relations, U.S. Intervention, U.S. Military, united arab emirates, United States, vision of peace, war crimes | 1 Comment »

“The emperor has no clothes”: Foreign policy without a moral core—Obama’s Debacle in Syria — Update #19 (March 29)

Thursday, March 29th, 2012

Latest News and Opinion on Syria

Dominic Evans (Beirut), “Assad says foreign aid to rebels must stop under peace plan,” Reuters, March 29, 2012 (8:54 pm BST).

Adrian Blomfeld, “Syria: Bashar al-Assad raises questions over commitment to peace deal; President Bashar al-Assad has raised questions over his commitment to a UN-backed initiative he agreed to just days ago by demanding that Syria’s rebels disarm before a peace deal can be reached, The Telegraph, March 29, 2012 (8:01 pm BST).

Der Spiegel reports that 29 people were killed on Thursday, mostly in Homs, Idlib and in the suburbs of Damaskus.

–Christoph Sydow, “Assad ignoriert Annans Friedensplan; Mit sechs Punkten zum Frieden: Uno und Arabische Liga setzen auf Kofi Annans Lösungsplan, der den Machtkampf in Syrien befrieden soll. Doch das Regime in Damaskus setzt bislang keine der Forderungen um. Assad spielt auf Zeit – und hofft weiter auf die fehlende Entschlossenheit des Westens,” Der Spiegel, den 31. März 2012. This article also contains a summary of the six-point U.N. peace plan of Kofi Annan, in German.

Tony Badran, “Passivity and incoherence on Syria,” NOW Lebanon (blog), March 29, 2012.

Tony Badran, “US tells Turkey to back off Syria,” NOW Lebanon (blog), March 22, 2012.

Opinion: Marc Ginsberg

Marc Ginsberg, former U.S. Ambassador to Morocco has condemned recent U.S. policy on Syria, highlighting similarities with the Clinton White House’s handling of atrocities in the Balkans up until the massacre of 7,000 men and boys at Srebrenice in July, 1995.

Flash forward 17 years later, and in this second year of Syria’s so-called Arab Spring bloodbath it’s déjà vu all over again at 1600 Penn. While Syria is not Srebrenica, there are eerie similarities in how this Obama team is hopelessly caught up in a Bosnian-style policy vacuum circa 1995, characterized by an excessively domineering election campaign apparatus that inexorably trumps national security considerations. That is a dangerous recipe when coupled with the absence of any long-term strategy in Syria.

Why is the White House on such a slippery slope that it claims it is determined to avoid?

Tracing the policy of the White House over the last year, Ginsburg notes that Obama and his team reacted to Syrian atrocities like “kryptonite”, stressed unsubstantiated fears about what would come after Assad as a reason for inaction, and coupled repeated calls for Assad to go with a failure to impose consequences on al-Assad. Consistently, the White House political operation’s desire to keep Syria out of the election trumped national security considerations.

Shockingly, Ginsberg relates how the U.S. enlisted Turkish support for certain options, and then cut the ground out from under the Turks by telling them that Obama “preferred going through the Russians” to secure peace by supporting the U.N. peace initiative led by Kofi Annan.

(A)s more reports of atrocities trickled out of Syria last summer, the U.S. began subcontracting U.S. policy to Turkey in the expectation that greater coordination with Ankara would create more multilateral support against the regime. At the time, this made eminent sense. Ankara, faced with a growing humanitarian refugee crisis on its Syrian border, and furious with its failed investment in the Assad regime, picked up the mantle. There were bilateral talks of buffer zones and humanitarian corridors and, perhaps non-lethal support to the nascent Free Syrian Army.

But as my able colleague Tony Badran reported in his blog in www.nowlebanon.com (confirming what I picked up during my recent visit to Turkey a few days ago), Secretary Clinton caught her Turkish counterpart off guard during their meeting in Washington last month. Clinton reportedly told Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu that the Obama Administration “preferred going through the Russians” in an attempt to achieve a political solution being shopped by the UN/Arab League’s Special Syrian Envoy Kofi Annan.

By unexpectedly dismissing Turkish/Arab League plans to create a buffer zone/or humanitarian corridor as well as organizing and providing non-lethal support to the Free Syrian Army, everything that Turkey thought was on the table with Washington appeared to fall off of it. It seemed to matter to no one in the White House that it had just pushed our Turkish colleagues over the cliff after we had jumped on their bandwagon.
…

(I)f the U.S. refuses to accede to new ideas from its “Syrian Friends” then, to coin its own phrase with respect to Assad, “it should get out of the way.”

