Posts Tagged ‘crimes de guerre’
Thursday, November 8th, 2012
Chinese Proposal for Syria
It is curious indeed to see China propose a “solution” to the Syrian civil war at this precise moment in time, when power is being transferred to Xi Jinping and a new generation of Communist Party leaders at the Party Congress which opens today.
The “proposal” is made of thin air, and seems to have been conjured up on the spot when Lakhdar Brahimi was in Beijing to discuss the Syrian situation with the foreign ministry.
See Colum Lynch (Turtle Bay), “Could China’s Syria ceasefire plan be the path to peace?” Foreign Policy, November 1, 2012. Lynch restates the details of the Chinese proposal, which include:
“A political settlement is the only viable solution in Syria,” Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi said, according to Xinhua, which outlined Beijing’s big idea:
First, relevant parties in Syria should make every effort to stop fighting and violence, and cooperate actively with the mediation efforts of Brahimi. Relevant parties should implement effective steps toward a cease-fire, for example region by region or phase by phase, expand the areas of cease-fire, realize disengagement, and eventually bring an end to all armed conflict and violence.
Second, relevant parties in Syria should appoint empowered interlocutors as soon as possible so that, assisted by Brahimi and the international community, they can formulate through consultations a roadmap of political transition, establish a transitional governing body of broad representation, and implement political transition so as to end the Syrian crisis at an early date. To ensure a safe, stable and calm transition, the continuity and effectiveness of Syria’s governmental institutions must be maintained.
Third, the international community should work with greater urgency and responsibility to fully cooperate with and support Brahimi’s mediation efforts and make real progress in implementing the communique of the Geneva foreign ministers’ meeting of the Action Group for Syria, Mr. Annan’s six-point plan and relevant Security Council resolutions. The positive efforts of the Arab League and countries in the region in search of a political settlement should be valued.
Fourth, relevant parties should take concrete steps to ease the humanitarian crisis in Syria. The international community should increase humanitarian assistance to the Syrian people and ensure proper resettlement of refugees beyond the Syrian border and timely aid for those in need within Syria. The Syrian government and various parties should render full cooperation to the work of the United Nations and relevant neutral institutions to provide humanitarian assistance in all conflict-affected regions and ensure the safety of their personnel. At the same time, humanitarian issues should not be politicized and humanitarian assistance should not be militarized.
The Chinese proposal should simply be ignored. It contains no more than previous “castles in the sky” agreed to by the permanent members of the Security Council, which contained no coercive measures to oblige al-Assad to stop the killing.
See Allison Jackson, “China’s peace plan for Syria: Q & A;
China has proposed a four-point peace plan for resolving the Syrian crisis. But what does it mean? And why now?” GlobalPost, November 7, 2012.
Anyone who believes that an agreement by al-Assad could mean anything, and could lead to an end to the fighting, has–to put it most charitably–either been asleep or not following developments in Syria for the last year.
The Ghost of Kofi Annan Arises
At the same time, the ghost of Kofi Annan has arisen in the form of Lakhdar Brahimi’s latest thoughts on a solution to the on-going civil war. It will be recalled that Brahimi was proposed by Kofi Annan as Russia and China exerted great pressure on Ban Ki-Moon to urgently appoint a successor to Kofi Annan following the latter’s resignation. Obligingly, without any public discussion of the desirability of continuing Annan’s ill-conceived and ill-fated mission, though with a new Special Envoy, Ban Ki-Moon appointed Brahimi at Annan’s suggestion.
Now, in the Chinese proposal with Brahimi, we see the same plan Annan was floating in Geneva on June 30. We see the same worn, rejected ideas resurface in Brahimi’s latest thinking, including–incredibly–the idea of the Syrian government and others in Syria appointing “empowered interlocutors” to negotiate transitional arrangements. Brahimi has in the last few days warned of a collapse of the Syrian state and the “Somalization” of the conflict, while also arguing the June 30 agreement in Geneva should be adopted by the Security Council as a resolution. He seems to be grasping at straws in the face of an increasingly desperate situation.
That these ideas have not died once and for all, after the deaths of tens of thousands of Syrians during the period of Kofi Annan’s mission (which amounted to de facto work on behalf of the Russians and al-Assad himself), is beyond incredible.
It is so incredible that the United States and other nations should rethink their support of the U.N. peacekeeping activities led by current officials, and act, immediately, to defund the office in Geneva which supports Brahimi’s futile and dangerous mission.
The U.N. administration under Ban Ki-Moon’s leadership has contributed exactly zero in efforts to halt the killing by the al-Assad government in Syria, and has acted in fact in ways which have delayed effective action by other states by endlessly holding out unfounded hopes and “castles in the sky“.
Enough! Send Brahimi home. Ignore the illusory “proposal” from China. Ignore the UN clowns! Support action that will provide a counter-force to al-Assad’s tanks and artillery and aircraft which are attacking and bombing the Syrian population.
Above all, the U.S., NATO and Arab states should firmly resist any efforts by Russia, China, or al-Assad to use Special Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi and his mission to save al-Assad and his government from the harsh fate they so richly deserve.
Phrasing the Demand for Change in Syria
The demand for change in Syria should not be literally phrased as one for the ouster of Bashar al-Assad, for that plays into the Russian and the Chinese counterargument that the international community should not be in the business of replacing governments.
Instead, the demand should be phrased in terms of requiring that those responsible for ordering the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity, and tolerating the commission of such crimes by those under their command, should be removed from power, arrested and detained, and prosecuted for their crimes.
The Russians and the Chinese will be on much weaker ground in seeking to rebut this demand. It should be stated as part of a general goal of bringing to a halt the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Syria.
When the commission of such crimes is halted and those responsible for their commission are removed from power and brought to justice, the killing in Syria will stop.
No negotiated agreement with al-Bashar and his fellow war criminals will produce real results.
The only agreements now worth pursuing are ceasefire agreements, with implementation mechanisms, whether arranged locally or at a national level as the regime begins to crumble.
Intense thought should now be given to the establishment of an international force (whether under U.N. auspices, or those of another international coalition), which can effectively oversee that ceasefire and the reconstruction of Syria which should begin the day the guns go silent.
U.N. Security Council Action Required When the Syrian State Starts to Collapse
Once the Syrian state starts to collapse, if not before, the Permanent Members of the Security Council should come together to draft a resolution that would establish a U.N. Transitional Authority in Syria, together with a U.N. Peacekeeping Force in Syria with a mandate for two-five years. This is what will be required, sooner or later, to bring the situation under control following the collapse of the Bashar al-Assad regime.
See The Trenchant Observer, “REPRISE: Goals to guide the international community in Syria—Obama’s Debacle in Syria — Update #62 (July 11),” July 11, 2012.
The Permanent Members of the Security Council should be in continuing and direct consultations with each other as the crisis continues to unfold. They should be talking to each other directly, not through Lakhdar Brahimi (with Kofi Annan offering advice from the wings).
These conversations and negotiations should not be merely delegated to lower-ranking officials, but should include the active involvement of officials at the ministerial and the presidential levels.
The Trenchant Observer
Tags: al-Assad, Allison Jackson, Ban Ki-Moon, Castle in the sky, castles in the sky, ceasefiore agreements, ceasefire agreement, China, Chinese four-point plan, chinese proposal for syria, Chinese proposal made of thin air, chinese solution, Colum Lynch, Crimes Against Humanity, crimes contre l'humanité, crimes de guerre, end, establishment of an international force, foreign policy, Global Post, globalpost, goal of removing war criminals from power, goals to guide the international community on syria, June 30 geneva conference, kofi annanç kofi annan's ghost, Kriegsverbrechen, Kriegsverbrecher, Lied to the American people, negotiations at ministerial or presidential level, no negotiated agreement with bashar al-assad, obama's debacle in syria, oversee the ceasefire, party congress, phrasing the demand for change in syria, rethink support of u.n. peacekeeping activities, Security Council action required when syrian state collapses, send Brahinmi home, Siria, syria, Syrie, Syrien, Turtle Bay, U*.N. Transitional Authority in Syria, U.N. administration, U.N. Peacekeeping Force in Syria, UN clowns, update #89, Verbrechen Wider di Menschlichkeit, war crimes, war criminals, Xi Jinping, Xinhua, Yang Jiechi
Posted in Barack Obama, China, Crimes Against Humanity, extrajudicial execution, human rights, internal supporters of human rights, International Law, Russia, syria, U.N. Security Council, U.S. Intervention, U.S. Military, United Nations Secretary General, United States, war crimes | No Comments »
Friday, September 7th, 2012
In March, 2011, as the Obama administration dragged its heels and made clear it had no intention of intervening in Libya, we wrote:
For days, the administration has been signaling its unwillingness to act. First, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates tilted the scales by weighing in heavily against the approval of a no-fly zone….Finally, today, the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, stated in Congressional testimony that Qaddafi was likely to prevail given his advantages in troops and hardware. It is difficult, to say the least, to understand the logic that could have underlain such a tone-deaf and politically maladroit statement. Perhaps it was just inexperience and lack of foreign policy coordination. But it was disastrous in its impact.
Altogether, a most shameful spectacle.
History may well mark the month of March, 2011 as the decisive turning point in America’s leadership in world affairs. America has always been more than a state pursuing its self-interests. That era now seems past, at least under Democratic presidential leadership.
