Posts Tagged ‘Human Rights Council’
Thursday, July 19th, 2012
REPRISE: “The League of Authoritarian States”—Obama’s Debacle in Syria — Update #50 (June 9)
First published June 9, 2012
…
Responses to events in Syria have etched in sharp relief the emergence of a new coalition of states, which might be termed “The League of Authoritarian States”.
Their Charter Members include Russia, China, Iran, and Cuba, in addition to Syria. Other states drifting within their orbit, or in and out of their orbit, include Uganda, Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia.
Where they have votes, they have consistently voted against U.N. resolutions addressing the crisis in Syria, including the Human Rights Council’s resolutions condemning the atrocities by the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria, and the Security Council draft resolution on Syria of February 4, 2012, which endorsed an Arab League peace plan, called for end to the crimes being committed, and promoted a peaceful transition. The February 4 draft resolution explicitly ruled out the use of force, and contained no economic sanctions. Still, it was vetoed in the Security Council by Russia and China, who had blocked all action by the Security Council since the demonstrations in Syria began in March, 2011.
By supporting Kofi Annan’s 6-point peace plan, the League’s members have diverted members of the international community from taking effective action to stop the killing in Syria. They now call for “an international conference” and a continuation of Kofi Annan’s “mediation” process to further delay or avoid any such action. In their hard-nosed diplomacy, Russia has even made a veiled threat of nuclear war in the region, to which President Obama and the West have not responded in any way.
The fact that Russia and China have a veto in the Security Council gives the League of Authoritarian States enormous leverage in shaping the Security Council’s responses to situations in countries, like Syria, where authoritarian regimes use terror to repress movements pressing for respect for human rights and transitions to democratic governments.
It remains to be seen how many other authoritarian states will now go on the record in supporting the League of Authoritarian States. There is a cost associated with repression, and the avowed intention of blocking any action to halt war crimes and crimes against humanity in any country where violent repression is the government’s response to demands for human rights and democracy.
The key Founding Members of the League, Russia and China, have made it clear where they stand. They will use their vetoes in the Security Council to block effective action by the international community to halt war crimes and crimes against humanity, and to water down any resolutions which are adopted (such as Resolutions 2042 and 2043). Moreover, their true intentions and bad faith are revealed in their propaganda, which mirrors that of Syrian officials and state-controlled media.
They justify their actions by reference to the principles of sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of any state, as guaranteed in the U.N. Charter.
They ignore, however, that in the 21st century “sovereignty” does not include the right to commit genocide, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity, war crimes, torture, or even the violation of other fundamental human rights. The growth and development of international law has led to treaties and state practice interpreting international law that limit the sovereignty of a nation to undertake acts such as those referred to above.
We no longer live in a world (if we ever did) in which, to pose a hypothetical example, Adolf Hitler could set up extermination camps inside of Germany and exterminate millions of German citizens, so long as he did not invade other countries. If he lived today, he would not have that right.
No Dictator, no authoritarian regime, has that right.
The battle is joined, between the international community which supports human rights and international law, including international criminal law, on the one hand, and the League of Authoritarian States, on the other, whose members believe a Dictator should have such a “right”, and who are willing to block the effective responses of the international community by vetoing resolutions in the Security Council.
The rest of the nations of the world are looking, at least in public, to a future in which fundamental human rights are observed and effectively protected throughout the world. That is the aim of the Responsibility to Protect Resolution (Resolution 1674) adopted by the Security Council in 2006. That is the purpose of the Human Rights Council and all of its work to uphold observance of international human rights protected in U.N. and other treaties, and under customary international law.
Undoubtedly other governments will join the League of Authoritarian States, in order to protect their own ability to use terror including war crimes and crimes against humanity to retain their hold on power.
However, the trend in recent years, has been toward a consolidation of the principles espoused by the United Nations Charter, international treaties, international law, and the organs of the U.N. such as the Human Rights Council.
The League of Authoritarian States is determined to buck that trend, and indeed to reverse it so that they will not have to face the possibility of intervention by the international community in their own “internal affairs” in the future.
The verdict is still out on which group will prevail. Much will depend on the willingness of members of the international community to act in cases such as Syria, even by the use of force if necessary. In extreme cases, willingness to act must extend to military action to halt atrocities, notwithstanding obstruction of effective Security Council action by a League member’s veto.