–Amb. Marc Ginsberg, “Syria Is Obama’s Srebrenica,” Huffington Post (The Blog), March 28, 2012 .

Tony Badran’s March 22 article, listed above and cited by Ginsberg, provides further details on the change in U.S. position on Syria with regard to options under consideration by Turkey and the Gulf countries. Badran also explains Obama’s aversion to getting invoved, as follows:

The Obama administration’s reasoning is simple. It calculates, rather correctly, that such regional efforts will likely end up drawing the US in down the road, one way or another. President Obama wishes to nip in the bud any possibility of this happening in an election year. And so, such regional moves were opposed in order for the president not to be forced to take action he’s adamantly intent on avoiding, regardless of the consequences.

As a result, the administration has found itself in the surreal position of siding closer with Assad’s Russian ally and at cross-purposes with its own regional allies – and, most significantly, in contradiction with its own stated policy of regime change in Syria.
–Tony Badran, “US tells Turkey to back off Syria,” NOW Lebanon, March 22, 2012.

So, Obama seems to have pulled the rug out from under our allies, and decided to pursue peace in Syria instead by working with the Russians and supporting Kofi Annan’s ill-starred six-point peace program.

A Foreign Policy without a Moral Core

Obama’s actions toward Turkey and the Gulf countries in relation to Syria suggest that there is no moral core at the heart of Obama’s foreign policy.

It should also be noted that a close if unofficial advisor to Hillary Clinton–her husband, Bill Clinton–was himself the author of the U.S. policy that led to Srebrenice.

On Syria, the pattern of U.S. actions toward Iran in 2009, Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya has been repeated. Absent Security Council authorization, Obama has been unwilling to act or to lead. Obama avoids confrontation like the plague.

Events drive policy, not the reverse.

The Obama administration has shown no moral outrage at Russia’s and China’s support of al-Assad and their working to provide him with more time to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Syrian population to solidify his hold on power. Rather, it’s business as ususal.

With Russia actively supporting al-Assad through the provision of weapons, amunition and training by Russian advisors on the ground in Syria, President Obama had the callous temerity to sit down with Russian President Medvedev at the Seoul nuclear conference last week, in a most cordial manner, and to beseech him to understand that he, Obama, would be able to be more flexible on nuclear arms control negotiations after the November elections.

What was most revealing about the “open microphone” episode in Seoul was that Obama was pleading with the Russians to be understanding and to give him some space on the arms control issue. In short, he was proceeding from a psychological position of weakness, when he should have been insisting publicly that Russia stop its morally indefensible support of al-Assad’s commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Syria.

Obama seems to be laboring under the illusion that his “reset” of relations with Russia, particularly thorugh his personal relationship with Mededev, has been successful when, quite obviously, the contrary has been the case.

These developments can be understood only by recognizing that Obama when dealing with foreign policy issues thinks primarily in terms of electoral politics and his re-election in November. He delegates foreign policy to others. In fact, he appears much more animated and engaged emotionally on domestic issues. This is consistent with his lack of international interests prior to entering the White House.

For whatever reasons, in the foreign policy area there appear to be no moral values for which he will fight.

When you step back from the daily news and take a broad look at what Obama has done by supporting Kofi Annan’s U.N. peace initiative, and “preferring going through the Russians”, you can see the utter cynicism and lack of morality of the administration’s policy and actions.

What Obama has done, in a word, is to sell the Syrian opposition down the river. He has abandoned them. The highly probable result of pursuing the Annan plan is that great delay will follow before the fighting stops, if it does, and then probably only after thousands of additional lives have been lost.

The U.N. plan is nothing more than a shameless facade behind which the United States can try to hide, while it obstructs those who would otherwise act to halt the commission of crimes against humanity and war crimes in Syria.

The logical outcome of the U.N. plan is that al-Assad will remain in power, with all the instruments of state terror at his command, to be used if and when and to the extent needed to maintain himself in power. Keeping him in power will ensure the Russians the continued operation of their naval base at Tartus, their listening post for the Middle East, and their arms contracts and other business relationships with the al-Assad regime.

One is reminded of the children’s story by Hans Christian Andersen entitled, “The Emperor’s New Clothes”. See the translation of Hans Christian Andersen’s “Keiserens nye Klæder” by Jean Hersholt.