…
Despite its cynical record of dealings with dictatorships in the past, it is now to France, that other beacon of human liberty–since the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, and the defeat of Fascism in 1945 (made possible only with American help), that advocates of democracy and freedom must look.
If America does not want to be a champion of liberty, at least the French, drawing on their own deep traditions, have a possibility of articulating a clear moral vision that might guide us forward toward achievement of the goals of democracy and the rule of law which so many have fought for, at such great sacrifice, for over 70 years.
–The Trenchant Observer, “Libya—America Abdicates Global Leadership in Struggle for Democracy,” March 10, 2011
It seems clear that United States policy on Syria is “locked in” at least until the U.S. presidential elections on November 6, and probably far beyond. This policy is largely secret.
U.S. President Barack Obama has decided to undertake a program of covert operations relating to Syria, consisting of the following two elements:
1) the supply of non-lethal assistance to the Syrian rebels, including communications equipment, and logistical coordination; while mostly covert, these activities have been acknowledged in leaks to the press; and
2) a highly-secret covert operations program the details of which are not public, but which probably include the coordination with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and perhaps other nations of the supply of weapons, the provision to the rebels of actionable intelligence, the coordination of forces and attacks, and financial support for the insurgents, in addition to direct U.S. actions by special forces and other covert operatives within Syria. We can only speculate, as we really don’t know.
See
David Ignatius, “Syria’s eerie parallel to 1980s Afghanistan,” Washington Post, September 3, 2012.
Carlos Munoz, “US surges intelligence operations along Turkey-Syria border,” The Hill, August 6, 2012.
What this policy does not envision is the open use of military force to establish a no-fly zone or to defend safe zones which have been set up within Syria, or other measures which would defend the population of Syria against the murderous onslaughts of the Syrian Dictator.
Moreover, the covert nature of the program entails risks, as reports indicate that the approach used in Afghanistan in the 1980′s after the Soviet invasion of that country is perhaps being followed, with the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar Bin Sultan, playing a key role as he did in the 1980′s effort in Afghanistan when he was the Saudi Ambassador to the U.S.
The covert nature of the program also makes it difficult to mobilize support from other civilized countries, due to the absence of international legal constraints and the inability of such countries to mobilize domestic support for U.S. covert activities.
In any event, what Obama’s covert war in Syria promises is a long, drawn-out conflict and continuing civil war in Syria, which even the departure of Bashar al-Assad might not be able to stop. With the Saudis funding the operations, their affinity for groups that are either Wahabist or otherwise deeply conservative runs the risk of favoring such groups over other more secular groups among the Syrian armed opposition.
With the United States locked into a covert policy in Syria which does not promise to bring the mass crimes of Bashar al-Assad to an early halt, there is a gaping leadership vacuum among the civilized nations of the world which might potentially act, outside the Security Council, to bring the killing to a halt.
Will France step into the breach?
Despite President François Hollande’s initially cautious approach to Syria, there are signs that France is now moving in that direction. France has recently decided to provide financial support to five cities in “liberated” areas of Syria, and there have been reports that it is considering providing artillery to the Syrian armed opposition to help defend certain areas in Syria.
However, a European Union arms embargo may impose restrictions on the supply of arms to the opposition. U.K. Foreign Minister Willian Hague has stated that the supply of arms to rebels in Syria would violate a European Union arms embargo on Syria.
“At the moment we have a European Union arms embargo on Syria, it’s not possible or legal for any EU nation to send weapons to anybody in Syria and therefore our chosen route and is the same route of France and the United States, is to give non-lethal assistance and we’re doing that,” Hague told reporters in response to a question about whether France may be considering providing arms to the Syrian opposition.
–Lori Hinnant (AP), “French Direct Aid a Dubious Break for Syria Rebels
ABC News, September 7, 2012
The signficance of the reports that France is considering sending arms to Syria is that it now seems on the verge of taking on the mantle of leadership on Syria, or trying to.
Much will depend on whether the United States will attempt to block the French initiative, as it did recently with another initiative when France announced it would recognize a provisional government in Syria when it is formed. Also, any problem with the EU regulation establishing an arms embargo to which Hague referred would need to be resolved, unless France were to resort to the covert operations approach of the Obama administration.
Assuming it can overcome these obstacles, will France lead?
Former President Nicholas Sarkozy has called for intervention in Syria. As the leader of the UMP, the main opposition party, his demands have repercussions within the French political system. At the moment, it can hardly be said that there is any public clamor for intervention in Syria, though that could change. Nonetheless, any Socialist government policy of intervention in Syria that is supported by the UMP would be unlikely to generate strong domestic opposition.
See
Frédéric Gerschel, “Syrie : Bernard-Henri Lévy déçu par François Hollande; Alors que les combats font rage dans le pays, Bernard-Henri Lévy demande au chef de l’Etat d’être plus ferme. Comme son prédécesseur, Nicolas Sarkozy, l’avait été en Libye l’an dernier,” Le Parisien, 3 août 2012.
Bernard-Henri Lévy, “Des avions pour Alep!” Le Monde, 14 août 2012(Mis à jour le 15.08.2012 à 15h40)(opinion).
Frédéric Gerschel, “Hollande a reçu BHL à l’Elysée pour parler de la Syrie,” Le Parisien, 4 septembre 2012.
In principle, it could be in the interests of the United States to let France take the leadership role on Syria in the next two months, at least until after the elections.
There is an urgent need for leadership now, from some quarter, as the situation in Syria spins increasingly out of control. Iraq, it is now revealed, has been allowing Iran to use its air space to transport military personnel and equipment to Syria to support the al-Assad regime. There is sharp disagreement between Israel and the U.S. over whether and when to attack Iran if it continues on its path to nuclear weapons.
See
Michael R. Gordon, “Iran Supplying Syrian Military via Iraqi Airspace,” New York Times, September 4, 2012.
Unfortunately, world events do not march to the drumbeats of the electoral campaign in the United States, or defer to Barack Obama’s determination not to intervene militarily in Syria “regardless of the consequences”.
The big question is, “Will the United States, leading from the rear, allow France and others to lead from the front?”
For the French, the big question is, “Regardless of whatever obstruction the Obama administration may lay in its path, will France seize the mantle of leadership of the civilized nations in the world, and take the lead in acting to halt the destruction of Syria and its people by a murderous regime committing crimes against humanity, war crimes, and every other atrocity in the book?”
The Trenchant Observer
observer@trenchantobserver.com
www.twitter.com/trenchantobserv
For links to other articles by The Trenchant Observer, click on the title at the top of this page to go to the home page, and then consult the information in the bottom right hand corner of the home page. The Articles on Syria page can also be found here.
Tags: a most shameful spectacle, actionable intelligence, america's leadership in world affairs, atrocities, Barack Obama, bernard-henri lévy, bhl, covert operations, covert operations in syria, crimenes contra la humanidad, crimenes de guerra, crimens contra a humanidade, crimens de guerra, Crimes Against Humanity, crimes contre l'humanité, crimes de guerre, David Ignatius, democracy and the rule of law, des avions pour alep, eu arms embargo on syria, financial support, fr'déric gerschel, France, françois hollande, fundamental human rights, James Clapper, John Irish, Kriegsverbrechen, leadership, Libya, locked-in, michael r. gordon, no-fly zone, Qaddafi, Robert Gates, safe zone, Siria, syria, syria policy, Syrie, Syrien, that other beacon of human liberty, the mantle of leadership, turning point, urgent need for leadership now, Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit, war crimes, zone d'exclusion aérienne
Posted in Barack Obama, China, CIA, Crimes Against Humanity, Dictatorship, extrajudicial execution, France, Germany, International Law, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, Morocco, Mossad, NATO, Qatar, Russia, sanctions, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, State Department, State Department Legal Adviser, syria, Togo, Torture, Tunisia, Turkey, U.N. Charter, U.N. Convention Against Torture, U.N. Security Council, U.N. Torture Convention, U.S. Intervention, U.S. Military, united arab emirates, United Kingdom, United States, use of force, war crimes | No Comments »
Tuesday, August 28th, 2012
The French text of André Gluckmann’s article on Syria and Vladimir Putin, published in Le Monde on August 11, has now been translated (in rather free form) into English.
See
André Glucksmann, “How Kofi Annan Allowed Putin To Become The Godfather Of Tyrants”, LeMonde/ Worldcrunch, August 14, 2012. from Le Monde, August 8).
Translation from the French, André Glucksmann, “Pendant les JO, la tuerie continue en Syrie,” Le Monde, 11 août 2012 (updated August 13, 2012).
An article by the Trenchant Observer on Glucksmann’s article, with concluding observations, was published here in French on August 13. An English version of that article (drawing on the WorldCrunch translation) is reproduced below.
*****************************************************
André Glucksmann, “The killing continues in Syria”—Obama’s debacle in Syria — Update #74 (August 13) (translation)
André Glucksmann, an important French philosopher and writer, writes in Le Monde of August 11, 2012, that while the Olympic Games fascinate the world’s public and the tanks and the planes of Bashar Al-Assad “spoil, by themselves, the pleasure of sensitive souls,”
the resignation of Kofi Annan is received in a complete summer silence. Nonetheless, when the UN peace envoy to Syria threw in the towel, it marked the end of a shameful fiasco. The affable Ghanaian diplomat and Nobel Peace Laureate, who has been both number one and number two in the international organization, displayed goodwill, humanitarianism and pacifism but yielded only catastrophic results.
