Posts Tagged ‘Assad’
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 »
Tuesday, September 18th, 2012
Responding to Atrocities in Syria: It’s Not Just About Al-Assad, It’s About Us
Originally published March 6, 2012
I heard a boy in Syria on the BBC talking about what was going on there, a few days ago, and he said that ultimately the atrocities could not be stopped until people in other countries really cared about the suffering of the people in Homs, and elsewhere in Syria, and intervened to stop it.
It really comes down to that. Whether the leaders and populations of the countries of the civilized world care about al-Assad’s ongoing commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity, sufficiently to stop it. That boy hit the nail on the head. It all boils down to whether we care. Enough.
About the individual human beings who are being slaughtered.
But the leaders of the civilized world, such as they are, don’t care. Not enough to act, not enough to undertake the only action that might stop al-Assad, which is using military force to halt the killing.
Given the momentum and tempo of the murderous offensives underway, it is highly doubtful that even China and Russia, al-Assad’s accomplices in the commission of these crimes, could force Syria to stop the killing. Nor is it likely that a new Security Council resolution, even with the abstention or support of China and Russia, could stop the killing. Unless it authorized the use of military force, and even then delays in execution–such as those that occurred in Libya–could cost thousands of more lives.
**************************************************
For earlier articles on Syria by The Trenchant Observer, see the Articles on Syria page.
**************************************************
It is difficult to sleep, here in the United States, knowing that dozens or hundreds of people are being murdered each day by Bashar al-Assad’s soldiers and security forces, during these same hours, in broad daylight in Syria. Men and boys are being rounded up in groups and taken away to be executed–or executed on the spot. Men are pulled from cars at checkpoints, and taken to be shot.
This is what General Franco’s forces did during the Civil War in Spain from 1936-1939. It is what Hitler’s officers and soldiers did throughout Europe in World War II, from September 1939 until they were stopped in May, 1945 by the combined military forces of the Allied Powers.
Not just men and boys, but also women and children are being killed every day in Syria by the indiscriminate shelling by tanks, artillery and anti-aircraft weapons into apartment blocks and homes. Round-ups are underway, where individuals believed to be opponents of al-Assad, or who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, or who just happen to be Sunni instead of Alawite, are hunted down and either taken away to be tortured and/or shot, or have their throats slit by knives as they lay tied on the ground.
Hell has come to Syria.
A merciless slaughter and brutal repression are currently underway in Syria, each day as we try to sleep in the United States–a relentless, grinding slaughter, with horrors beyond all telling.
We know this. The world knows this. The world has first-hand testimony from witnesses, videos from cameras and smart phones, almost in real time. We have the U.N. Special Commission Report on Syria of February 22, 2012, which provides the details. News accounts bring us up to the present, with chilling accuracy.
The death toll has already surpassed the 7,000 men and boys massacred at Srebrenice, in 1995–as U.N. peacekeepers from the Netherlands, stationed in Srebrenice, stood by and did nothing to protect the population from the butchery of Slobodan Milosovic and Ratko Mladic.
It is some consolation that both were taken to The Hague, where Milosovic died while being tried, and where Mladic’s trial will commence in May. But their trials cannot bring back the men and boys who were slaughtered in Srebrenice on July 11, 1995.
And we, in the civilized world, swore that we would never let Srebrenice happen again.
One would think the Dutch would be out front on this one. But they aren’t.
To be sure, there have been other crimes against humanity, in Rwanda and Darfur, for example. And it is demonstrably true that we in the civilized world cannot stop all such crimes in all such places.
But in Syria, at the center of the lands and civilizations, going back four thousand years, which once formed part of the Roman Empire, close to Jerusalem and the heartland of the three religions of the The Book (Chirstianity, Judaism, and Islam), the civilized world could do something to stop this killing–if it had the courage and the will to do so.
Tragically, our leaders are too feckless to act. It would be difficult to take down the Syrian air defenses, our military leaders testify before Congress. The mililtary action would be difficult, and that is adduced as a reason not to undertake it. As if the Normandy invasion was not difficult. Or the Battle of Corregidor. Or taking down the Serbian air defenses in the bombing in Serbia in 1999 to stop the the ethnic cleansing by the Serbs in Kosovo.
Why is it hard to sleep?
Because I believe that President Obama has real-time intelligence on the details of the atrocities that are being committed, and may well be able to watch events in real-time from cameras on satellites and drones and other platforms (as he did when Bin Laden was taken down). I believe he knows exactly what is going on. And he is unwilling to lift a finger to do anything about it.
He has reportedly vetoed any military action, within the last week.
I support Obamacare, but I can’t support “Obama doesn’t care”.
I heard a boy in Syria on the BBC talking about what was going on there, a few days ago, and he said that ultimately the atrocities could not be stopped until people in other countries really cared about the suffering of the people in Homs, and elsewhere in Syria, and intervened to stop it.
It really comes down to that. Whether the leaders and populations of the countries of the civilized world care about al-Assad’s ongoing commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity, sufficiently to stop it. That boy hit the nail on the head. It all boils down to whether we care. Enough.
About the individual human beings who are being slaughtered.
But the leaders of the civilized world, such as they are, don’t care. Not enough to act, not enough to undertake the only action that might stop al-Assad, which is using military force to halt the killing.
Given the momentum and tempo of the murderous offensives underway, it is highly doubtful that even China and Russia, al-Assad’s accomplices in the commission of these crimes, could force Syria to stop the killing. Nor is it likely that a new Security Council resolution, even with the abstention or support of China and Russia, could stop the killing. Unless it authorized the use of military force, and even then delays in execution–such as those that occurred in Libya–could cost thousands of more lives.
That is why Kofi Annan’s U.N. mediation effort is so tragic. It is misbegotten on principle, and the principle is that we should not negotiate the cessation of the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity. We should not negotiate with war criminals, except for the terms of their prompt exit from the scene.
It is ill-considered in that, wholly aside from the principle of the matter, Annan’s consultations will 1) give al-Assad control of the pace of the “mediation” efforts; and 2) lead to drawn-out diplomatic consultations that will give the Syrian Dictator the time he wants to commit more war crimes and crimes against humanity to wipe out his opponents, and their villages and towns.
Only mass amnesia at the office of U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, and other powers he may have consulted, could account for the failure to take into account the sad history of the Arab League’s negotiations with Syria over implementation of its November peace plan, and its experience in sending monitors to the country. Whatever al-Assad might agree to, would be utterly worthless, as he has zero credibility. And more time would be lost, to check on his compliance with any agreement, for diplomatic consultations as to what to do. More time for war crimes and crimes against humanity, and the total destruction of neighborhoods and towns that have shown opposition or resistance.