We live in a world of seven billion people. Through the internet, satellite channels, and mobile telephones, we are all connected now. We can all talk to each other now, today by video on Skype, and tomorrow on smart phones with video call capabilities.
The world has changed, and the speed of that change is accelerating.
Who will prevail, the League of Authoritarian States, or those members of the international community who aspire to a world governed by international law, including U.N. treaties and customary international law guaranteeing the observance of fundamental human rights? These not only prohibit genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and torture, but also protect rights such as freedom of the press and the right to participate in government.
The answer depends not on the United States or Europe or NATO or the Arab League alone. It depends of each of us, and what each of us does to shape the policies and actions of our own respective governments.
The outcome of the struggle is not determined. Whatever it is, it will decisively affect the course of history.
In that struggle, it will be important to bear in mind that one thing, however, has changed: We are all connected now.
The Trenchant Observer
observer@trenchantobserver.com
www.twitter.com/trenchantobserv
For links to other articles by The Trenchant Observer, click on the title at the top of this page to go to the home page, and then use the “Search” Box or consult the information in the bottom right hand corner of the home page. The Articles on Syria page can also be found here. The Articles on Targeted Killings page can also be found here.
Tags: 6-point peace plan, a future in which fundamental human rights are observed, a world of seven billion people, Adolf Hitler, an international conference, Asamblea General, Assemblée Générale, Assembléia General, Bolivia, China, conseil de securite, consejo de seguridad, Conselho de seguridade, Cuba, Ecuador, February 4 resolution, general assembly, Hu Jintao, Human Rights Council, in the 21st century, internal affairs, internet, kofi annan, Kofi Annan's triumph, Li Baodong, Liga de Estados Autoritários, Liga dos Estados Autoritários, ligue d'états autoritaire, limit the sovereignty, Martin Briens, mobile telephones, no authoritarian regime has that right, No dictator has that right, non-interference in the internal affairs, other authoritarian states, palaces in the sky, Peter Wittig, principe of non-internvention, principle of sovereignty, Resolution 2042, resolution 2043, Russia, satellite channels, Sicherheitsrat, Sir Mark Lyall Grant, Siria, smartphones, struggle for democracy, struggle for democracy in syria, susan rice, syria, Syrie, Syrien, The Illusionist, the League of Authoritarian States, the use of force, the world has changed, threat of nuclear war, Uganda, Venezuela, veto in the security council, Vitaly Churkin, vladimir putin, we are all connected now, when necessary
Posted in Argentina, Barack Obama, Brazil, Chile, China, Crimes Against Humanity, Deutschland, Dictatorship, dubai, Egypt, extrajudicial execution, France, Germany, History, human rights, International Law, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Ivory Coast, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Middle East, NATO, Nigeria, Qatar, Russia, sanctions, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, State Department, syria, Togo, Torture, Tunisia, Turkey, U.N. Charter, U.N. Convention Against Torture, U.N. Security Council, U.N. Torture Convention, U.S. Congress, U.S. Military, united arab emirates, United Kingdom, United States, use of force, war crimes | No Comments »
Saturday, June 9th, 2012
The proceedings of the General Assembly informal meeting on Syria on June 7, and the statements by Security Council representatives made following a closed meeting of the Security Council on May 7, 2012, can be found here (with video). Links to statements by the representatives of Russia, China, Germany, France, and the United States can also be found on the same page.).
Responses to events in Syria have etched in sharp relief the emergence of a new coalition of states, which might be termed “The League of Authoritarian States”.
Their Charter Members include Russia, China, Iran, and Cuba, in addition to Syria. Other states drifting within their orbit, or in and out of their orbit, include Uganda, Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia.
Where they have votes, they have consistently voted against U.N. resolutions addressing the crisis in Syria, including the Human Rights Council’s resolutions condemning the atrocities by the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria, and the Security Council draft resolution on Syria of February 4, 2012, which endorsed an Arab League peace plan, called for end to the crimes being committed, and promoted a peaceful transition. The February 4 draft resolution explicitly ruled out the use of force, and contained no economic sanctions. Still, it was vetoed in the Security Council by Russia and China, who had blocked all action by the Security Council since the demonstrations in Syria began in March, 2011.