The Emperor in this case is President Barack Obama. The Emperor has no clothes.

Obama’s foreign policy has no moral core.

The Trenchant Observer

observer@trenchantobserver.com
www.twitter.com/trenchantobserv

For links to other articles by The Trenchant Observer on this topic, and others, 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.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Barack Obama, China, Crimes Against Humanity, elections, History, human rights, International Law, Lebanon, Russia, State Department, State Department Legal Adviser, syria, targeted assassinations, Torture, Turkey, U.N. Charter, U.S. Intervention, U.S. Military, United States, use of force, war crimes | 2 Comments »

Chinese and Russian Vetoes of 4 February 2012 Security Council Resolution on Syria (including video, text of resolution, break-down of vote, and transcript of proceedings)—Syria Update #4

Wednesday, February 8th, 2012

“As a result of China and Russia blocking Security Council action, each day the killing in Syria continues, is a day on which China and Russia have fresh blood on their hands.”

The February 4, 2012 UN Security Council Vote on the Draft Resolution on Syria

On February 4, 2012, the United Nations Security Council reached an impasse on Syria, with China and Russia each casting a blocking veto against a draft resolution which supported the Arab League’s actions and decision of January 22, 2012 calling for a peaceful transition in Syria.  It also demanded that the Syrian government immediately cease its crimes against the civilian population. The other 13 members of the Security Council voted in favor of the resolution.  Given the statements made about the resolution by representatives of both China and Russia, the actual text of the resolution merits close examination.  It is reproduced below.    

For the UN video of the February 4, 2012 Security Council debate and vote on the draft resolution on Syria (reproduced below), see United Nations Webcast (Video on Demand), “Vote – Security Council Meeting on Syria 04 February 2012″.

A press release summarizing the statements of the different delegations is found here.

The provisional transcript in English of the full meeting including all comments (United Nations Doc. S/PV.6711) is found here.

For a list of previous Security Council meetings and draft resolutions on Syria, see the Security Council documents page, here.

Statements of Russia and China

In addition to the 15 members of the Security Council, in accordance with its procedures the following countries were also invited to participate in the meeting:

Libya
Oman
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Tunisia
Turkey
United Arab Emirates
Syrian Arab Republic

The debate in the Security Council makes fascinating reading (or listening), and sheds much light on the background to the situation in Syria and the failure to cooperate with peace initiatives on the part of the Bashar al-Assad government, which has a history of making wonderful promises while continuing its bloody represssion against its people on the ground.

All of the interventions are of interest, but those of China and Russia are particularly revealing, in view of the fact that they had blocked effective Security Council action for many months, and in view of the thin rationales put forward for their vetoes of the draft resolution. Summaries of their statements from the U.N. Press release follow:

VITALY CHURKIN ( Russian Federation) said the bloodshed and violence in Syria must be ended immediately, adding that his country was taking direct action and planned to hold a meeting with President Bashar al-Assad on 7 February. While the Russian Federation was committed to finding a solution to the crisis, some influential members of the international community had been undermining the possibility of a peaceful settlement by advocating a change of regime. The draft resolution voted down today sought to send an “unbalanced” message to Syria, he said, adding that it did not accurately reflect the situation there. No proposal had been made to end attacks by armed groups, or their association with extremists, he said, adding that his delegation had, therefore, voted against the text. The Russian Federation greatly regretted the results of the Council’s joint work, and hoped that a successful Syrian political process would take place, he said, emphasizing that the Russian Federation would continue to work towards that goal.

LI BAODONG ( China), also calling for an immediate end to all violence in Syria, asked for the respect of the Syrian people for a reform process that was in their own interest. China supported the Arab League’s “good office” efforts to restore stability in Syria, he said, adding that the international community should provide “constructive assistance” to achieve that goal. However, the country’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity must be respected, he emphasized. The purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter must be respected, he added, citing the need to promote political dialogue and to defuse disputes “rather than complicate the issue”. China had played an active part in the negotiations on the draft, and maintained that, under the current circumstances, placing “undue emphasis” on pressuring the Syrian Government would not help to resolve the crisis, but would further complicate the situation, he said. China supported the amendments to the text proposed by the Russian Federation, and noted that the latter would meet with the President of Syria next week. Pushing through a draft resolution while members of the Council were still “seriously divided” over the issue would not help to resolve it, he stressed, adding that it was in that context that China had voted against the text. Nonetheless, it would continue to work with the international community towards an appropriate end to the crisis, he said.