Actually, there has been one notable exception to the general passivity of leaders in the civilized world. U.S. Senator and former presidential candidate John McCain had the courage to speak up on the floor of the Senate yesterday, March 5, and to call for air attacks on al-Assad’s forces to halt the killing and other atrocities. In the United States, his speech was reported in general, but the powerful and cogently reasoned arguments he presented, supporting his call for immediate military action, have as yet received little coverage in the United States. News coverage in Europe, in fact, may be better.
The speech is of fundamental importance for understanding the options that face us in Syria, and the consequences of inaction. It should be mandatory reading for anyone who is following developments in that country.
So why should all of this cause anyone to be troubled as he goes to sleep?
The crimes are eerily similar to the crimes for which the Nazi war criminals were prosecuted at Nuremberg.
We are doing nothing effective to stop al-Assad from continuing with his massacres. We know what is going on. We are gutless wonders.
So, what is going on in Syria is not only about al-Assad. It is also about us.
It is about the levels of barbarism we are willing to watch, in real time, close to Jerusalem and the heart of Europe and the Middle East, without lifting a finger.
We have no principles left which we believe are worth fighting for.
Afghanistan long since ceased to be about building democracy and the rule of law, even in incipient form, and there we fight only so we can get out without the Afghan government falling. Victory is not the goal, but “degrading the Taliban”, while we delude ourselves with thoughts of a negotiated settlement that would amount to something short of capitulation–over time–to the Taliban.
I doubt that Obama would have acted to bomb Serbia in order to halt the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, if it had occurred on his watch.
We have no leaders, and the world is adrift.
Civilized countries now accept the commission of crimes against humanity and war crimes.
That is not right. And so it is with a troubled mind that I now seek sleep.
The Trenchant Observer
observer@trenchantobserver.com
twitter.com/trenchantobserv
Tags: 1936-1939, 2012, a troubled mind, al-Assad, al-assad accomplices, anti-aircraft, apartment blocks, Arab League, Arab League monitors, artillery, Assad, battle of corregidor, bbc, bombing of serbia, boy in syria, China, Christianity, comen and children indiscriminate shelling, courage, Crimes Against Humanity, death toll, degrading the taliban, democracy and the rule of law, dutch out fron, enough, ethnic cleasing, Europe, February 22, Francisco Franco, fundamental human rights, going back four thousand years, hell has come to syria, HItler, Holland, homes, I now seek sleep, in the wrong place at the wrong time, Islam, jerusalem, John McCain speech, Judaism, kofi annan, kosovo, lands and civilizations, leaders too feckless to act, Libye, mandatory reading, mass amnesia, mediation, men and boy, merciless slaughter, military force to stop the killing, military intervention, military intervention in Syria, misbegotten on principle, monitors, Nazi war criminals, no principles left, normandy invasion, November peace plan, Obama, obama doesn't care, obamacare, opponents of al-assad, opponents of assad, press coverage, Ratko Mladic, real-time intelligence, Roman Empire, round-ups, roundups, Russia, Rwanda and Darfur, serbs, Siria, sirie, slobodan milosovic, Spanish Civil War, Srebrenice, struggle for democracy, struggle for democracy in syria, sunni instead of alawite, syria, syrian air defenses, Syrien, tanks, the civilized worldç dutch, the courage and the will, the individual human beings who are being slaughtered, the Netherlands, the three religions of the book, the world is adrift, u.n. mediation effort, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, u.n. Special commission report on syria, United States, unwilling to lift a finger, victory is not the goal, war crimes, we have no leaders, whether we care, widespread grave violations, will, World War II
Posted in "that spark of the divine", Barack Obama, China, coverage of foreign events, Crimes Against Humanity, Deutschland, Dictatorship, Germany, History, human rights, Intelligence, kosovo, Middle East, NATO, Russia, Serbia, State Department, syria, Taliban, Torture, U.N. Charter, U.N. Security Council, U.N. Torture Convention, U.S. Congress, U.S. Intervention, U.S. Military, U.S. news coverage, United States, use of force, war crimes | No Comments »
Saturday, September 1st, 2012
The situation in Syria (is) unfolding “in front of our eyes”, with the regime deploying fighter jets against the people, in addition to heavy artillery and tanks, (Ahmet DAVUTOĞLU, the Foreign Minister of Turkey, told the Security Council on August 30). “How long are we going to sit and watch while an entire generation is being wiped out by random bombardment and deliberate mass targeting?” he asked. “If we do not act against such a crime against humanity happening in front of our eyes, we become accomplice to the crime,” he warned.
As we wrote following the August 30 meeting of the Security Council,
Everyone wants a ceasefire and an end to the killing. Few seem to have come to grips with the fact that the use of force will be required, outside the framework of the Security Council. There can be little doubt that, within the Security Council itself, there is not going to be any agreement to use force (or even to adopt strong economic sanctions) to bring al-Assad’s barbarism to a halt.
This will have to be done outside the framework of the Security Council. What is needed is for one or more countries, preferably but not necessarily acting as a coalition, to just act to set up the safe zones, and one or more accompanying no-fly zones if that is required as a result of al-Assad’s response.
–U.N. Security Council Meets: More “blah, blah, blah”, and no action—Obama’s debacle in Syria — Update #82 (August 30), August 31, 2012.
Such action should be accompanied by a justification under international law.
That justification should stress that the purpose of the action is to protect the population of Syria against the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The stated purpose of the operation should not be to overthrow the government of Bashar al-Assad, which is impermissible under international law. On the other hand, it would be permissible if an operation which protected the population against the commission of such crimes also facilitated a process that would bring to account those in Syria who are responsible for the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
While such fine distinctions may seem of little significance to those not versed in international law, they are in fact quite important in terms of limiting the precedent that would be set and obtaining support from other countries for such action, if not immediately at least over time.
For further discussion of legal justifications for intervention in Syria, see the following articles by The Trenchant Observer and the sources cited therein:
Continuing massacres in Syria, at Daraya and elsewhere; legal justification for military intervention — Obama’s Debacle in Syria —Update #78 (August 26), August 26, 2012
REPRISE: Humanitarian Intervention in Syria Without Security Council Authorization—Obama’s Debacle in Syria— Update #68 (July 25), July 25, 2012
Military Intervention to establish “no-kill zones” and humanitarian corridors—Syria Update #9 (February 25), February 24, 2012
The critical issue with respect to legal justifications for establishing and defending “safe zones” or “no-kill zones” in Syria, and the establishment of no-fly zones if required, is whether such action would violate Article 2 paragraph 4 of the United Nations Charter. Article 2(4) provides:
Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
…
(4) All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
On the face of it, the use of force to enforce a no-fly zone, or to defend a “safe zone” from assaults by Syria’s army, would involve an action against the “territorial integrity” of Syria. This is the horn of the dilemma.