By supporting Kofi Annan’s 6-point peace plan, the League’s members have diverted members of the international community from taking effective action to stop the killing in Syria. They now call for “an international conference” and a continuation of Kofi Annan’s “mediation” process to further delay or avoid any such action. In their hard-nosed diplomacy, Russia has even made a veiled threat of nuclear war in the region, to which President Obama and the West have not responded in any way.
The fact that Russia and China have a veto in the Security Council gives the League of Authoritarian States enormous leverage in shaping the Security Council’s responses to situations in countries, like Syria, where authoritarian regimes use terror to repress movements pressing for respect for human rights and transitions to democratic governments.
It remains to be seen how many other authoritarian states will now go on the record in supporting the League of Authoritarian States. There is a cost associated with repression, and the avowed intention of blocking any action to halt war crimes and crimes against humanity in any country where violent repression is the government’s response to demands for human rights and democracy.
The key Founding Members of the League, Russia and China, have made it clear where they stand. They will use their vetoes in the Security Council to block effective action by the international community to halt war crimes and crimes against humanity, and to water down any resolutions which are adopted (such as Resolutions 2042 and 2043). Moreover, their true intentions and bad faith are revealed in their propaganda, which mirrors that of Syrian officials and state-controlled media.
They justify their actions by reference to the principles of sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of any state, as guaranteed in the U.N. Charter.
They ignore, however, that in the 21st century “sovereignty” does not include the right to commit genocide, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity, war crimes, torture, or even the violation of other fundamental human rights. The growth and development of international law has led to treaties and state practice interpreting international law that limit the sovereignty of a nation to undertake acts such as those referred to above.
We no longer live in a world (if we ever did) in which, to pose a hypothetical example, Adolf Hitler could set up extermination camps inside of Germany and exterminate millions of German citizens, so long as he did not invade other countries. If he lived today, he would not have that right.
No Dictator, no authoritarian regime, has that right.
The battle is joined, between the international community which supports human rights and international law, including international criminal law, on the one hand, and the League of Authoritarian States, on the other, whose members believe a Dictator should have such a “right”, and who are willing to block the effective responses of the international community by vetoing resolutions in the Security Council.
The rest of the nations of the world are looking, at least in public, to a future in which fundamental human rights are observed and effectively protected throughout the world. That is the aim of the Responsibility to Protect Resolution (Resolution 1674) adopted by the Security Council in 2006. That is the purpose of the Human Rights Council and all of its work to uphold observance of international human rights protected in U.N. and other treaties, and under customary international law.
Undoubtedly other governments will join the League of Authoritarian States, in order to protect their own ability to use terror including war crimes and crimes against humanity to retain their hold on power.
However, the trend in recent years, has been toward a consolidation of the principles espoused by the United Nations Charter, international treaties, international law, and the organs of the U.N. such as the Human Rights Council.
The League of Authoritarian States is determined to buck that trend, and indeed to reverse it so that they will not have to face the possibility of intervention by the international community in their own “internal affairs” in the future.
The verdict is still out on which group will prevail. Much will depend on the willingness of members of the international community to act in cases such as Syria, even by the use of force if necessary. In extreme cases, willingness to act must extend to military action to halt atrocities, notwithstanding obstruction of effective Security Council action by a League member’s veto.
We live in a world of seven billion people. Through the internet, satellite channels, and mobile telephones, we are all connected now. We can all talk to each other now, today by video on Skype, and tomorrow on smart phones with video call capabilities.
The world has changed, and the speed of that change is accelerating.
Who will prevail, the League of Authoritarian States, or those members of the international community who aspire to a world governed by international law, including U.N. treaties and customary international law guaranteeing the observance of fundamental human rights? These not only prohibit genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and torture, but also protect rights such as freedom of the press and the right to participate in government.
The answer depends not on the United States or Europe or NATO or the Arab League alone. It depends of each of us, and what each of us does to shape the policies and actions of our own respective governments.
The outcome of the struggle is not determined. Whatever it is, it will decisively affect the course of history.
In that struggle, it will be important to bear in mind that one thing, however, has changed: We are all connected now.