Obviously, in the views of the other 13 members of the Security Council, it was time to act. Those voting in favor of the resolution included the following members:

Azerbaijan
Colombia
France
Germany
Guatemala
India
Morocco
Pakistan
Portugal
South Africa
Togo
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
United States of America

The Text of the Draft Resolution

While the key provisions of the resolution are to be found in operative paragraphs 1-4, the resolution in its entirety merits a close reading:

United Nations S/2012/77
Security Council Distr.: General
4 February 2012
Original: English

Bahrain, Colombia, Egypt, France, Germany, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America:  draft resolution

The Security Council,

Recalling its presidential statement of 3 August 2011,

Recalling General Assembly resolution A/RES/66/176 of 19 December 2011, as well as Human Rights Council resolutions S/16-1, S/17-1 and S/18-1,

Noting the League of Arab States’ request in its decision of 22 January 2012,

Expressing grave concern at the deterioration of the situation in Syria, and profound concern at the death of thousands of people and calling for an immediate end to all violence,

Welcoming the League of Arab States’ Action Plan of 2 November 2011 and its subsequent decisions, including its decision of 22 January 2012, which aims to achieve a peaceful resolution of the crisis,

Noting the deployment of the League of Arab States’ observer mission, commending its efforts, regretting that, due to the escalation in violence, the observer mission was not in a position to monitor the full implementation of the League of Arab States’ Action Plan of 2 November 2011, and noting the subsequent decision of the League of Arab states to suspend the mission,

Underscoring the importance of ensuring the voluntary return of refugees and internally displaced persons to their homes in safety and with dignity,

Mindful that stability in Syria is key to peace and stability in the region,

Noting the announced commitments by the Syrian authorities to reform, and regretting the lack of progress in implementation,

Reaffirming its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Syria, emphasizing its intention to resolve the current political crisis in Syria peacefully, and noting that nothing in this resolution authorizes measures under Article 42 of the Charter,

Welcoming the engagement of the Secretary-General and all diplomatic efforts aimed at addressing the situation, and noting in this regard the offer of the Russian Federation to host a meeting in Moscow, in consultation with the League of Arab States,

1. Condemns the continued widespread and gross violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms by the Syrian authorities, such as the use of force against civilians, arbitrary executions, killing and persecution of protestors and members of the media, arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances, interference with access to medical treatment, torture, sexual violence, and ill-treatment, including against children;

2. Demands that the Syrian government immediately put an end to all human rights violations and attacks against those exercising their rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association, protect its population, fully comply with its obligations under applicable international law and fully implement Human Rights Council resolutions S-16/1, S-17/1, S-18/1 and General Assembly resolution A/RES/66/176;

3. Condemns all violence, irrespective of where it comes from, and in this regard demands that all parties in Syria, including armed groups, immediately stop all violence or reprisals, including attacks against State institutions, in accordance with the League of Arab States’ initiative;

4. Recalls that all those responsible for human rights violations, including acts of violence, must be held accountable;

5. Demands that the Syrian government, in accordance with the Plan of Action of the League of Arab States of 2 November 2011 and its decision of 22 January 2012, without delay:

(a) cease all violence and protect its population;
(b) release all persons detained arbitrarily due to the recent incidents;
(c) withdraw all Syrian military and armed forces from cities and towns, and return them to their original home barracks;
(d) guarantee the freedom of peaceful demonstrations;
(e) allow full and unhindered access and movement for all relevant League of Arab States’ institutions and Arab and international media in all parts of Syria to determine the truth about the situation on the ground and monitor the incidents taking place; and
(f) allow full and unhindered access to the League of Arab States’ observer mission;

6. Calls for an inclusive Syrian-led political process conducted in an environment free from violence, fear, intimidation and extremism, and aimed at effectively addressing the legitimate aspirations and concerns of Syria’s people, without prejudging the outcome;

7. Fully supports in this regard the League of Arab States’ 22 January 2012 decision to facilitate a Syrian-led political transition to a democratic, plural political system, in which citizens are equal regardless of their affiliations or ethnicities or beliefs, including through commencing a serious political dialogue between the Syrian government and the whole spectrum of the Syrian opposition under the League of Arab States’ auspices, in accordance with the timetable set out by the League of Arab States;