As the UN’s number two, responsible for peacekeeping operations in Bosnia and Rwanda, his passivity shielded the Hutu’s genocide of the Tutsi people. In 1994, 800,000 civilians were murdered with machetes over a three-month period whilst Kofi Annan refused to send 5,000 blue helmets to stop the genocide. Ten years later, he released a statement saying he could have personally done more to stop the genocide. Rather than being punished, he was promoted to UN General Secretary, a post he would assume from 1997 to 2006. During that time, he didn’t say a word as Vladimir Putin undertook to slash the living population of Chechnya by a fifth.
Were we to believe that this small people of one million inhabitants included 200,000 terrorists?
Glucksmann exlains why one should not have any hope for a change in the policy of Vladimir Putin, reminding us of his history:
Russia’s geriatric communist leaders have been replaced by a KGB member who knows neither scruples nor restraint. You have to be as naïve as a French diplomat or simply obsessed with elections, like Barack Obama and his European counterparts, to imagine for a second that the “butcher from the Caucasus” would bat an eye at the bloodshed in Aleppo, Homs or Damascus. “20,000 have died in a year!” cries the press and the NGOs. “Is that all?” Putin smirks, you can do better Bashar al-Assad.
Don’t speculate about the charitable sentiments of the Russian leaders. They have felt the wind of the cannonball, offended as they were by the sight of the streets of Moscow submerged by the opposition. Everything that can stop dead the liberating contagion of “the Arab springs” interests the camarilla (entourage of officials) concerned about its own survival. If Putin protects Assad, it is a potential Assad victory that will protect Putin. A bloodily repressed rebellion, like that in Chechnya, would serve as an example and a warning for the Russian people and its close neighbors.
The drama taking place in the Security Council has gone on long enough. We cannot wait forever to see if Putin (and his Chinese comrades) ever becomes a little teary-eyed or if one humanitarian fiber in his body responds to the conflict in Syria. The failure of Kofi Annan is that of an idealist international community: for twenty years it has left its fate up to the phony unanimity of the Security Council, submissive to the diktats of Saint Vladimir, patron of the Lubyanka.
***
From another quarter, Nicholas Sarkozy, former president of France and the person who provoked the world into undertaking the humanitarian intervention in Libya in 2011, has made strong statements critical of the lack of action by the new socialist president, François Hollande, in the face of the developments in Syria.
See Matthieu Alexandre (avec Matthieu Deprieck), “Sarkozy veut coincer Hollande sur le front syrien,” L’Express, 8 août 2012.
As far as the U.N. is concerned, according to reports, Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon is poised to name Lakhdar Brahimi as the new Joint Special Envoy for Syria, Kofi Annan’s successor.
See Mark Leon Goldberg “Can a New Special Envoy Move Syria Diplomacy?” UN Dispatch, August 13, 2012.
Nonetheles, it is important not to lose sight of some points which are essential for analysis of the situation in Syria:
1. The failure of Kofi Annan was at the same time a failure of Ban Ki-Moon, who has been just as responsible for Kofi Annan’s disaster as Kofi Annan himself.
2. Until now, the Secretary General of the United Nations has shown himself to be totally incapable of organizing actions aimed at putting an end to the barbarism in Syria. He wants to continue the talks of Kofi Annan, with a new chief of interviews.
3. The problem in Syria is a military problem, not a diplomatic problem. To turn it into a problem susceptible of a diplomatic solution in the future, it is necessary now to utilize methods that are more energetic than words.
4. At the present, there is no valid reason for the appointment of a successor to Kofi Annan as Special Envoy. That is the game of the Russians. One must simply not play it!
5. In the event Lakhdar Brahimi is appointed Special Envoy for Syria, (a) he should not accept the position; and (b) in the event he does, the countries which are tired of playing this game with the Russians at the U.N. should not collaborate with him, given the fact that his mission tends to attract all of the attention of the international press to his efforts and to what the Russians think, or say, or accept or do not accept. The time for this should be finished.
6. The Russians, like the Chinese, have played a role of acting in bad faith, of supporting the murderous crimes of the Bashar al-Assad regime. Now, the West and the Arab countries and the other civilized countries of the world should search for a solution to the Syrian crisis on the path of facts, of actions, and never again on the roads of a dream world of formulations of beautiful words.
The Trenchant Observer
Tags: 11 auût 2012, André Glucksmann, crimes contre l'humanité, crimes de guerre, dimitri medvedev, en syrie, envoyé spécial, Jeux Olympiques, JO, KGB, KGBiste, kofi annan, La Russie, la tuerie continue en Syrie, le bourreau du Caucase, Le Monde, Mark Leon Goldberg, Matthieu Alexandre, Matthieu Deprieck, processus de médiation, Rwanda, successeur à Kofi Annan, Tchétchcénie, UN Dispatch, Vladimir Poutine, vladimir putin, WorldCrunch
Posted in Azerbaijan, Barack Obama, China, CIA, Crimes Against Humanity, extrajudicial execution, France, Germany, human rights, Intelligence, International Law, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Middle East, NATO, Portugal, Qatar, Russia, sanctions, Saudi Arabia, State Department, State Department Legal Adviser, syria, Togo, Torture, Turkey, U.N. Charter, U.N. Convention Against Torture, U.N. Security Council, U.N. Torture Convention, U.S Foreign Relations, U.S. Intervention, U.S. Military, U.S. news coverage, United Kingdom, United Nations Secretary General, United States, use of force, war crimes | No Comments »
Thursday, August 16th, 2012
Updated August 16 at 20:00 GMT
Latest Developments:
- U.N. Security Council allows UNSMIS mission to end on August 19
- Russia pushes hard to continue mission of Joint Special Envoy, convoking meeting on August 17 of Syria Action Group (from Geneva conference convoked by Kofi Annan and held on June 30).
- Statements by Security Council President Gérard Araud (France) and Vitaly I. Churkin (Russian Federation) at Media Stakeout following August 16 Security Council meeting (video)
- Daily Star editorial on distraction of naming successor to Kofi Annan
- Sources report Brahimi has accepted appointment as Joint Special Envoy
See
Editorial, “Poor substitute,” The Daily Star, August 11, 2012.
“Algeria’s Brahimi agrees to be new Syria mediator-sources,” The Daily Star, August 16, 2012 (09:59 PM).
SC President, Gérard Araud (France) on Syria – Security Council Media Stakeout (16 August 2012)16 Aug 2012 – Press Statement and informal comments to the media by H. E. Mr. Gérard Araud, Permanent Representative of France to the United Nations and President of the Security Council for the month of August 2012 on the situation in Syria.
Vitaly I. Churkin (Russian Federation) on Syria – Security Council media Stakeout (16 August 2012)
16 Aug 2012 – Informal comments to the media by H.E. Mr. Vitaly I. Churkin, Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation on the situation in Syria.
Edmund Mullet on Syria – Security Council Media Stakeout (16 August 2012)
16 Aug 2012 – Informal comments to the media by the UN Assistant Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations, Edmund Mullet on the situation in Syria.
****************************************************
The United States, France and Great Britain: Fatuity as Foreign Policy
Syria shows us how the world is adrift.
The leaders of the three Permanent Members of the U.N. Security Council not supporting the Syrian government’s atrocities, the defenders of freedom in the world, as it were, are on vacation or otherwise out to lunch. Some, such as Obama, checked out a long time ago.
No one in the foreign offices of these three countries with the power of decision could have paid close attention to the events that have occurred in Syria and in the capitals of the five permanent members of the Council, and logically and in good faith support a new mission by a new special envoy to mediate or negotiate (or ingratiate himself toward) a solution to the Syrian crisis.
All of the diplomatic camouflage deployed by Russia and China has now been stripped away. The reasons they adduce for their actions are specious, dishonest arguments demonstrably lacking in candor and persuasive force.
What Russia and China stand for is the right of any government to wipe out its opposition, as Vladimir Putin did in Chechnya, and as China stands ready to do in Tibet, or with the Uigurs. They stand for the right of a dictatorship to annihilate its opponents, even when these begin by peaceful means, through the commission of crimes against humanity and war crimes. They stand for the proposition that a dictatorship has the right to bomb hospitals, and to use artillery and other heavy weapons, and even jet fighters to bombard civilian neighborhoods without discrimination between military and civilian targets, or even with the full intention to kill or massacre civilians.
They each stand for the continuing right of any (friendly) dictatorship to undertake the brutal crimes against humanity and war crimes which each in its own history has itself committed in the past.
Here is the critical point: Both Russia and China argue not only that they had the right to commit these crimes in the past, but that they have a continuing right to repeat such crimes in the future, if necessary, without the international community having any right to intervene–even with economic sanctions–to halt such crimes.
*********************************************************
For other articles on Syria by The Trenchant Observer, see the Articles on Syria page, here.
*********************************************************
But what of the countries whose histories and whose constitutions say they stand for liberty, and which have fought wars in defense of that liberty, including World War II?
Where do they stand?
Well, they don’t stand. They are on vacation. It is not a matter of convincing them by logic that they should intervene to halt al-Assad’s atrocities. It is simply that they don’t care.
They don’t care enough to pay attention.
They weren’t awake when Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov showed up with Kofi Annan at the meeting of the Arab League in Cairo on March 10 and somehow secured their acquiescence in a five-point plan which included a ban or foreign military intervention to stop the killing, which then became Kofi Annan’s 6-point plan.