The Trenchant Observer
observer@trenchantobserver.com
www.twitter.com/trenchantobserv
For links to other articles by The Trenchant Observer, click on the title at the top of this page to go to the home page, and then use the “Search” Box or consult the information in the bottom right hand corner of the home page. The Articles on Syria page can also be found here. The Articles on Targeted Killings page can also be found here.
Tags: 6-point peace plan, a future in which fundamental human rights are observed, a world of seven billion people, Adolf Hitler, an international conference, Asamblea General, Assemblée Générale, Assembléia General, Bolivia, China, conseil de securite, consejo de seguridad, Conselho de seguridade, Cuba, Ecuador, February 4 resolution, general assembly, Human Rights Council, in the 21st century, internal affairs, internet, kofi annan, Li Baodong, Liga de Estados Autoritários, Liga dos Estados Autoritários, ligue d'états autoritaire, limit the sovereignty, Martin Briens, mobile telephones, no authoritarian regime has that right, No dictator has that right, non-interference in the internal affairs, other authoritarian states, Peter Wittig, principe of non-internvention, principle of sovereignty, Resolution 2042, resolution 2043, Russia, satellite channels, Sicherheitsrat, Sir Mark Lyall Grant, Siria, smartphones, susan rice, syria, Syrie, Syrien, the League of Authoritarian States, the use of force, the world has changed, threat of nuclear war, Uganda, Venezuela, veto in the security council, Vitaly Churkin, we are all connected now, when necessary
Posted in Barack Obama, China, Culture and Communication, Deutschland, Dictatorship, extrajudicial execution, France, Germany, History, human rights, internal supporters of human rights, International Law, Lebanon, Libya, NATO, Qatar, Russia, State Department, State Department Legal Adviser, syria, targeted assassinations, targeted killings, Torture, Turkey, U.N. Charter, U.N. Security Council, U.S Foreign Relations, U.S. Congress, U.S. Intervention, U.S. Military, united arab emirates, United Kingdom, United States, use of force, war crimes | No Comments »
Tuesday, June 5th, 2012
Following is the final version of the UN Human Rights Council resolution on the massacre in Syria, adopted on June 1 at an emergency session. The vote was 41 in favor, 3 against (Russia, China, Cuba), 2 abstentions (Ecuador, Uganda), with the Philippines absent.
Human Rights Council
Nineteenth special session
1 June 2012
Djibouti, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey*, United States of America: draft resolution
S-19/… The deteriorating situation of human rights in the Syrian Arab Republic, and the recent killings in El-Houleh
The Human Rights Council,
Recalling General Assembly resolutions 66/176 of 19 December 2011 and 66/253 of 16 February 2012, Human Rights Council resolutions S-16/1 of 29 April 2011, S-17/1 of 22 August 2011, S-18/1 of 2 December 2011, 19/1 of 1 March 2012 and 19/22 of 23 March 2012, and Security Council resolutions 2042 (2012) of 14 April 2012 and 2043 (2012) of 21 April 2012,
Condemning the killings, confirmed by United Nations observers, of dozens of men, women and children and the wounding of hundreds more in the village of El-Houleh, near Homs, in attacks that involved the wanton killing of civilians by shooting at close range and by severe physical abuse by pro-regime elements and a series of Government artillery and tank shellings of a residential neighbourhood, and reiterating that all violence in all its forms by all parties must cease,
Recalling that the statement made by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on 27 May 2012 that the atrocities in El-Houleh may amount to crimes against humanity and noting her repeated encouragement to the Security Council to refer the situation in Syria to the International Criminal Court,
Reaffirming its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic and to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations,
1. Condemns in the strongest possible terms such an outrageous use of force against the civilian population, which constitutes a violation of applicable international law and of the commitment of the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic, under Security
Council resolutions 2042 (2012) and 2043 (2012), to cease violence in all its forms, including the cessation of the use of heavy weapons in population centres;
2. Condemns in the harshest terms the outrageous killing of forty-nine children, all under the age of 10;
3. Deplores that the recent killings in El-Houleh occurred in a context of continued human rights violations in the Syrian Arab Republic, including ongoing arbitrary detentions, hindered access for the media and restrictions of the right to peaceful assembly;
4. Emphasizes the continued failure of the Syrian authorities to protect and promote the rights of all Syrians, including through repeated and systematic violations of human rights;