8. Encourages the League of Arab States to continue its efforts in cooperation with all Syrian stakeholders;

9. Calls upon the Syrian authorities, in the event of a resumption of the observer mission, to cooperate fully with the League of Arab States’ observer mission, in accordance with the League of Arabs States’ Protocol of 19 December 2011, including through granting full and unhindered access and freedom of movement to the observers, facilitating the entry of technical equipment necessary for the mission, guaranteeing the mission’s right to interview, freely or in private, any individual and guaranteeing also not to punish, harass, or retaliate against, any person who has cooperated with the mission;

10. Stresses the need for all to provide all necessary assistance to the mission in accordance with the League of Arab States’ Protocol of 19 December 2011 and its decision of 22 January 2012;

11. Demands that the Syrian authorities cooperate fully with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and with the Commission of Inquiry dispatched by the Human Rights Council, including by granting it full and unimpeded access to the country;

12. Calls upon the Syrian authorities to allow safe and unhindered access for humanitarian assistance in order to ensure the delivery of humanitarian aid to persons in need of assistance;

13. Welcomes the Secretary-General’s efforts to provide support to the League of Arab States, including its observer mission, in promoting a peaceful solution to the Syrian crisis;

14. Requests the Secretary-General to report on the implementation of this resolution, in consultation with the League of Arab States, within 21 days after its adoption and to report every 30 days thereafter;

15. Decides to review implementation of this resolution within 21 days and, in the event of non-compliance, to consider further measures;

16. Decides to remain actively seized of the matter.

***

With United Nations Action Blocked, the Killing Continues

With dozens and even hundreds of people being killed every day in Syria, China and Russia blocked the collective will of the 13 remaining members of the Security Council to pass–finally–a draft resolution which which had some hope of reducing the killing in Syria. The resolution backed the Arab League plan adopted on January 22, 2012 after months of delay and non-compliance with earlier agreements, and the bitter experience of Arab League monitors on the ground in Syria. During their presence, the al-Assad regime made no serious and sustained effort to comply with his agreement with the Arab League which was the basis for their presence in Syria. The Arab League monitor plan was a final attempt by the Arab League to give the Syrian regime yet another chance before implementing the adoption of economic sanctions.

The draft resolution did not authorize, and could not be used to authorize, military action, as was made explicit by the reference to Article 42 of the Charter.

After months of negotiations and delay, during which Russia and China steadfastly opposed effective action by the Security Council, they vetoed a fairly mild resolution–given the circumstances on the ground–supporting the Arab League plan. Their arguments for opposing the resolution were rejected by the remaining 13 members of the Council, which included countries from all parts of the world.

As a result of China and Russia blocking Security Council action, each day the killing in Syria continues, is a day on which China and Russia have fresh blood on their hands.

The Trenchant Observer

observer@trenchantobserver.com
www.twitter.com/trenchantobserv

See also earlier articles by The Trenchant Observer:

China defends Syrian regime committing crimes against humanity, blocking Security Council action—Syria Update #2
February 5, 2012

Russia’s calculations, al-Assad and civil war: Syria Update #1
February 3, 2012

Monumental miscalculation? Russia’s strategic interests in Syria and its defense of the al-Assad regime
February 2, 2012

For other earlier aticles on Syria, please use the Search Box on the main page which, if you are not already there, can be accessed by clicking on “The Trenchant Observer” at the top of this page.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Azerbaijan, China, France, Germany, History, human rights, internal supporters of human rights, International Law, Qatar, Russia, State Department, syria, Togo, Torture, U.N. Charter, U.N. Security Council, U.S. Intervention, U.S. Military, United Kingdom, United States, war crimes | 2 Comments »

Russia’s calculations, al-Assad and civil war: Syria Update #1

Friday, February 3rd, 2012

Michael Young, the prominent columnist of The Daily Star in Beirut, provides an insightful inventory of considerations Russia may have in mind in defending the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria, not only in the Security Council but also–and significantly–with ongoing munitions deliveries. He writes,

The Russians may sense that they’re backing a lame horse in Assad, and an indication of this was Lavrov’s statement in Australia this week. He noted, “We are not friends or allies of President Assad. We never said that Assad remaining in power is a precondition for regulating the situation. We said something else – we said that the decision should be made by Syrians, by the Syrians themselves.”
…
The argument that Russia hopes to protect its stake in a future Syria is unconvincing. By holding on to Bashar Assad so stubbornly, despite the killing, the Russians are ensuring that a post-Assad government will impose retribution. Nor does there appear to be bargaining yet between the Russian government and the Syrian opposition that would persuade Russia to drop Assad if it gained satisfaction.
…
Yet another Russian argument against approving the Arab plan to remove Assad from office is that this might provoke a Syrian civil war. Are the Russians watching the same channel as the rest of us? Syria, precisely because of the homicidal policies of its leader, is heading inexorably toward civil war. The single way to derail such an outcome – and the opportunities are diminishing daily – is to make it apparent to Assad and his acolytes that there is Arab and international unanimity, Russia included, behind –their departure.