They weren’t awake to observe how Kofi Annan’s mission played into the hands of the Russians and al-Assad’s regime in Damascus, among other reasons because it put all the cards in the hands of the Dictator and his Russian and Chinese backers, and imposed no costs for dithering and interminable delays while he killed thousands of his citizens.
And now, after the total, complete, absolute failure of Kofi Annan’s mission and the 6-point peace plan, they stand poised to “go along” with Ban Ki-Moon’s appointment of a “replacement” for Kofi Annan following his resignation.
They are not paying attention to the fact that the term of Kofi Annan’s mandate ends in August, and that Ban Ki-Moon by pliantly acceding to the pressures from Russia and China to quickly appoint a successor to Annan is by a sleight-of-hand finessing the more fundamental question of whether a new special envoy should be appointed at all.
By this slight-of-hand, Ban Ki-Moon is serving the interests of the Russians and the Chinese, with Kofi Annan in the background orchestrating things, including the selection of his successor as joint special envoy who he himself picked.
Logically, one would examine the record of Kofi Annan and the reasons he failed to end the civil war in Syria. Then one would ask whether the factors which caused him to fail, and indeed which caused his mission to be doomed from inception, still obtain.
Then, and importantly, a Security Council resolution would be adopted setting out the terms of reference for the new special envoy. The idea being tossed around the Security Council that a presidential statement would be sufficient is legally deficient. If a new special envoy is to have a mission that goes to the very heart of the council’s responsibility to maintain international peace and security, it must surely be authorized by a resolution of the Security Council.
The Council cannot delegate its responsibilities by a non-binding “presidential statement”, but rather can do so only by a resolution adopted in accordance with the U.N. Charter.
The issuance of “presidential statements” on Syria by the Security Council during the last year has only served to confuse and misrepresent to the public that something has been done when, legally speaking, no action has been taken. This pattern should not be repeated here.
Only after these steps would the envoy actually be appointed, in the event the process advanced this far.
Are we to believe that Lakhdar Brahimi or whoever may be named as the new special envoy will halt the fighting in Syria, when none of the external factors have changed, e.g., the Russians and the Chinese remain intransigently opposed to any reasonable, effective action by the Security Council such as that proposed in draft security council resolution S/2012/538?
Are we to believe that anything Bashar al-Assad agrees to will have any meaning, any significance whatsoever, in view of his very recent track record?
What, precisely, could we expect any new special envoy to achieve, other than to distract the attention of the world from al-Assad’s ongoing atrocities on the ground, as Kofi Annan did, focusing the media attention of the world on the UN special envoy and whatever proposals he comes up with, and whatever the Russians say they will accept, or won’t accept, or whatever Bashar al-Assad says he will accept, or won’t accept?
Haven’t the leaders of the United States, the United Kingdom and France learned anything from the fiasco of Kofi Annan’s mission, at a cost of over 10,000 Syrian lives?
Is it conscionable, after this abysmal failure, to repeat the same basic mistake again?
The mistake involves negotiating with Bashar al-Assad while he is committing crimes against humanity and war crimes.
The mistake involves negotiating with the Syrian Dictator, when we know beyond any doubt that his agreement to any provision would be utterly worthless.
Further efforts at mediation will cost time, and thousands of more Syrian lives. Do we have the moral right to contribute to the loss of those lives, by throwing a rope to a Dictator whose government may be crumbling, as the former prime minister of Syria, who recently defected, has asserted?
The last 17 months have taken place. The events during this period are now historical facts. Upwards of 20,000 civilians have been killed in Syria, in large part due to the inaction of the United States, France and the United Kingdom, and their allies and friends. These are facts. Those who have died cannot be brought back.
Is it morally defensible, or defensible on the international political plane, to offer as an excuse for going along with Ban Ki-Moon’s appointment of a successor to Kofi Annan–a successor selected and recommended by Kofi Annan himself!–the fact that they are on vacation, or didn’t have time to pay attention?
History will be the judge, and the judgment is likely to be very harsh indeed.
The Trenchant Observer
observer@trenchantobserver.com
www.twitter.com/trenchantobserv
For links to other articles by The Trenchant Observer, click on the title at the top of this page to go to the home page, and then use the “Search” Box or consult the information in the bottom right handcorner of the home page. The Articles on Syria page can also be found here. The Articles on Targeted Killings page can also be found here.
Tags: 6-point peace plan, appointment, Arab League, August 16 security council meeting, Ban Ki-Moon, castles in the sky, Chechnya, China, Crimes Against Humanity, crimes contra l'humanité, crimes de guerre, edmund mullet, foreign ministries, France, Gérard Araud, Great Briatain, joint special envoy, kofi annan, March 10, Obama, on vacation, out to lunch, poor substitute, presidential statement, Russia, Russian Federation, S/2012/538, Sergei Lavrov, Siria, stupidity as foreign policy, successor to Kofi Annan, syria, Syrie, Syrien, terms of reference, The Daily Star, the Syrian Dictator, the world is adrift, Tibet, Uigurs, United Kingdom, United States, UNSMIS, Unsmis authorization, Valadimir Putin, Vitaly I. Churkin, war crimes
Posted in Azerbaijan, Barack Obama, Brazil, China, Dictatorship, extrajudicial execution, France, Germany, History, human rights, human rights reports, International Law, Iran, Israel, Lebanon, Libya, Middle East, Portugal, Qatar, Russia, sanctions, South Africa, State Department, State Department Legal Adviser, syria, Togo, Torture, Turkey, U.N. Charter, U.N. Security Council, U.N. Torture Convention, United Kingdom, United States, use of force, war crimes | No Comments »
Monday, August 13th, 2012
André Glucksmann, philosophe et écrivain français important, écrit, dans Le Monde du 11 août 2012, que tandis que les JO à Londres fascinent le public mondiale et les chars et les avions de Bachar Al-Assad “gâchent, sans plus, le plaisir des âmes sensibles,
“(L)a démission de Kofi Annan est accueillie par un silence tout estival. Pourtant, quand le médiateur de l’ONU en Syrie jette l’éponge, toute une époque s’achève en fiasco honteux. Ce Prix Nobel fut tour à tour numéro 1 puis numéro 2 de l’organisation internationale, diplomate ghanéen affable, il afficha des sentiments bienveillants, humanitaires et pacifiques récompensés par des résultats catastrophiques.
…
“En tant que numéro 2, responsable des opérations de maintien de la paix en Bosnie et au Rwanda, sa passivité couvrit le génocide des Tutsi par les Hutu. Pour les oublieux : 1994, 800 000 civils assassinés à la machette en trois mois. Kofi Annan refusa d’envoyer au général Dallaire 5 000 casques bleus pour stopper le génocide. Il publia après coup ses regrets. Plutôt qu’une sanction, notre homme reçut une promotion et evint secrétaire général de l’ONU (1997-2006). Il ne pipa mot lorsque Vladimir Poutine entreprit de rayer du nombre des vivants un Tchétchène sur cinq.
“Fallait-il croire que ce petit peuple d’un million d’habitants comptait 200 000 terroristes?”
Glucksmann explique pourquoi on ne doit pas garder de l’espoir pour un changement dans la politique de Vladimir Poutine, nous rappellant de son histoire:
“Aux rouges et gâteux conducteurs de peuples succède un éternel KGBiste, sans scrupule et sans retenue. Il faut être aussi naïf qu’un diplomate du Quai d’Orsay et de la maison de verre new-yorkaise, ou tout simplement obsédé d’élection locale, comme Barack Obama et ses semblables européens, pour imaginer, une seconde, que le bourreau du Caucase puisse s’horrifier de la liquidation d’Alep, Homs et Damas. “20 000 en un an !”, s’offusquent la presse et les ONG democratiques. “Seulement ? !”, sourit Poutine, Bachar Al-Assad, encore un effort !
“Ne spéculez pas sur les sentiments charitables des dirigeants russes. Ils ont senti le vent du boulet, offusqués qu’ils furent par la vue des rues moscovites plusieurs fois submergées par la protestation. Tout ce qui peut stopper net la contagion émancipatrice des “printemps arabes” intéresse la camarilla soucieuse de sa propre survie. Si Poutine protège Assad, c’est qu’une potentielle victoire d’Assad protège Poutine. Une rébellion écrasée dans le sang, façon Tchétchénie, aurait valeur d’exemple et d’avertissement pour le peuple russe et les “voisins proches”.
…
“La comédie du recours ultime au Conseil de sécurité a assez duré. On ne peut indéfiniment attendre que la paupière de Poutine (et celles de ses camarades chinois) s’humecte, ou qu’une fibre d’humanité palpite dans la poitrine du tchékiste. L’échec de Kofi Annan est celui d’une communauté internationale rêveuse, qui depuis vingt ans abandonne son destin aux unanimités bidons d’un Conseil de sécurité soumis aux diktats de saint Vladimir, patron de la Loubianka.”
–André Glucksmann, “Pendant les JO, la tuerie continue en Syrie,” Le Monde, 11 août 2012 (mis à jour le 13 août 2012 le 13.08.2012 à 10h11).
If faut y réflechir, et bien, avant de nommer un successeur à Kofi Annan come Envoyé Spéciale de l’ONU pour la Syrie.