5. Reiterates its urgent call upon the Syrian authorities to put an immediate end to all violence and all human rights violations, and to meet their responsibility to protect their populations;
6. Calls once again upon the Syrian authorities to immediately allow United Nations human rights mechanisms and missions full and unfettered access and freedom of movement within the Syrian Arab Republic;
7. Stresses the need to conduct an international, transparent, independent and prompt investigation into violations of international law with a view to hold to account those responsible for widespread, systematic and gross human rights violations, including those violations that may amount to crimes against humanity;
8. Requests the commission of inquiry to urgently conduct a comprehensive, independent and unfettered special inquiry, consistent with international standards, into the events in El-Houleh, and if possible to publicly identify those who appear responsible for these atrocities, and to preserve the evidence of crimes for possible criminal prosecutions or a future justice process, with a view to hold to account those responsible; and also requests the commission to provide a full report of the findings of its special inquiry to the Human Rights Council at its twentieth session, and to coordinate as appropriate with relevant UN mechanisms;
9. Calls upon the Syrian authorities to cooperate fully with the commission of inquiry and to accord it full and unfettered access to the Syrian Arab Republic to conduct its work;
10. Calls upon all States Members of the United Nations to assist the commission of inquiry in its mission by providing the support necessary for it to achieve its objectives, including, but not limited to, Member States calling upon the Syrian authorities to grant the commission the access required to conduct its work;
11. Calls upon the Syrian authorities to grant immediate, unimpeded and full access of humanitarian organizations to all areas of the Syrian Arab Republic in order to allow them to provide relief and humanitarian assistance, and calls on all sides to respect the safety of humanitarian workers;
12. Requests the cooperation, as appropriate, of other relevant United Nations bodies with the commission of inquiry to carry out its mission, and requests the assistance of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Secretary-General in this regard;
13. Calls for the urgent, comprehensive and immediate implementation of all elements of the Joint Special Envoy of the United Nations and the League of Arab States six-point proposal as annexed to Security Council resolution 2042 without any preconditi0ns;
14. Invites the Joint Special Envoy for the United Nations and the League of Arab States, Kofi Annan, to provide a briefing to the Human Rights Council at its twentieth session;
14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.
–Final resolution on Syria as adopted at UN emergency session
Published by UN Watch, June 1, 2012 [in Human Rights Council (UNHRC) and Syria].
Russia’s negative vote is worth noting, along with that of China. Video links to the Closing Statements of the President of the Human Rights Council and of the representatives of China and Russia follow below.
Statements by Delegates and Vote
See the video of the Remarks by Ms. Laura Dupuy Lasserre, President of the Human Rights Council, and other delegates here.
Closing Remarks, 19th Special Session, Human Rights Council, 01 June 2012Closing Remarks by Ms. Laura Dupuy Lasserre, President of Human Rights Council, and other delegates – 19th Special Session of the Human Rights Council on the “Deteriorating human rights situation in the Syrian Arab Republic and the recent killings in El-Houleh”.
Running time: 00:01:00
Language(s) available:
•English
•Spanish
China’s Negative Vote
See the video of the Chinese explanation of its vote against the resolution here.
China, Vote on Resolution, 19th Special Session, Human Rights Council
01 June 2012
China, Vote on Draft Resolution A/HRC/S-18/L.1 – 19th Special Session of the Human Rights Council on the “Deteriorating human rights situation in the Syrian Arab Republic and the recent killings in El-Houleh”.
Running time: 00:03:24
Language(s) available:
•English
•Chinese
Russia’s Negative Vote
See the video of the Russian explanation of its vote against the resolution here.
Russia, Vote on Resolution, 19th Special Session, Human Rights Council
01 June 2012
Russian Federation, Vote on Draft Resolution A/HRC/S-18/L.1 – 19th Special Session of the Human Rights Council on the “Deteriorating human rights situation in the Syrian Arab Republic and the recent killings in El-Houleh”.
Running time: 00:03:49
Language(s) available:
•English
•Russian
Russia and China are totally isolated on the issue of Syria. They will pay a heavy price over time, in the memories of the populations of the countries that voted in favor of this resolution.