–Michael Young, “From Russia, for Bashar’s eyes only,” The Daily Star (Lebanon), February 02, 2012

The Trenchant Observer

observer@trenchantobserver.com
www.twitter.com/trenchantobserv

See also earlier articles by The Trenchant Observer, including:

Monumental miscalculation? Russia’s strategic interests in Syria and its defense of the al-Assad regime”
February 2, 2012

Syria: The Human Cost of Delay
January 18, 2012

Qatar’s leader suggests sending troops to Syria
January 14, 2012

Government Terror in Syria—Putin, Al Assad, and Security Council Referral to the ICC
December 31, 2011

REPRISE: Syria and the Shame of the World, November 19th, 2011 (originally published on August 20, 2011)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Barack Obama, China, Crimes Against Humanity, Dictatorship, human rights, internal supporters of human rights, International Law, Iran, Israel, Lebanon, Russia, State Department, syria, Torture, U.N. Charter, U.N. Security Council, war crimes | No Comments »

Qatar’s leader suggests sending troops to Syria

Saturday, January 14th, 2012

The Financial Times reported today,

Arab troops should be sent to end the bloodshed in the uprising against Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad, Qatar’s ruler has said, the first public call for military action as political efforts to halt the violence unravel.

Qatar’s leader, Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, in an interview to be broadcast on the CBS program “60 Minutes” on January 15, stated,

“For such a situation to stop the killing … some troops should go to stop the killing,”

The question of military intervention in Syria by international forces has now been openly put on the table.

The Emir’s remarks, in an interview due to be broadcast on Sunday, raise the stakes hugely in a conflict in which even Mr Assad’s enemies abroad have shied away from suggesting military intervention. Western and Arab powers fear the potentially destructive regional impact of war in a country allied with Tehran and which lies at the geographical and political heart of the Middle East.

–Michael Peel (Abu Dhabi), “Qatar calls for intervention to end Syria violence,” Financial Times, January 14, 2012.

For a nuanced analysis of the signicance of Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani’s statement, see Al Jazeera English’s news report and interview on January 14 with leading Lebanese commentator Rami Khoury, on YouTube here.

What form of military intervention from outside could actually bring the killing to a halt?

First, it is not clear that outside military intervention could in fact stop the bloodshed in Syria, and indeed it could contribute to the country hurtling quickly into an all-out civil war. Consequently, any military action that might be taken would need to be carefully planned, highly calibrated, and based on a strategic vision that takes into account the need to protect different minorities in Syria and the potential actions and reactions of other players in the region, including Hezbollah and Iran.

Second, international intervention, including potential military intervention, could become necessary to halt the country’s accelerating slide into civil war, which itself could become extremely destabilizing for the region.

In view of the above, it is clear that the international community faces an immense challenge, and is called upon to steer between Scylla and Charybdis in seeking a solution to the conflict within Syria.

Should military action from abroad become necessary, and feasible, what are the broad shape and contours that it might assume?

The Arab League has little peacekeeping experience, and its decisions can be easily stalled or blocked by countries which oppose or least favor intervention. Bashar al Assad gained months by feigning to agree to an Arab League peace plan which involves Arab monitors from the League. The mission of the monitors, who are now in Syria, has been a fiasco, despite the immense courage and dedication shown by many of the members of the monitoring team.

Consequently, it does not seem to be a good idea to simply defer to the Arab League, by itself, to take charge of whatever military steps may be undertaken in Syria.

Arab League “regional enforcement action” under Article 53 of the U.N. Charter–without Security Council authorization–may be a theoretical option for sponsoring military action so long as Russian defense of al Assad remains fierce, but in practice it would be problematical and probably engender strong Russian and Chinese opposition.

While there is a history and a long string of precedents for “regional enforcement action” by the Organization of American States, and U.S. legal positions that such action is permitted under international law so long as the Security Council does not disapprove the action, this does not seem to be a promising path to pursue. The line of precedent is in some regards a relic of the Cold War, and goes against the actual text of Article 53 of the Charter, which states:

“1. The Security Council shall, where appropriate, utilize such regional arrangements or agencies for enforcement action under its authority. But no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council, … until such time as the Organization may, on request of the Governments concerned, be charged with the responsibility for preventing further aggression by such a state.”