Read literally, any permanent member of the Security Council could, through the use of its veto, block any military action by any state within the territory of another state, except in the case of an “armed attack”, no matter what the circumstances. In principle, such a veto could block any action by the civilized nations of the world to bring to a halt a war crimes and crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing such as occurred in Kosovo, or even genocide such as that conducted by Adolph Hitler during World War II.
Various interpretations of the Charter have proposed ways out of this logical box. One is the so-called “teleological” interpretation, by which Article 2(4) must be interpreted not literally, but rather in the light of the general purposes of the U.N. Charter and its other principles. Using this approach, one might justify the establishment of “no-kill zones” and “no-fly zones” in Syria.
The problem is that such “teleological” interpretations might open Pandora’s box, allowing multiple interpretations and opportunities for abuse by states intervening for their own purposes, e.g., to overthrow the al-Assad regime, while putting a humanitarian argument forward to justify their actions. Or, to cite another example, Israel and the United States might attempt to justify an attack on Iran to take out or greatly degrade its nuclear enrichment capabilities and what they believe is a secret program aimed at developing nuclear weapons, on the rationale that it is necessary to maintain international peace and security.
Alternatively, Israel and the United States could in principle attempt to justify an attack on Iran as an exercise of the right of individual and collective self-defense, an exception to the prohibition in Article 2(4) contained in Article 51 of the Charter, which provides:
Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
The key words in Article 51 are “if an armed attack occurs”, which has been interpreted as embodying the requirements that the armed attack have occurred or be imminent, immediate and leave no time for other actions. Exercise of the right of self-defense has traditionally been subject to the requirements “immediacy, necessity and proportionality”.
See Flavio Paioletti, “The 21st Century Challenges to Article 51,” e-International Relations, June 30, 2011.
The United States and other nations have not always acted within this tight legal framework. In 1999, for example, the United States and NATO conducted a unilateral bombing campaign against Serbia in a successful effort to get the government to stop its policy of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. Despite its humanitarian purpose, no legal justification was advanced by the U.S. Department of State for the action.
In Iraq, the United States sought to justify its 2003 invasion of that country both on the basis of previous Security Council resolutions and on the basis of the “right” advanced by the Bush administration to “pre-emptive self defense”.
The concern of states and legal scholars from around the world is that by allowing “teleological” interpretations of Article 2(4) or expansive interpretations of what constitutes “an armed attack” creating a right of individual and collective self-defense, such interpretations would open the door to increasingly expansive assertions of the right to use force across international frontiers. It is significant that in the case of Kosovo, no legal justification was offered.
So, we are left with the legal regime brilliantly defined by the founders of the United Nations to establish rules and mechanisms to effectively regulate the international use of force, on the one hand, and the fact that as the populations of more and more countries seek to demand respect for their funamental human rights, and the right to participate in government, existing dictorships may resort to the appalling use of terror and crimes against humanity and war crimes in defending their hold on power, as has happened recently in Libya and Syria.
Unlike domestic laws and the constitution in the U.S., the United Nations Charter and other international agreements are subject to rules of strict interpretation, as established in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. This makes sense, as nations are generally extremely wary of ceding authority to international institutions, and rules of strict interpretation are necessary in order to secure participation in international treaties. While the United Nations Charter is something of a special case, since very few countries would consider withdrawal from the organization, acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice remains voluntary, a fact which underlines the continuing importance of rules of strict interpretation.
Caught in this logical box, are we to stand idly by as tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of human beings are slaughtered, whenever a permanent member of the Security Council exercises a veto?
The United Nations Charter is 67 years old. It has survived the Korean war, the war in Vietnam, the invasions of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Afghanistan (1980), the Balkan wars, genocide in Rwanda and the Sudan, and the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
The fundamental question is whether states should: (1) simply act outside the charter when they feel compelled to do so for humanitarian reasons (e.g., Kosovo); (2) justify their actions on legal grounds, preferably as taken with the support of regional organizations (e.g., NATO) or a broad coalition of nations; or (3) do nothing in the face of acts of barbarism such as those being committed in Syria.
In the case of Kosovo, Russia brought a resolution to a vote in the Security Council which condemned the bombing of Serbia, but the resolution was defeated 12-3.
Perhaps that is as close to 100% compliance with the Charter norms as we can get in the world today.
The ultimate choice is between undertaking effective action that will halt the atrocities in Syria, or sticking with our current policies.
In the case of the U.S., the current policy is carefully calibrated to comply with the requirements on the use of force laid down by the International Court of Justice in 1986 in the Nicaragua case. In that case, the Court held that direction and control of rebel groups was required in order for assistance to rebel groups to constitute an armed attack, thereby triggering a right of individual or collective self defense.
If the decision is made to establish safe zones and associated no-fly zones (if necessary), a final choice is whether to provide some legal justification for such action, or to follow the example of the United States in the NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999, and offer none.
While the choice here is not entirely clear, a strong argument can be made for advancing a highly restrictive legal justification, narrowly tailored to the circumstances in the Syrian case, together with the support of a regional body such as NATO, and undertaken only as a provisional measure of protection until such time as the Security Council can act effectively to protect the population of Syria from the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Russia may bring a resolution condemning such action in the Security Council. Assuming the resolution is defeated by a healthy margin, as occurred in the case of Kosovo, this may be the closest to compliance with the Charter as is possible today.
The Trenchant Observer
Tags: Article 2, Artículo 2 párrafo 4, Assad, bachar al-assad, Bashar al-Assad, Carta das Nacões Unidas, Carta de las Naciones Unidas, Charte des Nations Unies, China, derecho internacional, direito internacional, droit international, e-International Relations, Flavio Paioletti, humanitarian intervention, il uman il-mutahida, International Law, intervenção militar, Intervention militaire, interventionsverbot, justificação jurídica, justificación jurídica, justificacion juridique, Legal Justications for military intervention in Syria, Legal Justififcation, Militarintervention, military intervention, paragraphe 4, progibición, prohibicão, prohibition of the use of force, Russia, Siria, surria, Syien, syria, Syrie, U.N. Charter, United States, uso de forza, uso de fuerza, Völkerrecht
Posted in Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Barack Obama, Brazil, China, Crimes Against Humanity, Dictatorship, Egypt, extrajudicial execution, France, Germany, Guatemala, History, human rights, India, internal supporters of human rights, International Law, Iran, Iraq, Israel, kosovo, Lebanon, Libya, Mossad, NATO, Nuclear Proliferation, Qatar, Russia, sanctions, Saudi Arabia, self-defense, Serbia, South Africa, Spain, State Department, State Department Legal Adviser, syria, Togo, Tunisia, U.N. Charter, U.N. Convention Against Torture, U.N. Security Council, U.N. Torture Convention, U.S. Intervention, U.S. Military, united arab emirates, United Kingdom, United States, use of force, war crimes | Comments Off
Friday, March 9th, 2012
The Daily Star (Beirut) has been one of the absolute best sources for reliable and up-to-date information on what is going on in Syria, and on the broader significance of events.