On doit jamais entrer dans un processus de médiation, qui suppose d’ailleurs que le médiateur soit neutre, lorsque l’une des parties est en train de commetre des crimes de guerres et des crimes contre l’humanité, comme dans le cas de Bachar Al-Assad en Syrie.
Arrêtez! Cessez les crimes! L’heure de la médiation arrivera seulement après la cessation des crimes et le cessez-le-feu.
***************************************************
Pour d’autres articles sur la Syrie par l’Observateur Incisif, cliquez ici.
***************************************************
D’autre côté, Nicholas Sarkozy, ancien président de la France et celui qui a provoqué le monde a entreprendre l’íntervention humanitaire en Libye en 2011, a fait de fortes déclarations contre l’inaction du nouvel président socialiste, François Hollande, face aux évènements en Syrie.
Voir Matthieu Alexandre (avec Matthieu Deprieck), “Sarkozy veut coincer Hollande sur le front syrien,” L’Express, 8 août 2012.
En ce qui concerne l’ONU, selon les rapportages, le Secrétaire Général Ban Ki-Moon est prêt a nommer à Lakhdar Brahimi comme le nouvel Envoyé Spécial pour la Syrie, successeur de Kofi Annan.
Voir Mark Leon Goldberg “Can a New Special Envoy Move Syria Diplomacy?” UN Dispatch, August 13, 2012.
Pourtant, il est important de ne pas perdre de vue quelques points essentiels pour l’analyse de la situation en Syrie:
1. L’échec de Kofi Annan était à la fois l’échec de Ban Ki-Moon, qui a été autant responsable pour le désastre de la géstion de Kofi Annan que Kofi Annan lui-même.
2. Jusqu’à maintenant, le Secrétaire Générale des Nations Unies s’est montré totalement incapable de organiser des actions visant à mettre fin à la barberie en Syrie. Il veut poursuivre les pourparlers de Kofi Annan, avec un nouveau chef d’entretiens.
3. Le problème en Syrie est un problème militaire, et pas un problème diplomatique. Pour le rendre un problème susceptible à une solution diplomatique dans l’avenir, if faut maintenant utiliser des moyens plus énergiques que les mots.
4. Dans ce moment, il n’y a aucune raison valable pour nommer un successeur à Kofi Annan comme Enyoyé Special. Ça, c’est le jeu des Russes. Il ne faut pas y jouer!
5. Dans le cas où Lakhdar Brahimi sérait nommè Envoyé Speciale pour la Syrie, (a) il ne doit pas accepter le poste; et (b) dans le cas écheant, les pays qui sont las de jouer ce jeu avec les Russes au sein de l’ONU ne devraient pas colaborer avec lui, donné que sa mission tend à attraire toute l’attention de la presse internationale sur sa gestion et sur ce que les Russes pensent, ou disent, ou acceptent ou n’acceptent pas. Ce temps doit être fini.
6. Les Russes, ainsi que les Chinois, ont joué un role de mauvaise foi, de appui aux crimes meutrières du regime Bachar al-Assad, et maintenant l’Oest et les pays Arabs, et les autres pays civilisés du monde, doivent chercher une solution a la crise en Syrie par le chemin des faits, des actes, et jamais plus par les routes chimères des formulations de mots jolis.
L’Observateur Incisif
(The Trenchant Observer)
Tags: André Glucksmann, crimes contre l'humanité, crimes de guerre, dimitri medvedev, en syrie, envoyé spécial, Jeux Olympiques, JO, KGB, KGBiste, kofi annan, La Russie, la tuerie continue en Syrie, le bourreau du Caucase, Le Monde, Mark Leon Goldberg, Matthieu Alexandre, Matthieu Deprieck, processus de médiation, Rwanda, successeur à Kofi Annan, Tchétchcénie, UN Dispatch, Vladimir Poutine
Posted in Crimes Against Humanity, France, human rights, Libya, Middle East, Russia, syria, U.S. Intervention, United Kingdom, United Nations Secretary General, United States, use of force, war crimes | 1 Comment »
Wednesday, July 11th, 2012
Originally published May 29, 2012
With talk of orchestrating a Yemen-style transition in Syria through agreement between Russia and the United States, it may be useful to address the question of what the legitimate goals of the international community in Syria should be.
To start the discussion, the following goals are suggested:
1. Immediately halt the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity;
2. Ensure that any transitional regime fully respects the international “responsibility to protect” as set forth in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1674 (2006).
3. Establish an interim government committed to immediately respecting the fundamental human rights of the citizens of Syria, of all sects including Alawites, Christians and other minorities.
These fundamental human rights are set forth in the U.N. Declaration on Human Rights, and further articulated in the U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the U.N Convention Against Torture, and other international human rights treaties.
(The Security Council, through adoption of a mandatory resolution under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, could provide that even those of these norms that have not become customary international law will be binding on Syria.)
4. Within this context of the interim government’s guarantee of respect for fundamental human rights, provide for the organization of political parties, the election of a constituent assembly to draft a constitution, and the subsequent holding of elections to a National Assembly followed by presidential elections to select a new, legitimate government to replace the interim transitional government.
5. Establish a Truth and Reconciliation process through which those responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity will be held morally, and potentially legally, responsible for the crimes they have committed. This process could involve creation of a National Truth and Reconciliation Commission, with optional referral to domestic judicial authorities or to the International Criminal Court, depending on the whether the individual concerned cooperated fully with the Commission and acknowledged the crimes he or she may have committed. (The South African and Argentine models might be taken into account in designing the appropriate truth and reconciliation process.)
6. Establish a United Nations Authority in Syria with a mandate to assist Syria in developing mechanisms designed to ensure observance of “the responsibility to protect”, and with residual powers to ensure compliance with the goals set forth in paragraphs 1-5 above.
7. Establish a United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Syria for an interim period of 1-2 years to ensure the safety and security of all citizens of Syria, incuding in particular the members of all ethnic and religious groups in Syria.
Any discussion of a possible Yemen-style “solution” to the situation in Syria should be measured against the 21st century goals set forth above.
The outcome of the actual negotiated, transitional “solution” in Yemen is far from evident, with al-Qaeda operating through large portions of the country’s territory and a revival of earlier civil wars between diferent regions of the country remaining a realistic threat.
Moreover, Syria obviously represents an entirely different political and social reality than Yemen, with a recent history of barbarism on a wholly different order of magnitude than anything done by the Saleh regime in Yemen.
The goals of the international community do not include maintenance of Russian control of the port of Tartus, just as they do not include agreement with the U.S. that it can conduct drone strikes on targets in Syria. These issues can only be decided by the interim government and then the elected government of Syria.
Instead of giving al-Assad more time to commit atrocities against his opponents as diplomatic negotiations continue, and to help focus his mind and those of his inner circle on what is to come, it will be essential to develop and if necessary undertake vigorous military actions to halt the crimes referred to in paragraphs 1-3 of the list of suggested goals above.
These options should be developed–and if necessary exercised–even in the absence of Security Council authorization. Russia must not be allowed to use negotiations as a cover for supporting al-Assad’s continued commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
It is time for the international community to act on an urgent basis to halt the atrocities in Syria, and to commence the transitional process that will lead to a future government based on respect for fundamental human rights, implementation of the “responsibility to protect”, and the establishment of a process that will lead to a government that reflects the aspirations and desires of the Syrian people.
The Trenchant Observer
observer@trenchantobserver.com
www.twitter.com/trenchantobserv
For links to other articles by The Trenchant Observer, click on the title at the top of this page to go to the home page, and then consult the information in the bottom right hand corner of the home page. The Articles on Syria page can also be found here.
Tags: Alawis, Alawite, Barack Obama, Chapter VII, Christian, committed to immediately respecting fundamental human rights, constituent assembly elections, crimenes contra a humanidade, crimenes contra la humanidad, crimenes de guerra, crimens de guerra, Crimes Against Humanity, crimes contr l'hamanité, crimes de guerre, customary international law, dimtri medvedev, ensure respect for the responsibility to protect, fundamental human rights, fundamental human rights of all sects, goals for a transitional regime in Syria, goals of the international community, halt the commission of crimes against humanity, halt the commission of war crimes, human rights treaties, in syria, interim government, interim transitional government, Kriegsverbrechen, legitimate goals of the international community in syria, military intervention, national assembly elections, other minorities, presidential elections, responsibility, Responsibility to Protect, struggle for democracy in syria, suria, suriah, syria, Syrie, syrien siria, transition in Syria, transitional process, U>N. Peacekeeping Force in Syria, U.N. Charter, U.N. Convention Against Torture, U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, U.N. Security Council, U.S.-Russian agreement, United Nations Authority in Syria, United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Syria, United nations peacekeeping mission in syria, Universal declaration on human rights, Verbrech Wider der Menschlichkeit, vladimir putin, war crimes, yemen-style transition, yemeni, yemeni-style, yen-style
Posted in CIA, Crimes Against Humanity, extrajudicial execution, France, Germany, human rights, internal supporters of human rights, International Law, Iran, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Middle East, NATO, Qatar, religious belief, Russia, Saudi Arabia, State Department, State Department Legal Adviser, syria, Torture, Turkey, U.N. Charter, U.N. Convention Against Torture, U.N. Security Council, U.N. Torture Convention, U.S. Intervention, U.S. Military, united arab emirates, United Kingdom, United States, use of force, war crimes, Yemen | No Comments »
Tuesday, May 29th, 2012
With talk of orchestrating a Yemen-style transition in Syria through agreement between Russia and the United States, it may be useful to address the question of what the legitimate goals of the international community in Syria should be.