20 or 50 years from now, the world will recall how Russia and China shamelessly opposed effective action by the Security Council to halt the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Syria, and even opposed this resolution by the Human Rights Council, which was supported by virtually the entire world.
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: 19th Special Session, A/HRC/, A/HRC/S-18/L.1, A/HRC/S-19/L.1, China, commission of inquiry, Cuba, Djibouti, Houla, houleh, Human Rights Council, international commission of inquiry, June 1, Kuwait, Laura Dupuy Lasserre, obama's debacle in syria, Paulo Pinheiro, Qatar, Resolution 2042, resolution 2043, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Siria, syria, Syrie, Syrien, Turkey, United Nations, United States, Update #48
Posted in Barack Obama, China, Djibouti, extrajudicial execution, human rights, human rights reports, International Law, Middle East, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, State Department, State Department Legal Adviser, syria, targeted assassinations, targeted killings, Torture, Turkey, U.N. Charter, U.N. Security Council, United States, war crimes | No Comments »
Friday, May 25th, 2012
Periodic Update Report by Independent Commission of Inquiry
The U.N. appointed Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria published a Periodic Update report on May 24, adding to its previous findings. The report is found here.
For a U.N. news article on the report, see
UN News Centre, “UN human rights probe panel reports continuing ‘gross’ violations in Syria,” May 24, 2012.
Excerpts from the Periodic Update report:
2. The Commission remains extremely concerned about the human rights situation in the country where gross violations continue unabated in an increasingly militarized context, despite the parties to the conflict having reached agreement on the Joint Special Envoy’s “six-point plan”. Most of the serious human rights violations documented by the Commission in this Update were committed by the Syrian army and security services as part of military or search operations conducted in locations known for hosting defectors and/or armed persons, or perceived as supportive of anti-government armed groups. The army employed the wide range of military means, including heavy shelling of civilian areas. The Commission received several accounts that anti-government armed groups are also committing human rights abuses.
…
11. Accounts indicated that the security forces used precise shelling to target small opposition strongholds as well as indiscriminate shelling – dropping shells among residential areas and in neighborhoods suspected of harboring opposition fighters or supporters. After the shelling, security forces would enter the area, position snipers on rooftops, often on school buildings, and conduct house-to-house searches. Repeated accounts of extra-judicial killings in this context were also received. Fighters in anti-government armed groups were killed after being captured or wounded. In some particularly grave instances, entire families were executed in their homes – usually the family members of those opposing the government such as the family members of Colonel Raid Al Asaad.
…
14. Children continue to suffer in the context of the on-going events in the Syrian Arab Republic. They are frequently among those killed and injured during attacks on protests and the bombardment of towns and villages by state forces. The Commission recorded an incident where several people were allegedly executed in Taftanaz in April 2012, when that village was raided by Government forces. There were five people under 18 among the deceased. Additionally, specific reports of children being killed by snipers arose in two separate villages in Idlib (January and March 2012). In areas where anti-government armed groups hold sway, boys older than 14 years are reportedly targeted as members of such groups. Children, including boys as young as 10 years of age, detained by State forces, repeatedly indicate that they are tortured to admit that older male members of their family are “Free Syrian Army” soldiers or supporters.
…
18. The Commission has received multiple reports of the extra-judicial executions of members of the army and security forces, suspected informers and/or collaborators captured by anti-government armed groups. Two such incidents occurred in Homs in April 2012. In corroborated statements taken from anti-government fighters, the Commission recorded instances where members of Government forces perceived to have committed crimes – for example, by participating in the shelling of civilian areas –were executed or captured. A defector who fought in the ranks of Al Farouk Brigade “FSA”) in Homs city stated that members of the government forces, including what he claimed were three Iranian snipers, were summarily executed after they apparently confessed. One anti-government armed group fighter also admitted that he and his associates had killed Government soldiers when the captives refused to join them.
…
50 Civilians Killed in Massacre at Houla (Homs Province)
See
“13 children die in renewed fighting in Syria; More than 70 people, including 13 children, were reportedly killed in a day of intensified fighting across Syria on Friday,” The Telegraph, May 25, 2012 (10:28 BST).