Today’s Editorial (March 9) is particularly honest and perceptive, and cuts to the essence of the factors at play now in Syria and in the international community. Extensive excerpts follow:
(T)he death toll is now reaching 8,000, according to estimates, and the Syrian government’s cleansing of towns continues.
Figures of more than 60 a day dead are now becoming commonplace. Yet in a year of massacres, attacks, bombardments and destructions of villages, towns and cities that dare to protest we have seen the international community become mere witnesses, recording events. They simply count the numbers of dead, highlighting the devastation that has been caused.
Their action is painfully limited. Kofi Annan is to travel to Damascus Saturday to confront the violence, but what he can bring to the table is a continuation of what the regime has listened to, and ignored, all year. The United States’, the West’s and the United Nations’ semantic exercises continue unabated, and so does the bloodshed enacted by the Syrian government.
We already know that the ultimate result of Annan’s visit will be further procrastination…
As long as independent foreign media and observers are not allowed in to witness the true scale of the chaos in Syria, it can be assumed that we will continue to face a fiasco, with an international reaction that not only does not help, but actually provides a respite for the regime to continue its campaign of destruction.
The scene around Syria overflows with talk. The world’s big players proffer big words, which amount to zero in their impact on the Syrian regime – if anything they are utilized in their propaganda campaign.
The international community is attempting to save face, and by doing so is exhibiting its hypocrisy in every step and every word. This is hypocrisy of the worst kind, not only uncovering the ulterior motives of the world powers, but also serving as an eye-opener as to the intentions of the small, medium and super powers. God help any downtrodden party who takes the words of those powers at their face value. In this, the international community’s reaction to the crisis in Syria should be a lesson for many nations that look to it for support.
In the meantime, help for Syria is still at square one and none of the steps currently being taken are going to eradicate the shame of the international community.
–Editorial, The Daily Star (Beirut), March 9, 2012
As the sad spectacle of Kofi Annan’s “mediation” of the conflict proceeds, and the world’s attention is turned to what Russia, or Annan, or the U.S. or other countries are saying in their interminable diplomatic dance, it is of utter importance that we all follow the example of The Daily Star and keep our attention riveted on what is happening on the ground.
Let us all, together, focus primarily on that, on events on the ground. As Kofi Annan prepares to travel to Damascus on Saturday, March 10, tanks are surrounding Idlib, soldiers have been bussed to the area, and the new onslaught has already begun as tanks overrun villages in outlying areas. In the meantime, tanks and artillery continue to attack civilian neighborhoods in Homs. Undoubtedly, they are also on the move in other parts of Syria.
For the latest reports, see
Lauren Williams, “Deaths mount in Syria on eve of Annan talks,” The Daily Star (Beirut), March 10, 2012 (02:04 AM local time).
Not only is Kofi Annan’s mission the wrong mission, but he has shown by essentially advancing the Russian position that he is not the right man for the job. Nor is it wise to place in a single individual the job of representing both the Arab League and the United Nations.
If Annan does not produce a complete ceasefire and withdrawal of tanks from cities within seven days, then his mission should be terminated by Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon. This goes against the the usual diplomatic inertia and courtesies and niceties, but it constitutes what is required if the killing in Syria is to be stopped.
The Trenchant Observer
observer@trenchantobserver.com
www.twitter/trenchantobserv
–For earlier articles by The Trenchant Observer, see the Articles on Syria page.
–To use the Search function, click on “The Trenchant Observer” at the top of this page to go to the home page, and then enter your search term in the box at the upper right.
–A list of the most recent 15 articles (on all subjects) is also found on the home page, on the right.
***
How to find news reports from around the world
–Google and other major search engines use a series of filters amounting to what has been termed a “filter bubble” to limit search results to those keyed to the location, language, and previous search results of the user. See Eli Pariser, The Filter Bubble (2011).
–To find the latest news from around the world on Syria (or any other subject), you can bypass the “filter bubble” of Google and other search engines by going to and beginning your search at www.startpage.com
***
Tags: 60 dead a day, a fiasco, Adolf Hitler, AFP, al-Assad, al-assad accomplices, Allied Powers, allison, Annan Besuch, annan's greatest failure, anti-aircraft, apartment blocks, Arab League, Arab League monitors, artillery, Ascwitz, Assad, attack Iran, Bab Amr, Baba Amr, Ban Ki-Moon, Barack Obama, Bashar al-Assad, Beirut, best case scenario, best-case, Casablanca conference, chaos in Syria, China, congress, continue unabated, Crimes Against Humanity, Cuban Missile Crisis, Daily Star, Damascus, death toll, democracy and the rule of law, Deutschland Today, development favorable to al assad, diplomatic dance, disastrous situation, duty of the best journalists, editorial, El País, electoral logic, enough, enric gonzález, Essence of Decision, ethnic cleasing, Europe, excuse for inaction, failure to stop u.s. invasion of Iraq, function as a shield, fundamental human rights, Graham Allison, halt the killing, hell has come to syria, highly militarized, homes, Homs, House, I now seek sleep, Idlib, indiscriminate shelling, Iran, Iraq's air defenses, John D. Steinbruner, John McCain, John McCain speech, kofi annan, lack of moral courage, Lauren Williams, leaders too feckless to act, Lebanon, mass amnesia, means other than rational persuasion, mediation, merciless slaughter, mere witnesses, militarize the conflict, military force to stop the killing, military intervention, military intervention in Syria, military leadership, monitors, moral cowardice, Nazi war criminals, no principles left, not lacking, not lacking in self-esteem, November peace plan, Obama, obama doesn't care, obama's debacle in syria, one side is highly militarized, opponents of al-assad, opponents of assad, Philip Zelikow, Protest und Gewalt in Syrien, rational actor fallacy, real-time intelligence, recording events, round-ups, roundups, Russia, scenario, self-esteem, semantic exercises, senate, shield, Siria, sirie, so does the bloodshed, speak truth to power, startpage.com, steinbruner, struggle for democracy, struggle for democracy in syria, stuggle for democracy, syria, Syrien, tanks, targeted executions, targeted killings, the civilized world, The Cybernetic Theory of Decisioin, The Daily Star, the day after, the filer bubble, the filter bubble, the individual human beings who are being slaughtered, the only mediation process, u.n. mediation effort, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, United States, until the killing stops, unwilling to lift a finger, Valerie Amos, war crimes, we procrastinate, whether we care, widespread grave violations, will, women and children, World War II, worst -case, www.startpage.com
Posted in China, Crimes Against Humanity, Dictatorship, extrajudicial execution, France, History, human rights, internal supporters of human rights, International Law, Lebanon, State Department, State Department Legal Adviser, U.N. Charter, U.N. Security Council, U.S. Congress, U.S. Intervention, U.S. Military, United States, use of force, war crimes | No Comments »
Friday, March 9th, 2012
“There are times, such as when a man or a group of men are in the act of firing weapons to kill innocent civilians, when it is necessary to halt the killing through means other than rational persuasion.”