Yet, even Russia may tire of defending war criminals whose ongoing attacks on civilians are on daily display on television and video throughout the world.

If and when Russian opposition is overcome or neutralized, the United Nations Security Council could seize direct responsibility for authorizing military actions necessary to protect civilians in Syria. Soldiers from Arab countries could constitute the bulk of the “boots” on the ground. However, U.S. and NATO involvement would also be required, either in public or behind the scenes, in order to provide the logistical, communications, and intelligence support necessary to make the operation a success.

The experience of NATO in Libya, where momentum was lost due to hesitation and inaction when the diplomats were making the military decisions, suggests the need for a clear separation between the political and diplomatic decisions necessary to authorize military action, on the one hand, and the small, close-knit, and unified military command that would decide upon and execute military actions, on the other.

The details remain murky, and in the end U.N. Security Council action will be contingent on Russian acquiescence and the absence of a Russian veto.

Military action in Syria is fraught with risks, and will in any event take considerable time to take shape and become a viable option.

In the meantime, the Security Council could immediately act to grant the International Criminal Court authority to investigate the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity by al Assad’s government, and also by any other forces within the country. What arguments could Russia, or anyone else, make against such action? In order to protect civilians, this, at least, should be done now.

The Trenchant Observer

observer@trenchantobserver.com
www.twitter/trenchantobserv

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Barack Obama, Crimes Against Humanity, extrajudicial execution, human rights, Intelligence, internal supporters of human rights, International Law, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Middle East, NATO, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, State Department, syria, U.N. Charter, U.N. Security Council, U.S. Intervention, U.S. Military, united arab emirates, United States, use of force, war crimes | 2 Comments »

Government Terror in Syria—Putin, Al Assad, and Security Council Referral to the ICC

Saturday, December 31st, 2011

The Arab League “deal” with Syria looks increasingly like the African Union peace efforts aimed at blocking Security Council action in Libya. Fortunately, NATO and the international community were not fooled by those maneuvers, and acted decisively in Libya to protect the civilian population “by all necessary measures”.

The current presence of Arab League monitors in Syria, headed by a former Sudanese official whose appointment itself calls into question the objectivity of their mission, compounded by absurd statements about normality when all hell is breaking loose right in their face, underlines the great urgency of the U.N. Security Council assuming–now– a decisive role in bringing the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity by Basar al Assad to a halt.

Syria should be debated in the Security Council, and if the authoritarian Russian government of Mededev-Putin wishes to defend Bashar al Assad’s massacres and use of force against civilians, let them do so publicly. Let Putin run for President of Russia on a record of defending the war criminals who lead Syria.

A resolution should be presented to the Security Council that would give the International Criminal Court a mandate to immediately investigate war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by the al Assad government, from the date of the first protests in the spring. This resolution should be brought to a public vote.

The Syrian situation, in which the international community has stood aside while unspeakable crimes are committed by government forces, every day, is throwing the whole region into chaos, as Egyptian government forces’ moves to shut down pro-democracy NGOs on December 29 suggest.

At the very least the International Criminal Court should be given a mandate now, while the Security Council remains seized of the situation in Syria and explores other means to bring the violence in Syria against civilians to a prompt halt.

Let the Russians show their hand in blocking Security Council action, if they have no shame.

President Obama’s leadership is needed. Lebanon, Syria, Iran, and even Iraq are all directly at issue. What is done or not done in Syria will affect developments in each of these countries, and in other countries from Egypt to Yemen.

A repetition of Obama’s debacle of inaction, hesitation and delay in Libya could have disastrous consequences not only in Syria but throughout the region.

It is time for the Security Council to act, now, to give the ICC the mandate discussed above. Everyone should focus on this immediate objective, while preparing for stronger action to force al Assad to halt his terror.