To start the discussion, the following goals are suggested:
1. Immediately halt the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity;
2. Ensure that any transitional regime fully respects the international “responsibility to protect” as set forth in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1674 (2006).
3. Establish an interim government committed to immediately respecting the fundamental human rights of the citizens of Syria, of all sects including Alawites, Christians and other minorities.
These fundamental human rights are set forth in the U.N. Declaration on Human Rights, and further articulated in the U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the U.N Convention Against Torture, and other international human rights treaties.
(The Security Council, through adoption of a mandatory resolution under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, could provide that even those of these norms that have not become customary international law will be binding on Syria.)
4. Within this context of the interim government’s guarantee of respect for fundamental human rights, provide for the organization of political parties, the election of a constituent assembly to draft a constitution, and the subsequent holding of elections to a National Assembly followed by presidential elections to select a new, legitimate government to replace the interim transitional government.
5. Establish a Truth and Reconciliation process through which those responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity will be held morally, and potentially legally, responsible for the crimes they have committed. This process could involve creation of a National Truth and Reconciliation Commission, with optional referral to domestic judicial authorities or to the International Criminal Court, depending on the whether the individual concerned cooperated fully with the Commission and acknowledged the crimes he or she may have committed. (The South African and Argentine models might be taken into account in designing the appropriate truth and reconciliation process.)
6. Establish a United Nations Authority in Syria with a mandate to assist Syria in developing mechanisms designed to ensure observance of “the responsibility to protect”, and with residual powers to ensure compliance with the goals set forth in paragraphs 1-5 above.
7. Establish a United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Syria for an interim period of 1-2 years to ensure the safety and security of all citizens of Syria, incuding in particular the members of all ethnic and religious groups in Syria.
Any discussion of a possible Yemen-style “solution” to the situation in Syria should be measured against the 21st century goals set forth above.
The outcome of the actual negotiated, transitional “solution” in Yemen is far from evident, with al-Qaeda operating through large portions of the country’s territory and a revival of earlier civil wars between diferent regions of the country remaining a realistic threat.
Moreover, Syria obviously represents an entirely different political and social reality than Yemen, with a recent history of barbarism on a wholly different order of magnitude than anything done by the Saleh regime in Yemen.
The goals of the international community do not include maintenance of Russian control of the port of Tartus, just as they do not include agreement with the U.S. that it can conduct drone strikes on targets in Syria. These issues can only be decided by the interim government and then the elected government of Syria.
Instead of giving al-Assad more time to commit atrocities against his opponents as diplomatic negotiations continue, and to help focus his mind and those of his inner circle on what is to come, it will be essential to develop and if necessary undertake vigorous military actions to halt the crimes referred to in paragraphs 1-3 of the list of suggested goals above.
These options should be developed–and if necessary exercised–even in the absence of Security Council authorization. Russia must not be allowed to use negotiations as a cover for supporting al-Assad’s continued commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
It is time for the international community to act on an urgent basis to halt the atrocities in Syria, and to commence the transitional process that will lead to a future government based on respect for fundamental human rights, implementation of the “responsibility to protect”, and the establishment of a process that will lead to a government that reflects the aspirations and desires of the Syrian people.
The Trenchant Observer
observer@trenchantobserver.com
www.twitter.com/trenchantobserv
For links to other articles by The Trenchant Observer, click on the title at the top of this page to go to the home page, and then consult the information in the bottom right hand corner of the home page. The Articles on Syria page can also be found here.
Tags: Alawis, Alawite, Barack Obama, Chapter VII, Christian, committed to immediately respecting fundamental human rights, constituent assembly elections, crimenes contra a humanidade, crimenes contra la humanidad, crimenes de guerra, crimens de guerra, Crimes Against Humanity, crimes contr l'hamanité, crimes de guerre, customary international law, dimtri medvedev, ensure respect for the responsibility to protect, fundamental human rights, fundamental human rights of all sects, goals for a transitional regime in Syria, goals of the international community, halt the commission of crimes against humanity, halt the commission of war crimes, human rights treaties, in syria, interim government, interim transitional government, Kriegsverbrechen, legitimate goals of the international community in syria, military intervention, national assembly elections, other minorities, presidential elections, responsibility, Responsibility to Protect, struggle for democracy in syria, suria, suriah, syria, Syrie, syrien siria, transition in Syria, transitional process, U>N. Peacekeeping Force in Syria, U.N. Charter, U.N. Convention Against Torture, U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, U.N. Security Council, U.S.-Russian agreement, United Nations Authority in Syria, United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Syria, United nations peacekeeping mission in syria, Universal declaration on human rights, Verbrech Wider der Menschlichkeit, vladimir putin, war crimes, yemen-style transition, yemeni, yemeni-style, yen-style
Posted in Barack Obama, China, CIA, corruption, Crimes Against Humanity, extrajudicial execution, France, Germany, human rights, internal supporters of human rights, International Law, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Middle East, NATO, Qatar, religious belief, Russia, State Department, State Department Legal Adviser, syria, targeted assassinations, targeted killings, Torture, Turkey, U.N. Charter, U.N. Convention Against Torture, U.N. Security Council, U.N. Torture Convention, U.S. Intervention, U.S. Military, united arab emirates, United Kingdom, United States, use of force, war crimes, Yemen | No Comments »
Tuesday, May 15th, 2012
Today al-Assad’s forces reportedly killed 20 demonstrators in Khan Sheikhoun as UN monitors looked on.
See
Neil MacFarquhar and Hwaida Saad (Beirut), “U.N. Team Sees Clash Between Syrian Protesters and Soldiers,” New York Times, May 15, 2012.
They report the following:
BEIRUT, Lebanon — A convoy of unarmed United Nations monitors got caught up in a violent confrontation between protesters and Syrian government forces on Tuesday, with activist organizations putting the casualty toll at around 20 killed and dozens wounded.
The United Nations monitors escaped unscathed, but three of their four vehicles were damaged by some kind of explosive device, said a statement from Ahmad Fawzi, the spokesman for Kofi Annan, the United Nations and Arab League special envoy for Syria.
Eyewitnesses reached via Skype in Khan Sheikhoun, the town in the embattled northwestern province of Idlib where the confrontation took place, said that a large crowd had turned out for the funeral of a man killed by government forces two days earlier near Hama.
Meanwhile, there were clear signs that the government was manipulating the vote results from the parliamentary elections held on May 7. MacFarquhar and Saad note, in the same article,
“In Damascus, the government announced delayed results from the May 7 election for seats in Parliament, emphasizing what it said was a participation rate that exceeded 51 percent. But in broadcasting the results live on state television, Judge Khalaf al-Azzawi, the chairman of the higher committee for elections, avoided questions about the number of voters in embattled provinces like Homs or Idlib and refused to characterize the political affiliation of the new members.”
Free association: This delay is not much of a surprise as no one expected the elections to be honest in the first place.
But the fact that over a week has passed since the elections does bring to mind the great delay that has occurred with the publication of the State Department human rights reports, which by law were due by February 25.
Could this enormous delay be due to the fact that the Obama administration is massaging the reports for political reasons, contrary to the law’s intent?
On the basis of what we know, one must assume that this is the case. The House and Senate foreign relations committess should immediately convoke hearings for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to offer her excuses and explanations.
These reports are relevant to critical decision making by governments around the world. Their publication should not be delayed for another day.
What will it take for the international community to recognize that by sending more monitors to Syria, it is adding to Bashar al-Assad’s panoply of human shields? Those shields protect him from military action to force him to halt the killing. They also short-circuit the thinking processes of the leaders of all countries who still–at this late date–support the Security Council’s 6-point peace plan.
It is time to dismantle the Kofi Annan 6-point peace plan. UNSMIS should be put into lockdown until al-Assad complies with the conditions in the peace plan, and withdrawn if he doesn’t.
How can this be achieved?
USMIS can be stopped the same way the Arab peace monitor mission was stopped–by countries withdrawing their members, and refusing to send any additional members to the delegation. When the UNSMIS mission comes up for an extension at the end of 90 days, it should be blocked by a majority of the Security Council.
In over 60 years of peace observation and peacekeeping missions, the United Nations has never embarked on a mission so contrary to common sense, so contrary to analysis of the facts of the ground, and so devoid of promise. The mission should be aborted, immediately.
There is no peace to be monitored. A ceasefire, if it comes, will come as a result of a decision or decisions by al-Assad and his entourage, and not one day before.
The only thing that is likely to push the Syrian Dictator and his henchmen to reach such a decision is a credible threat of military intervention by outside powers, and the execution of that threat if the threat does not suffice.
Civilized nations should prepare for such military action at once.
The Trenchant Observer
observer@trenchantobserver.com
www.twitter.com/trenchantobserv
For links to other articles by The Trenchant Observer, click on the title at the top of this page to go to the home page, and then consult the information in the bottom right hand corner of the home page. The Articles on Syria page can also be found here.