Conal Urquhart, “Syrian troops ‘kill 50′ near Homs; Ban Ki-moon says some progress has been made, but overall situation remains very serious in further day of bloodshed,” The Guardian, May 25, 2012 (1826 EDT).
Urquhart describes the level and intensity of violence on Friday:
At least 50 people, including 13 children, were killed when Syrian forces attacked the town of Houla in Homs province on Friday according to Syrian anti-government activists.
In other areas of Syria, activists said that a further 33 people were killed. The Syrian government news agency said that 17 people had been killed by anti-government gunmen. None of the figures could be independently verified.
The surge in violence came as Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations secretary general told the UN security council there had been some progress in reducing violence, but the overall situation remained very serious.
…
Reports from activists and the government suggest that violence took places in dozens of areas involving helicopter gunships, tanks, artillery, roadside bombs and small arms.
The most intense violence appeared to take place in Houla, a group of four villages near Homs where Syrian security forces opened fire on an anti-government protest. Anti-government forces retaliated and the army began shelling the area, killing an estimated 50 people, according to the London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and the local co-ordination committees.
Activist Ahmad Kassem told Reuters: “The soldiers are shelling Houla right now, the casualties are huge.”
The largest demonstrations since the unrest began in March 2011 were reported in Aleppo, where the government introduced tanks for the first time.
Analysis
Still, the international community remains paralyzed in the face of barbarism in Syria.
Kofi Annan continues to carry water for the Russians, dragging out his abortive intervention with plans for yet another trip to Damascus. To what end?
We already know all that we need to know, to wit:
1. The Syrian government is committing crimes against humanity and war crimes in crushing the opposition.
2. President Obama, fearful that Syria might affect his reelection prospects, went so far as to say at Camp David that the Group of Eight were in agreement on Syria. If so, that is only because the U.S. and NATO have caved into accepting the Russian position of supporting the Kofi Annan peace plan and observer mission–in the face of al-Assad’s total non-compliance with its provisions. This amounts to supporting al-Assad while he continues to commit atrocities.
3. There are news reports that the U.S. is covertly coordinating the provision of arms to the armed opposition in Syria, while it states publicly that it supports the Security Council 6-point peace plan, which includes “no foreign intervention” as one of its key points.
4. No one remembers what is actually in the Kofi Annan plan, such as guaranteeing foreign journalists free access to Syria, guaranteeing the right of citizens to demonstrate, or providing the names and whereabouts of those who have been detained, and processing their release. If they remembered, they might at least demand compliance.
5. Nothing is going to change, absent some dramatic intervention by some leader of some country. Resolution 2043 which established the 300-member UNSMIS observer team was adopted on April 21, and will remain in effect until its expiration on July 21, 2012 (90 days after its adoption).
6. Everyone seems happy to watch the war crimes and crimes against humanity continue at least until then. They wring their hands and cry out in helpless wonder, but no one is willing to do anything about it.
7. There are no leaders from the great democracies of the West, or from NATO, or from the Arab League countries, who have the courage to challenge President Obama’s passivity and craven surrender to Russia’s cynical policy objectives in Syria–desite the enormous suffering and loss of life that has occurred to date, and which continues.
8. This is surely one of the darkest pages in the history of the United Nations.
9. It is surely one of the darkest pages in the history of the Western democracies since the end of World War II, and the Nuremberg Trials.
10. For all apparent purposes, the Nuemberg Principles now seem to be forgotten, almost as if they were dead.
11. The Responsibility to Protect, which achieved growing support after 2005, and was particularly relevant in Côte d’Ivoire (Ivory Coast) and in Libya in 2011, now appears to be but a distant dream.
12. As we try to deal with the situation in Syria, it seems as if we have moved backwards to the situation which existed before World War II.
What will it take for some leader, in some democratic country, or some country in transition, to do something to abort the Kofi Annan mission, the UNSMIS observer misssion which can observe but not protect, and the increasing militarization of the civil war in Syria–and to do so in the full light of day?