The Trenchant Observer

observer@trenchantobserver.com
www.twitter.com/trenchantobserv

See also earlier articles by The Trenchant Observer:

“REPRISE: Syria and the Shame of the World,
November 19, 2011 (originally published August 20, 2011)

Repression in Syria, and the spread of universal ideals throughout the world, May 11, 2011

The Struggle for Democracy in Bolivia, Spain, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Lebanon, Ivory Coast, and Iran, March 3, 2011

Ratko Mladic to join Radovan Karadic in The Hague; Moammar Qaddafi and Bashar al-Assad await similar fates, May 28, 2011

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in China, Crimes Against Humanity, Dictatorship, elections, extrajudicial execution, human rights, International Law, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Middle East, NATO, State Department, State Department Human Rights Country Reports, State Department Legal Adviser, Torture, U.N. Charter, U.N. Security Council, U.S. Intervention, U.S. Military, United States, use of force, war crimes, Yemen | 1 Comment »

REPRISE: Syria and the Shame of the World

Saturday, November 19th, 2011

Originally published August 20, 2011

Bashar Al-Assad is pursuing the Libyan solution to civilian demonstrations–turn your tanks and your weapons on the demonstrators, and kill as many of them as necessary in order to restore “order” and remain in power.

The world, oddly, stands idly by.

It was a really slow burn, for the world even to notice. NATO’s hands were full with Libya, much fuller than they would have been had the United States led the alliance, instead of “driving from the backseat”. As President Obama might have learned had he looked into it, cars driven from the back seat don’t have the best of accident records.

Plus, the political acquiescence of Russia and China in allowing a United Nations Security Council Resolution to be adopted similar to the one which authorized the use of all necessary measures to protect the civilian population of Libya, was out of the question given Russian objections to the scale and duration of NATO military operations in Libya.

Then there was the delicate balance of Israeli-Arab relations, and Western-Iranian relations as a backdrop. Everyone was afraid–afraid to upset the current dynamically unstable “equilibrium” in the Middle East, particularly in Lebanon but also in the delicate interplay of forces among Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and the entrenched position of Hamas in Gaza. Lebanon alone, with the STL indictments of Hezbollah operatives allegedly responsible for the assassination of Rafiq Hariri in 2005, was a powder keg waiting to go off.

So all factors militated toward outside powers–at least in the West–taking a “look the other way” approach to the atrocities Al-Assad was committing against his people.

Except one curious thing happened. The Syrian people did not desist, even in the face the massive use of force against the people by the Syrian regime.

Now, inaction is beginning to look riskier than at least looking at what is taking place inside Syria.

Russia apparently is blocking the adoption of any U.N. Security Council resolution with enough teeth in it to possibly influence the actions of the murderous regime in Damascus.

Why are the Russians so comfortable with barbarism? That is the driving question that must be asked.

Is it the memory of their own tanks rolling into Prague, 43 years ago on this date, on August 20, 1968, to put down an even milder form of civil disobedience? Is it the authoritarian state that Russia has once again become, despite the heroic efforts of Boris Yeltsin to break the grip of communism and the state-controlled economy? His administrative skills and execution of policies weren’t that great, perhaps, but he was a real democrat, and he launched an incredible, peaceful, democratic social revolution which is still ongoing. At least we can say that.

So, is it the new authoritarian state in Russia that blocks the world from acting to protect the civilian population of Syria?

Coudn’t the Security Council at least, acting under Chaptain VII of the U.N. Charter, grant the International Criminal Court the authority to investigate and punish the war crimes and crimes against humanity that Bashar Al-Assad and his regime have committed and are committing, every day, right before our eyes?

How long can the populations of the West passively regard such brutality without themselves in a sense becoming a part of that same brutality through their own acts of omission?

What will it take for Russia–and the world–to act?

The Trenchant Observer

oberver@www.trenchantobserver.com
www.twitter.com/trenchantobserv

See also earlier articles by The Trenchant Observer:

Repression in Syria, and the spread of universal ideals throughout the world, May 11, 2011

Update: Torture, The STL in Lebanon, and Obama’s “Way Forward” in Afghanistan, July 1, 2011

Ratko Mladic to join Radovan Karadic in The Hague; Moammar Qaddafi and Bashar al-Assad await similar fates, May 28, 2011

The Struggle for Democracy in Bolivia, Spain, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Lebanon, Ivory Coast, and Iran, March 3, 2011

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in China, coverage of foreign events, Crimes Against Humanity, Dictatorship, extrajudicial execution, France, History, human rights, internal supporters of human rights, International Law, Iran, Israel, Lebanon, Libya, Middle East, NATO, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, State Department, syria, Torture, Turkey, U.N. Charter, U.N. Security Council, U.S. Intervention, U.S. Military, united arab emirates, United Kingdom, United States, use of force, war crimes | 1 Comment »