A central flaw in the approach of the U.S., the U.N., and many other countries to the conflict in Syria is the assumption that by exercising “pressures” on Bashar al-Assad, we can change his calculus as to whether to continue his brutal repression of the opposition by committing atrocities and widespread and grave violations of fundamental human rights. The corrolary of this assumption is another: that if we change the calculus of the “rational” decision-maker, the behavior of the Syrian troops and state security personnel will automicatically change, in this case to halt the killing. Together, these assumptions amount to what is known as “the rational actor fallacy”, the belief that the decisions and actions of a large and complicated organization–such as the government of a country–are taken by a unitary “mind” that perceives reality, makes decisions, and implements those decisions as if it were a single “rational actor”.
See the classic studies on the rational actor fallacy:
(1) Graham Allison and Philip Zelikov, Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (2d ed. 1999); and
(2) John D. Steinbruner, The Cybernetic Theory of Decision: New Dimensions of Political Analysis (1974, 2nd paperback ed. with a new preface 2002)
It is worth noting, in passing, that the rational actor fallacy is prominently at work in current discussions about whether or not to attack Iran to halt or set back its nuclear weapons program.
There are various assumptions here. The first assumption is that al-Assad controls and directs the military and security forces which are committing the atrocities.
The second and related assumption is that he can stop the atrocities if he is persuaded, according to his own rational calculus, that it is more in his interest to halt the commission of these crimes than it is to allow them to proceed.
Acting on this assumption, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has sent Kofi Annan to try to “mediate” the conflict, the assumption being that if he can persuade al-Assad, the killing will stop.
There are several flaws in this reasoning. First, on the basis of public information, we don’t really know if Bashar al-Assad is in control of decision-making processes in Syria, or if rather others are in effect controlling him.
It is far from clear that Bashar al-Assad can stop the barbaric acts being committed under the leadership of military leaders, including his brother, who may view their mission as a struggle for survival and to preserve their own lives and families and, more broadly, the privileges of the Alawite minority that rules the country. They may feel that they have reached a point of no return.
Could an emissary from the United Nations, or even China and the Soviet Union, have persuaded Pol Pot and through him the Kmer Rouge to stop the genocide in Cambodia in 1975-1979?
Could an emissary from the Allied Powers have persuaded Adolph Hitler to halt his exterminations at Auschwitz and other camps in 1943 (before adoption of the goal of “unconditional surrender” at the Casablanca Conference in January, 1943), or to have surrendered in January, 1945?
We are faced with a situation of war, of civil war, in which artillery and tanks are firing at civilian neighborhoods, and smaller weapons and even knives are being used to kill those caught in dragnets in cities like Homs, and in neighborhoods like Baba Amr.
Under these circumstances, it is unlikely that persuasion alone will stop the killing. Even persuasion accompanied by robust military action, we may recall, did not stop Qadaffi and his military from fighting, long after any “rational” calculus would have determined it was time to stop.
Al-Assad may indeed have the leeway, under whatever constraints he may be operating, to negotiate with foreign diplomatic interlocutors as long as it gains him–and his military and state security apparatus–more time to pursue their efforts to annihilate the opposition.
In that context, he could in theory end up making some concessions, e.g., not to totally destroy Idlib like he did Baba Amr (in Homs), in order to forestall military action by the international community, or groups of states within that community. But given the pattern of the last 11 months, even this seems unlikely. Perhaps he could agree not to destroy the next city after Idlib.
The Fourth Armored Division of the Republican Guard, under the command of Bashar al-Assad’s brother, Maher al-Assad, is currently on the march toward Idlib, according to reports.
See Khalen Yacoub Oweis (Reuters), “Forças sírias matam 54 antes da chegada de Annan,” Estadão.com.br (O Estado de São Paulo), 9 de marzo de 2012.
Lourival Sant’Anna (O Estado de S.Paulo/Antakya, Turquia), “Tanques de Assad cercam Idlib e rebeldes sírios temem novo massacre,” Estadão.com.br, 9 de marzo de 2012.
Khaled Yacoub Oweis, “Syrian forces kill 54 ahead of Annan peace mission,” The Daily Star (Beirut), March 09, 2012.
There are times, such as when a man or a group of men are in the act of firing weapons to kill innocent civilians, when it is necessary to halt the killing through means other than rational persuasion.
We have come to such a moment in Syria.
Kofi Annan has announced his intention to initiate a political process which would involve participation by the opposition in negotiations over how to settle the conflict. The main opposition group has already declared its firm opposition to any such proposal. Annan’s proposals sound very similar to those of Russia. (China, to its credit, is now pushing for an immediate ceasefire and halt to the killing, at least according to public reports.)
Annan, whose greatest failure as Secretary General was to not stop the U.S. invasion of Iraq, appears determined to prevent the United States from taking any military action against al-Assad’s armed forces. He doesn’t seem to grasp the difference in circumstances between Iraq in 2003 and Syria today.
It would be a mistake to further militarize the conflict, Annan has asserted, ignoring the fact that one side in the conflict is highly militarized with all the weapons of the modern state, and is at this moment using those weapons against the Syrian opposition, including innocent civilians who have not joined the armed resistance.
Further militarization? By providing people with arms and other assistance so that they can defend themselves against the wanton commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity?
Sadly, Annan’s mission will only serve to give al-Assad further time to eliminate his opposition, and to offer multiple opportunities for him to play the various nations of the civilized world off against each other. This he did brilliantly with the Arab League in delaying its imposition of sanctions, with his immensely cynical “acceptance” of the Arab League monitors, when he had no intention of complying with the conditions for their deployment. And never did.
In short, the Annan mission, and further delay such as that being pushed by the United States, will under the best of circumstances, only serve to help al-Assad consolidate his regime, and his reign of terror.
After the “mediation”, after the negotiations, any solution that leaves al-Assad and his regime in place will also be a solution that allows his military and state security forces to hunt down and torture and execute opponents to the regime. That is the best-case scenario.
The worst-case scenario is a long and drawn-out civil war, which over time is likely to drag in other powers from the region, and beyond.
Another part of the worst-case scenario is that the civilized world will have to live with the “day after”–the “day after” it has looked the other way in the face of the ongoing commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity. The day after the international community, with full awareness–in real time–of the details of these acts of barbarism, has done nothing to effectively stop them.
It will be a different world, in which dictators everywhere can take heart in knowing that the international “responsibility to protect” is empty verbiage.
It will be a world in which such dictators will be emboldened to use all the instruments of terror, if necessary when faced by civil opposition, to retain their hold on power.