Tags: Bashar al-Assad, beobachter, cease-fire, ceasefire, crimens contra a humanidade, crimens de guerra, crimes contre l'humanité, crimes de guerre, crímienes de guerra, crimines contra la humanidad, end Kofi Annan plan, foreign relations committee, hearings, Hillary Clinton, House, humanitarian intervention, Hwaida Saad, intervenção militar, intervención military, Intervention militaire, j, Khan Sheikhoun, Kriegsverbrechen, lock-down, lockdown, mailitäroische Intervention, moilitary intervention, Neil MacFarquhar, New York Times, peace monitors monitors, Resolution 2042, resolution 2043, senate, Siria, State Department human rights reports, syria, Syrie, Syrien, UNSMIS, Verbrechen Wider der Meschlichkeit, Waffenstillstand, withdrawal of observers
Posted in Barack Obama, China, Crimes Against Humanity, elections, extrajudicial execution, human rights, human rights reports, International Law, Lebanon, Middle East, NATO, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, State Department, State Department Human Rights Country Reports, State Department Legal Adviser, syria, Torture, U.N. Charter, U.N. Security Council, U.S. Congress, U.S. Intervention, U.S. Military, united arab emirates, United States, use of force, war crimes | 1 Comment »
Saturday, April 21st, 2012
News Update
See Alexandra Sandels, “Syria street protests met with force; On a day when U.N. monitors are missing, Syria government forces try to prevent demonstrations, firing on protesters in some cases, activists say. Continued shelling and at least 57 deaths are reported,” Los Angeles Times, April 21, 2012.
It is time to stop the charade of Kofi Annan’s six-point peace plan, NOW.
It makes no sense to send ceasefire monitors into Syria when there is no ceasefire to monitor. It makes no sense to reach “agreement” with al-Assad on anything, as his word is absolutely worthless.
The flawed concept that you can or should negotiate cessation of the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity with a war criminal, in exchange for a “peace” that will enable him to remain in power and to continue his reign of terror, is a cynical cop-out and surrender to the forces of evil in Damascus, Moscow, Bejing, and Tehran.
Syria, Russia, China, and Iran–these are the evil actors, the evil forces, which continue to support the wanton commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other widespread and grave violations of fundamental human rights by the government of Syria.
See The Trenchant Observer’s earlier articles on Syria, including the 26 “updates” on “Obama’s Debacle in Syria”, in order to fully understand the “Pied Piper’s path” we have been following as we pursue the chimera of peace under the “Pied Piper” Envoy’s peace plan–which was a craven surrender to the Russians from day one.
We cannot stop the killing by continuing on this path.
The Security Could should not send monitors to Syria at this time. Indeed, bearing in mind the experience of the Arab League monitors last year–who al-Assad brilliantly played as fools–the Security Council should not send monitors to Syria until the government of Syria has stopped committing war crimes and crimes against humanity. Promises and asssurances from the Syrian government are worthless and should be given no credence. Only facts on the ground should guide actions.
Meanwhile, the time has come for military intervention by the civilized world–which does not include Russia, China and Iran, who by supporting al-Assad are accomplices to the ongoing commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
It is time to stop the U.N.’s six-point peace plan process–which is an illusion.
It is an illusion of peace which serves as a shield against military action that might halt the killing–and which serves to maintain al-Assad in power.
The hope that the Russians might come around and not veto a resolution in the Security Council authorizing the use of military force is also an illusion. It is not going to happen. Not this year.
It is time to stop playing Russia’s and al-Assad’s game.
It is time to stop the killing in Syria. “by all necessary measures”, with or without Security Council authorization. There is a basis in international law for such action without Security Council authorization.
In any event, the legal basis in international law for such action is certainly far stronger than the legal basis for targeted killings by U.S. drones and speacial forces in many cases, and particularly those far from the war theater in Afganistan.
Military options should be readied on the most urgent basis, and used soon if not immediately to stop the killing in Syria.
This may take some guts, some courage by leaders in the West, the Arab countries, and the rest of the civilized world.
But if they do not act to effectively stop the killing, the likelihood is this generation of leaders will be remembered as the Neville Chamberlain’s and the Édouard Daladier’s of the 21st century. (Chamberlain and Daladier sold out the Czech people in 1938 at Munich through the infamous “Munich Pact” recognizing Hitler’s annexation of the Sudetenland.)
Or today’s leaders may be remembered as the Dutch U.N. peacekeepers at Srebrenice who watched without raising a finger as over 8,000 men and boys were massacred in July 1995.
It is time to intervene in Syria to stop the killing.
For the sake of humanity. Pour l’humanité.
The Trenchant Observer
observer@trenchantobserver.com
www.twitter.com/trenchantobserv
For links to other articles by The Trenchant Observer on this topic, and others, click on the title at the top of this page to go to the home page, and then consult the information in the bottom right hand corner of the home page. The Articles on Syria page can also be found here.
Tags: al-Assad, China, Crimes Against Humanity, crimes contre l'humanité, crimes de guerre, Edouard Daladier, For the sake of humanity, Iran, Neville Chamberlain, Pour l'humanite, rusia, Russia, russia iran, russland, Siria, syria, Syrie, Syrien, war crimes
Posted in Barack Obama, Brazil, Crimes Against Humanity, Czechoslovakia, Deutschland, Dictatorship, electronic curtain, extrajudicial execution, extraordinary rendering, extraordinary rendition, France, Germany, History, human rights, Intelligence, International Law, Justice Department, Lebanon, Libya, Middle East, NATO, Qatar, Russia, State Department, State Department Human Rights Country Reports, State Department Legal Adviser, syria, targeted assassinations, targeted killings, Turkey, U.N. Charter, U.N. Security Council, U.S. Intervention, U.S. Military, united arab emirates, United Kingdom, United States, use of force, war crimes | No Comments »
Saturday, April 7th, 2012
The 6-point Kofi Annan peace plan contained in the March 21, 2012 Security Council “Presidential Statement” is fatally flawed.
The plan by its design meets Russian demands to play for time and to prevent other states from taking actions on the ground that might actually bring the killing to a halt. This is exactly what has occurred since the plan was first announced.
It provides a smokescreen for cowardly inaction by the West and the Arab states and the international community in the face of the wanton and ongoing commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity on a wide scale.
It has led–at least until now–to the victory of Vladimir Putin, Russia, Iran, and China over the West, the Arab countries, Turkey, and other civilized countries. This victory represents the triumph of the darkest elements of represssion and 20th century history over the 21st century values of the U.N. Charter, the human rights movement, and the struggle for transitions to democracy throughout the world. The impact of this defeat, if not reversed, will be felt in every country on the planet where citizens are struggling to achieve respect for fundamental human rights and a democratic future.
Latest News Reports and Opinion
The Sydney Morning Post reports on the death toll in Syria on Saturday,
More than 100 people have been reported killed across Syria in a single day, 74 of them civilians, as regime forces pressed a protest crackdown three days ahead of a deadline to cease fire and pull back.
…
At least 40 civilians died ‘‘in bombardment and shooting on the town of Latamna,’’ in Hama province, said the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.
The Britain-based monitoring group said civilians were killed as well in Tibet al-Imam, also in Hama, and another 16 in the neighbouring province of Homs, where Rastan town was bombed, in Idlib to the northwest, and Aleppo in north Syria.
In escalating clashes, 16 rebels and 17 members of the security forces were also killed nationwide, it said, adding 13 bodies were found in Deir Balaa district of Homs and 10 extracted from rubble in Hreitan, Aleppo province.
The Observatory said the deaths came after President Bashar al-Assad’s forces launched an overnight assault on Latamna and clashed with members of the rebel Free Syrian Army.
–Sydney Morning Post, “Syria violence escalates ahead of deadline,” April 8, 2012.
El País reports that the bodies of 13 persons whose hands had been tied and who had allegedly been executed were found in Homs on Saturday. A video was provided by activists. Over 100 people were killed on Saturday, the paper reports.
–Ana Carbajosa (Jerusalén), “El régimen sirio tiñe de sangre el país a tres días de la tregua; La represión gubernamental deja casi un centenar de muertos según los rebeldes; Annan asegura que Siria aplicará el alto el fuego a partir del 10 de abril, El País, 7 abril 2012 (16:53 CET).
Defectors from the Syrian army have been interviewed by McClatchy Newspapers, in Turkey, providing eyewitness accounts of orders and actions to kill civilians, and of the execution of soldiers who refused to execute those orders. The story also details the commission of war crimes where in one case some 30 civilians were lined up and shot.
One of the most detailed accounts came from a former soldier who identified himself as Master Sgt. Maxim Kawa, a pseudonym he adopted to protect his family, still in Syria.
Kawa, who said he was 26, said he was based in Homs with the Syrian special forces, an elite unit that was deployed repeatedly in the heartland of the uprising to suppress civilian protesters starting last May. Kawa said the unit’s mission was to protect and clear the way for one of Syria’s 16 security services to seize civilian resisters, but that his unit’s members also were ordered to execute civilians. This they did until something snapped, and top officers were sent in to give them a two-day “re-education” course.
Kawa said the unit mounted repeated assaults on civilian protesters in Baba Amr, a part of Homs that the army retook in February after 26 days of artillery bombardment, in the towns of Rastan, about 12 miles from Homs, and Tel Kalakh, on Syria’s border with Lebanon.
Kawa’s unit occupied Rastan for eight days last May, losing one soldier to an armed local. “Our officers told us that we must take revenge for our friends,” Kawa said. “They pushed us to kill civilians.”
He said his group of about 50 soldiers dragged 30 men out of their houses, tied their hands behind their backs and took them to the town’s main street.