The Trenchant Observer
observer@trenchantobserver.com
www.twitter/trenchantobserv
–For earlier articles by The Trenchant Observer, see the Articles on Syria page.
–To use the Search function, click on “The Trenchant Observer” at the top of this page to go to the home page, and then enter your search term in the box at the upper right.
–A list of the most recent 15 articles (on all subjects) is also found on the home page, on the right.
***
How to find news reports from around the world
–Google and other major search engines use a series of filters amounting to what has been termed a “filter bubble” to limit search results to those keyed to the location, language, and previous search results of the user. See Eli Pariser, The Filter Bubble (2011).
–To find the latest news from around the world on Syria (or any other subject), you can bypass the “filter bubble” of Google and other search engines by going to and beginning your search at www.startpage.com
Tags: Adolf Hitler, AFP, al-Assad, al-assad accomplices, Allied Powers, allison, Annan Besuch, annan's greatest failure, anti-aircraft, apartment blocks, Arab League, Arab League monitors, artillery, Ascwitz, Assad, attack Iran, Baba Amr, Barack Obama, best case scenario, best-case, Casablanca conference, China, congress, Crimes Against Humanity, Cuban Missile Crisis, Daily Star, democracy and the rule of law, Deutschland Today, development favorable to al assad, disastrous situation, El País, electoral logic, enough, enric gonzález, Essence of Decision, ethnic cleasing, Europe, excuse for inaction, failure to stop u.s. invasion of Iraq, fourth armored division, function as a shield, fundamental human rights, Graham Allison, halt the killing, hell has come to syria, highly militarized, homes, Homs, House, I now seek sleep, Idlib, indiscriminate shelling, Iran, Iraq's air defenses, John D. Steinbruner, John McCain, John McCain speech, kofi annan, lack of moral courage, leaders too feckless to act, Maher al-Assad, mass amnesia, means other than rational persuasion, mediation, merciless slaughter, militarize the conflict, military force to stop the killing, military intervention, military intervention in Syria, military leadership, monitors, moral cowardice, Nazi war criminals, no principles left, not lacking, not lacking in self-esteem, November peace plan, Obama, obama doesn't care, obama's debacle in syria, one side is highly militarized, opponents of al-assad, opponents of assad, Philip Zelikow, Protest und Gewalt in Syrien, rational actor fallacy, real-time intelligence, republican guard, round-ups, roundups, Russia, scenario, self-esteem, senate, shield, Siria, sirie, speak truth to power, startpage.com, steinbruner, struggle for democracy, struggle for democracy in syria, stuggle for democracy, syria, Syrien, tanks, targeted executions, targeted killings, the civilized world, The Cybernetic Theory of Decisioin, The Daily Star, the day after, the filter bubble, the individual human beings who are being slaughtered, the only mediation process, u.n. mediation effort, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, United States, until the killing stops, unwilling to lift a finger, war crimes, whether we care, widespread grave violations, will, women and children, World War II, worst -case
Posted in Barack Obama, China, Crimes Against Humanity, Deutschland, Dictatorship, extrajudicial execution, Germany, History, human rights, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Middle East, State Department, State Department Legal Adviser, syria, Torture, U.N. Charter, U.N. Security Council, U.S. Intervention, U.S. Military, United States, use of force, war crimes | No Comments »
Thursday, March 8th, 2012
For earlier articles on Syria by The Trenchant Observer, see the Articles on Syria page.
President Obama’s response to the terror and crimes against humanity underway in Syria, and that of his national security team and military leadership, bespeak a lack of moral courage at the highest levels.
It appears that Obama, as the Observer has noted for some time, can only be moved by the arguments of electoral politics, by factors that might affect his bid for reelection to the presidency in November, 2012.
This itself is an enormously sad statement. But it is the duty of the best journalists, and others including academics who write about public affairs–particularly those who live in free societies–to speak truth to power.
U.S. policy towards Syria has been described by Michael Young, the opinion editor of The Daily Star in Beirut, where citizens have direct experience living under Syrian occupation and a birds-eye view of current developments in neighboring Syria, as “pathetic”.
It is difficult to conclude otherwise.
What words other than “lack of moral courage” (or even “moral cowardice”) can be used to accurately describe decisions regarding Syria by the highest leaders of the U.S. government to not develop robust military options that are available to the president for immediate execution? At least up until now, when Senator McCain’s call for air attacks on Syrian forces raises the spectre of Syria becoming an issue in the fall elections.
How might one characterize decisions by the U.S. to not lead a drive within NATO to develop contingency plans for military intervention in Syria, to not move military assets to the Eastern Mediterranean, or to have U.S. military leaders publicly declare that military intervention is not an option?
Or to have our military leaders tell Congress that military intervention in Syria would be difficult, too hard, to tell Congress the U.S. could not intervene militarily until it knows more about the people who are being slaughtered in Syria, understands exactly what the costs would be, and knows what the outcome would be?
It appears that we now have a military leadership that will not act in any situation unless they know what it will cost and what the outcome will be. That is the military that fights the Taliban with drones, with executions of targets placed on “kill lists”, which seeks to ensure the security of the United States by deploying these same methods through the Middle East and Southwest Asia and the northern parts of Africa.
With these methods the casualties are known, for the drone operators working the night shift somewhere in the United States–or maybe even closer to the field of combat–do not have to risk their lives to fight their war. They can kill the enemy with no personal risk, by remote control.
To be sure, others do risk their lives, and they deserve the highest praise for their valor and courage in fighting for the objectives the U.S. political leadership has set for them. Even the drone operators in the employ of the U.S. military deserve our deep respect, for their work is certainly not risk-free in a psychological sense, as many may subsequently suffer deep psychological problems as a result of their work.
But now the country that would attack Iran, if it doesn’t halt its pursuit of nuclear weapons, offers to Congress as an excuse for inaction in Syria the fact that the country’s air defenses may be five times more difficult to take down than Libya’s were.
No comparison is made with Serbia, where the U.S. military performed admirably in defeating the air defenses of the Milosovic regime as it was committing crimes against humanity in Kosovo.
Have we forgotten also that the United States posseses an awesome arsenal of cruise missiles, which could undoubtedly give al-Assad a wake-up call if there were a firm commitment in the White House to stop the killing in Syria?
The latest arguments, just leaked to the press in the last few days, revolve around Syria’s possession of chemical and perhaps biological weapons. We don’t really know if there is any more substance to this argument than there was in 2003 when WMD was the rationale for taking down Sadam Hussein’s air defenses and invading Iraq. (Incidentally, the U.S. performed rather impressively in taking down Iraq’s air defenses.)
Moreover, this argument ignores the impact in Syria that active military intervention by the U.S. and coalition partners would be likely to have within the Syrian government and military leadership circles.
WMD may represent a risk, but does that mean than military action is forestalled? How is such an argument likely to affect Iran in deciding whether or not to acquire a nuclear weapons capability or nuclear weapons?
So, now that Senator McCain has called for military intervention with air strikes, the president begins to develop military options for dealing with Syria.
Unfortunately, we are now faced with a disastrous situation due to the U.S. administration’s presumed support of U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon’s decision to name Kofi Annan as a mediator on behalf on the U.N. and the Arab League, to mediate the cessation of the crimes against humanity and war crimes that are underway. Annan, who as former Secretary General cannot be viewed as lacking in self-esteem, has laid claim to being the mediator of the only mediation process with al-Assad and his murderous regime.
Now, today, Annan spoke out loudly against any military intervention.
One can hardly imagine developments more favorable to al-Assad. Kofi Annan and his mediation effort–for as long as it continues–function as a shield against military attack, dividing the leaders of the civilized world. It gives al-Assad control over the pace of the mediation efforts, and even if he reached an agreement–as he did with the Arab League in the fall–there would be further delay to ascertain whether or to what extent he had complied with it, and diplomatic consultations to determine how to react to violations, and what to do next.
During all of this time, the Syrian Dictator would be able to continue the commission of mass atrocities and the use of all the tools of a modern police state to hunt down each and every one of his opponents, and to summarily dispense with them.
Annan’s mission should be halted if it doesn’t produce a cessation of the killing by al-Assad’s forces within the next seven days. Such a cessation of hostilities should be its first and only aim, until the killing stops.
The U.S. response to events in Syria has been cynical and craven, and is indeed in Michael Young’s words “pathetic”.
Now, because Obama seems only able to respond to arguments with potential electoral impact, what is needed is some moral courage on the part of Democratic leaders in the Senate and the House.
It is time for them to speak out, loudly, to the President, to the American people, and to the world.
There may be leaders in the Democratic Party who abhor the lack of moral courage that has been evidenced to date on Syria, who will speak out, and who may even launch a challenge–within the Democratic Party or in a third party–to Obama’s reelection as president.
That would involve electoral logic. It could potentially move President Obama to act. It appears that nothing else will.
The Trenchant Observer
observer@trenchantobserver.com
twitter.com/trenchantobserv
–For earlier articles by The Trenchant Observer, see the Articles on Syria page.
–To use the Search function, click on “The Trenchant Observer” at the top of this page to go to the home page, and then enter your search term in the box at the upper right.
–A list of the most recent 15 articles (on all subjects) is also found on the home page, on the right.
Tags: 2012, a troubled mind, academics who write about public affairs, al-Assad, al-assad accomplices, anti-aircraft, apartment blocks, Arab League, Arab League monitors, artillery, Assad, Barack Obama, biolaogical weapons, bombing of serbia, challenge to Obama, China, Christianity, comen and children indiscriminate shelling, congress, courage, craven, Crimes Against Humanity, cruise missiles, Daily Star, death toll, democracy and the rule of law, Democratic challenge to Obama, Democratic leaders, development favorable to al assad, disastrous situation, drones, dutch out front, duty of the best journalists, electoral logic, enough, ethnic cleasing, Europe, excuse for inaction, function as a shield, fundamental human rights, hell has come to syria, HItler, Holland, homes, House, I now seek sleep, in the wrong place at the wrong time, independent party, indiscriminate shelling, Iraq's air defenses, John McCain, John McCain speech, kill lists, kofi annan, kosovo, lack of moral courage, leaders too feckless to act, Libye, mass amnesia, mediation, men and boys, merciless slaughter, Michael Young, military force to stop the killing, military intervention, military intervention diffiuclt, military intervention in Syria, military leadership, monitors, moral cowardice, Nazi war criminals, Netherlands, no comparison with Serbia, no principles left, normandy invasion, not lacking, not lacking in self-esteem, November peace plan, Obama, obama doesn't care, obama's debacle in syria, opinion editor, opponents of al-assad, opponents of assad, pathetic, press coverage, real-time intelligence, robust military options, round-ups, roundups, Russia, self-esteem, senate, serbs, shield, Siria, sirie, slobodan milosovic, speak truth to power, struggle for democracy, struggle for democracy in syria, syria, syrian air defenses, Syrien, tanks, targeted assassinations, targeted executions, targeted killings, the civilized world, the country that would atack iran, the courage and the will, The Daily Star, the individual human beings who are being slaughtered, the Netherlands, the only mediation process, the world is adrift, third party, u.n. mediation effort, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, United States, until the killing stops, unwilling to lift a finger, wake-up call, wake-up call for assad, war crimes, we have no leaders, whether we care, widespread grave violations, will, WMD, women and children, World War II
Posted in Barack Obama, China, CIA, Crimes Against Humanity, Dictatorship, elections, History, human rights, Intelligence, internal supporters of human rights, International Law, Iraq, kosovo, Libya, Middle East, NATO, Russia, Serbia, State Department, syria, targeted assassinations, targeted killings, Torture, U.N. Security Council, U.S. Congress, U.S. Intervention, U.S. Military, United States, use of force, war crimes | No Comments »
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: 2012, 6711th meeting, Action Plan of 2 November 2011, al-Assad, AP, Arab League, arab spring, article 42, Assad, Associated Press, Azerbaijan, Bashar al-Assad, breakdown of vote, China, china and russia, china can do better, china can do better than this, China defends Syrian regime, Chinese veto, circumstances on the ground, co-sponsors, Colombia, countries in favor, countries voting for Syria resolution, Crimes Against Humanity, decision of 22 January 2012, draft resolution, february 4 meeting, France, fresh blood on their hands, full text of resolution, Germany, Guatemala, heir apparent, Hu Jintao, India, la Chine, League of Arab States, League of Arab States observer mission, led by Xi Jinping, Li Baodong, looks the other way, Mededev, member voting for Syria Resolution, members voting in favor of the resolution, mild resolution, military intervention, military intervention in Syria, Morocco, new generation of Chinese leaders, new leader, Pakistan, Portugal, proposed U.N. Security resolution on Syria, Putin, Qatar, resolution of February 4, Russia, Russian veto, S/PV.6711, security council, security council official records, security council vote, security council vote on february 4, sheepish follower of Russia, Siria, sour note on which to begin a new relationship, South Africa, South Africa Togo, statements of the different delegations, struggle for democracy, struggle for democracy in syria, syria, syria update #4, syrian regime, Syrie, Syrien, text of resolution, Togo, transcript, transcript of proceedings, UN Charter, UN Security Council, United Kingdom, United Nations Webcast, United States, UNSC presidential statement of 3 August 2011, vetoes, video of February 4 security council meeting, video of meeting, Video on Demand, Vitaly Churkin, vladimir putin, Xi Jinping, zong guó, سوريا, سورية
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 »
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: al-Assad, arab spring, as seen from Beirut, Assad, assad remaining in power, bargaining between the Russian government and the Syrian opposition, Bashar al-Assad, Daily Star, Damascus, Lavrov, Lebanon, Mededev, Mededev-Putin, Michael Young, military intervention, military intervention in Syria, post-Assad government, retrubution, Rusia's calculations, Russia, Russia's calculations, Sergei Lavrov, struggle for democracy, struggle for democracy in syria, strugle for democracy, syria, The Daily Star, vladimir putin, We are not friends or allies of President Assad
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 »
Thursday, February 2nd, 2012
Russia has blocked Security Council resolutions on Syria (e.g., in October, 2011) and has been dragging its heels in the current Security Council debate over endorsement of the Arab League plan for a peaceful transition in Syria, which in its original version called for Bashar al-Assad to step down and cede power to his vice-president as part of a transitional plan leading to elections and a democratic government. The Russians appear to have said “no” to that idea, while negotiations among Security Council members continue to see if a consensus among the Permanent members and a majority of the Council can be reached in order to approve a new resolution.