“We put them against a wall and shot them,” he said.
–Roy Gutman, “In rare interviews, Syrian ex-soldiers talk of killing civilians,” McClatchy Newspapers, April 2, 2012.
For a gripping account of the Syrian army’s assault on and terror in Taftanaz, including a description of the rebel fighters’ actions and the battle for the town, see
Anand Gopal “Survivors tell of bloody aftermath to fight in Taftanaz, Syria,” McClatchy Newspapers, April 6, 2012.
Der Spiegel reports Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan as saying that he will await the ceasefire implementation by the Tuesday morning deadline, but that if it does not take place Turkey will take “measures”. These measures are understood to include the establishment of humanitarian protection zones inside Syria’s territory. Der Spiegel also reports on actions on the ground, including the deaths of 40 people when the Syrian army stormed the village of Latamneh in central Hama province. It also reports on activists’ accounts of attacks in Homs, and on the rebel-held neighborhoods of Rastan, Deir Baalabeh, and Kusair.
–”Erdogan droht Assad-Regime mit “Schritten; Türkischer Premier Recep Tayyip Erdogan: Drohgebärde Richtung Damaskus; Ruhig will der türkische Premier Erdogan auf die bevorstehende Waffenruhe in Syrien warten. Sollte die Gewalt nach Verstreichen der Frist jedoch andauern, droht er dem Regime in Damaskus mit “Schritten”. Noch scheint kein Ende des Blutvergießens in Sicht: Allein am Samstag starben 100 Menschen,” Der Spiegel, 7 April 2012.
Le Figaro reports that at least 74 civilians were killed on Saturday, and a total of 120 persons, with a majority of the civilians being killed in bombardments of Latamna (Latamneh) in the region of Hama, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.
–”Flambée de violence en Syrie à quelques jours de la trêve,” Le Figaro, 7 avril 2012 (mis à jour à 21:43 h).
U.N. Security Council Statement of April 5, 2012
On April 5, 2012, the U.N. Security Council issued a new “Presidential Statement” urging Syria to comply with the ceasefire provisions in Kofi Annan 6-point peace plan by Tuesday, April 10, 2012. The text (UN Doc. S/PRST/2012/10) follows:
Statement by the President of the Security Council
At the 6746th meeting of the Security Council, held on 5 April 2012, in connection with the Council’s consideration of the item entitled “The situation in the Middle East”, the President of the Council made the following statement on behalf of the Council:
“The Security Council recalls its Presidential Statements of 3 August 2011 and 21 March 2012 and its Press Statement of 1 March 2012.
“The Security Council reaffirms its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity, and territorial integrity of Syria, and to the purposes and principles of the Charter.
“The Security Council expresses its appreciation for the 2 April 2012 briefing of the Joint Special Envoy of the United Nations and the League of Arab States, Kofi Annan. The Security Council notes that the Syrian government committed on 25 March 2012 to implement the Envoy’s six-point proposal.
“The Security Council calls upon the Syrian government to implement urgently and visibly its commitments, as it agreed to do in its communication to the Envoy of 1 April, to (a) cease troop movements towards population centres, (b) cease all use of heavy weapons in such centres, and (c) begin pullback of military concentrations in and around population centres, and to fulfil these in their entirety by no later than 10 April 2012.
“The Security Council calls upon all parties, including the opposition, to cease armed violence in all its forms within 48 hours of the implementation in their entirety by the Syrian government of measures (a), (b), (c) above. The Security Council further calls upon the opposition to engage with the Envoy in this regard.
“The Security Council underscores the importance of an effective and credible United Nations supervision mechanism in Syria to monitor a cessation of armed violence in all its forms by all parties and relevant aspects of the Envoy’s six-point proposal. The Security Council requests the Secretary-General to provide proposals for such a mechanism as soon as appropriate, after consultations with the government of Syria. The Security Council stands ready to consider these proposals and to authorise an effective and impartial supervision mechanism upon implementation of a cessation of armed violence in all its forms by all parties.
“The Security Council underscores the central importance of a peaceful political settlement to the Syrian crisis and reiterates its call for the urgent, comprehensive, and immediate implementation of all aspects of the Envoy’s six-point proposal. The Security Council reiterates its full support for the Envoy’s six-point proposal aimed at bringing an immediate end to all violence and human rights violations, securing humanitarian access and facilitating a Syrian-led political transition leading to a democratic, plural political system, in which citizens are equal regardless of their affiliations, ethnicities or beliefs,
including through commencing a comprehensive political dialogue between the Syrian government and the whole spectrum of the Syrian opposition.
“The Security Council reiterates its call for the Syrian authorities to allow immediate, full and unimpeded access of humanitarian personnel to all populations in need of assistance, in accordance with international law and guiding principles of humanitarian assistance. The Security Council calls upon all parties in Syria, in particular the Syrian authorities, to cooperate fully with the United Nations and relevant humanitarian organizations to facilitate the provision of humanitarian assistance. To this end, the Security Council calls on all parties to immediately implement a daily two hour humanitarian pause as called for in the Envoy’s six-point proposal.
“The Security Council requests the Envoy to update the Council on the cessation of violence in accordance with the above timeline, and progress towards implementation of his six-point proposal in its entirety. In the light of these reports, the Security Council will consider further steps as appropriate.”
Analysis
U.N. Security Council “Presidential Statements” have no legal force. In the case of Syria, they seem to be largely useless exercises in rhetoric. Their usefullness is limited to the role they can play in developing a consensus among the permanent members of the Security Council which might then be converted into legally binding action by the Security Council through adoption of a resolution.
“Presidential statements” can also be used by Russia (and China) to create the illusion of movement and agreement where in fact none exists. The March 21 statement has had this effect. This latest statement on April 5 may serve the Russian’s interests by gaining more time for al-Assad to wipe out the opposition. Anyone who has any illusions about Russia being moved by humanitarian considerations in Syria has not been following developments in that country on the ground for the last six months.
To recapitulate:
The 6-point Kofi Annan peace plan contained in the March 21, 2012 Security Council “Presidential Statement” it is fatally flawed.
The plan by its design meets Russian demands to play for time and to prevent other states from taking actions on the ground that might actually bring the killing to a halt. This is exactly what has occurred since the plan was first announced.
It provides a smokescreen for cowardly inaction by the West and the Arab states and the international community in the face of the wanton and ongoing commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity on a wide scale.
It has led–at least until now–to the victory of Vladimir Putin, Russia, Iran, and China over the West, the Arab countries, Turkey, and other civilized countries in the world. This victory represents the triumph of the darkest elements of represssion and 20th century history over the 21st century values of the U.N. Charter, the human rights movement, and the struggle for transitions to democracy throughout the world. The impact of this defeat, if not reversed, will be felt in every country on the planet where citizens are struggling to achieve respect for fundamental human rights and a democratic future.
The idea that a “Syrian-led” process of political negotiation could lead to a peaceful transition in Syria has become ludicrous, in view of developments on the ground.
Any peace process must be led by the international community–not “Syrian led” which in practice puts all the cards in al-Assad’s hands.
Bashar al-Assad, the author of countless war crimes and crimes against humanity, must go.
The nations of the world need to intervene to stop the killing, first, and then to organize an orderly transition to follow al-Assad’s departure. The alternatives have been laid out very cogently by Senator McCain in his speech on the floor of the Senate on March 5, 2012.
President Obama, if he cannot lead, needs to get out of the way. He is standing squarely on the wrong side of history.
The Trenchant Observer
observer@trenchantobserver.com
www.twitter.com/trenchantobserv
Tags: 20th century history, 21st century values, 6-point peace plan, Aelppo, after al-assad, Ana Carbajosa, Anand Gopal, annan plan, crimenes contra la humanidad, crimenes de guerra, crimens contra a humanidade, crimens de guerra, Crimes Against Humanity, crimes contre l'humanité, crimes de guerre, damas, damaskus, darkest elements, Deir Baalabeh, Deir Balaa, Deir Balaa district of Homs, der spiegel, El País, erdogan, following al-assad's departure, hama province, Homs governate, humanrights movement, Idlib, Idlib governate, if he cannot lead, intervene to organzize an orderly transition, intervene to stop the killing, John McCain, kofi annan, Kriegsverbrechen, Latamna, Latamneh, ludicrous, maxim kawa, McClatchey Newspapers, needs to get out of the way, Obama, Obama's defeat, presidential statement of april 5, Putin's victory, Rastan, repression, Roy Gutnam, S/PRST/2012/10, security council presidential statement, Siria, standing squarely on the wrong side of history, struggle for transitions to democracy, Sydney Morning Herald, syria, syria fighting, syrian fighting, syrian observatory on human rights, Syrian-led process, Syrie, Syrien, Syrien Gefechte, Taftanaz, text of april 5 security council presidential statement, text of presidential statement, text of prsidential statement of april 5, the impact of this defeat, Tibet al-Imam, trève, U.N. Charter, Verbrechen gegen di Menschlichkeit, war crimes
Posted in Barack Obama, Crimes Against Humanity, Dictatorship, extrajudicial execution, History, human rights, human rights reports, internal supporters of human rights, International Law, Russia, State Department, State Department Legal Adviser, Torture, Turkey, U.N. Charter, U.N. Security Council, U.S. Intervention, U.S. Military, United States, use of force, war crimes | No Comments »