The following articles address the underlying strategic, political and commercial interests Russia appears to be defending through its refusal to date to allow the Security Council to take effective action. It has a naval base on the Mediterranean at Tartus, arms sales to Syria, and other commerical interests, which apparently it believes it is defending through its obstinance in the Security Council.
Yet it may be making a strategic miscalculation of monumental proportions, striving to maintain its naval base following a kind of 19th century geopolitical calculus, when the Arab Spring has arrived, is spreading, and Russia now risks poisoning its relations with the governments and peoples of the Middle East, for at least a generation, by firmly defending a regime engaged in the unquestioned and widespread commission of crimes against humanity and war crimes.
Russia always dreamed of having a warm-water port, but even its bases in the Crimea are controlled by NATO members Greece and Turkey at the entrance to the Bosphorus, just as the entrance to the Mediterranean from the Atlantic is controlled by Spain and Portugal, both NATO allies, and Morocco, the sponsor of the Arab league draft reolution in the Security Council. Given the revolution in Egypt, the chances of establishing a cozy relationship with the power which controls the Suez Canal appear slim.
19th century dreams of a warm-water port and Cold War strategies to have a naval base to contest NATO’s control of the Mediterranean are illusions based on Cold War and pre- Cold War thinking. Like the French who built the Maginot Line after World War I to protect themselves from the Germans, the Russians are likely to pay a heavy price for following a strategy based on the past instead of the future.
The great irony is that by continuing to support Bashar al-Assad and his murderous regime, as the country plummets into civil war, the Russians are doing everything they can to alienate the very opposition forces in Syria which are likely to prevail–in the not-too-distant future. When these succeed in seizing power, they will not look kindly on the idea of maintaining Russia’s naval base in Syria, and will have no need for Russian arms.
For detailed examinations of Russia’s strategic and other interests in Syria, see:
S. Richter, “Russlands zweifelhafte Syrien-Strategie: Moskau blockiert eine UN-Resolution gegen das Assad-Regime. Es will seine letzte Bastion im Mittelmeer nicht einfach aufgeben,” Die Zeit, den 1. Februar, 2012
Daniel Treisman, “Why Russia protects Syria’s Assad,” CNN, February 2, 2012
Armin Arefi, “Syrie : pourquoi la Russie bloque l’ONU,”
Le Point, le 31 janvier, 2012
Pierre Avril, “Pourquoi Moscou protège son allié Assad,” Le Figaro, le 29 janvier, 2012
The World has changed. The Cold War is over. Russia is not going to fight NATO in the Mediterranean.
Blocking concerted action by the Security Council now may well lead in the future to the foreign military intervention which Russia fears, as Syria spins out of control.
Russia needs to do a basic “rethink” on where its own best interests lie.
The Trenchant Observer
observer@trenchantobserver.com
www.twitter.com/trenchantobserv
Tags: al-Assad, Arab governments, Arab people, Armin arefi, Assad, Aveugle, basic rethink, beobachter, Bosphorous, conseil de securite, Crimea, Daniel treisman, defend, die Zeit, Egypt, Germans, Greece, Interets strategiques, L'observer incisif, l'ONU, La Russie, Le Figaro, Le Point, Maginot line, Mediterranean, military intervention, military intervention in Syria, miscalculation, monumental, monumental miscalculation?, Morocco, nations unie, pierre Avril, Portugal, Russia's strategic interests, russland, S. richter, Sicherheitsrat, siecle, son alliee, Spain, struggle for democracy, struggle for democracy in syria, Suez Canal, Syrien-Strategie, Treffender Beobachter, Turkey, un, UN-Resolition, Vereinigte Nationen, warm-water port, why russia protects syria, World War II, XIXeme, XXIeme, zweifelhafte Syrien-Strategie
Posted in China, Crimes Against Humanity, Egypt, France, Germany, History, human rights, International Law, Middle East, NATO, Qatar, Russia, Spain, State Department, syria, Tunisia, U.N. Charter, U.N. Security Council, U.S. Intervention, U.S. Military, use of force, war crimes | 1 Comment »
Wednesday, February 1st, 2012
Armin Arefi, “Syrie : pourquoi la Russie bloque l’ONU,”
Le Point, le 31 janvier, 2012
Pierre Avril, “Pourquoi Moscou protège son allié Assad,” Le Figaro, le 29 janvier, 2012
S. Richter, “Russlands zweifelhafte Syrien-Strategie: Moskau blockiert eine UN-Resolution gegen das Assad-Regime. Es will seine letzte Bastion im Mittelmeer nicht einfach aufgeben,” Die Zeit, den 1. Februar, 2012
Daniel Treisman, “Why Russia protects Syria’s Assad
By Daniel Treisman,” CNN, February 2, 2012
Tags: Armin arefi, Assad, Aveugle, beobachter, conseil de securite, Daniel treisman, defend, die Zeit, Interets strategiques, intervention ilitaire en syrie, L'observer incisif, l'ONU, La Russie, Le Figaro, Le Point, lutte pour la democratie en syrie, lutte pour la meocratie, military intervention, military intervention in Syria, nations unie, pierre Avril, russland, S. richter, Sicherheitsrat, siecle, son alliee, struggle for democracy, struggle for democracy in syria. intervention miloitaire, Syrien-Strategie, Treffender Beobachter, un, UN-Resolition, Vereinigte Nationen, why russia protects syria, XIXeme, XXIeme, zweifulhafte Syrien-strategie
Posted in China, Crimes Against Humanity, History, human rights, International Law, Lebanon, Russia, State Department, syria, Torture, U.N. Charter, U.N. Convention Against Torture, U.N. Security Council, U.N. Torture Convention, U.S. Intervention, U.S. Military, United States, use of force, war crimes | No Comments »