The worst-case scenario seems to be the one we are now following, with
1. some limited but ineffective covert action coordinated by the United States;
2. a totally failed and ill-conceived “mediation” effort by the Security Council blocking any constructive thought or action in public;
3. accelerating movement toward reigniting the civil war in Lebanon;
4. growing danger that the civil war in Syria will degenerate into ethnic conflict similar to that which took place in the Balkans and in Iraq; and
5. strong prospects that the long, drawn-out covert war Obama may be carefully planning, with his fine intellectual distinctions (such as coordinating the provision of arms, as if that weren’t providing arms–the kind of legal analysis you might get from a lawyer who has never practiced law), will have highly dangerous and unpredictable impacts and outcomes.
Is it not time to act, and to act forcefully to halt the killings and other abuses of fundamental human rights?
If not now, when?
Covert war in Syria. Is that the best we can do?
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: 6-point peace plan, A/HRC/Res/19/22, A/HRC/S-17/1, Ban Ki-Moon, Conal Urquhart, covert war in Syria, general assembly, Human Rights Council, Independent International Commission of Inquiry, kofi annan, massacre of 50, obama's debacle in syria, Periodoic Update, Pinheiro Commission, resolution 2043, security council, Siria, syria, Syrie, Syrien, The Guardian, tHE tELEGRAPH, UN News Centre, update #43
Posted in China, CIA, Crimes Against Humanity, extrajudicial execution, History, human rights, International Law, Lebanon, Libya, Middle East, NATO, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, State Department, State Department Legal Adviser, syria, targeted assassinations, targeted killings, Torture, Turkey, U.N. Charter, U.N. Security Council, U.S. Intervention, U.S. Military, United Kingdom, United States, use of force, war crimes | No Comments »
Friday, March 23rd, 2012
Kofi Annan is not God
At first sight, it might appear that the international community, including the three Permanent Members of the Security Council that are not directly blocking any effective action by the Council, had some mystical belief in the divine powers of former U.N. Secretary Kofi Annan to somehow forge order and reason out of the daily hell the citizens of Syria face at the hands of the Syrian Dictator, Bashar al-Assad.
But Kofi Annan is not God.
While he seems to lull the Security Council into some kind of trance, in his lugubrious speech–at a rate which could not exceed 75 or at most 100 words a minute–he does not have divine powers to succeed where all others have failed before him.
He kept the peace plan proposal which he took to Damascus secret, until it was revealed when the “presidential statement” was issued by the Security Council. He asserted in a press conference that he should be the only person leading mediation of the conflict in Syria. Now, in the presidential statement issued by the Security Council on March 21, the Council pledges “to commit to appoint an empowered interlocutor when invited to do so by the Envoy.”
We poor chumps in the peanut galleries have no idea what “an empowered interlocutor” is or what his terms of reference will be.
Annan is now “the Envoy”. The Security Council will act, by appointing “an empowered interlocutor” when the Envoy invites them to do so. So, it is the Envoy who controls the pace of the negotiations, and the potential actions of the Security Council.
This sounds like the script from a bad Star Trek episode.
It is time to take the baton back from Kofi Annan. He is, in effect if not intention, helping the Russians play their cynical game of maintaining al-Assad in power at all costs. These costs include direct complicity in the war crimes and crimes against humanity al-Assad is committing every day. They are supplying the weapons and ammunition. They are supplying Russian military advisors on the ground in Syria to train al-Assad’s forces in the use of the weapons. These weapons are being used–every day–to commit war crimes, crimes against humanity, and widespread grave violations of fundamental human rights.
In the case of China, and the few other countries which have opposed U.N. action condemning Syria or abstained in votes in the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council, it seems that they are anxious to reserve the right to commit similar atrocities against their own people if they are “forced” to do so to retain their hold on power. In China’s case, Tibet comes immediately to mind.
We should take a close look at the interests of and human rights situations in these other countries which have voted against or abstained in votes on resolutions condemning Syria in the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council. Their votes tell us something important–extremely important–about the nature of their regimes and how they see their future.
The “mediation” of war crimes and crimes against humanity in the current U.N. process led by Kofi Annan has from the very beginning been based on a dangerous and fatally flawed concept. The international community should never “mediate” to bring to a halt war crimes and crimes against humanity. The cessation of these crimes is non-negotiable. Discussions regarding modalities of cessation may be necessary. But mediation of the conflict itself can begin only after the commission of these crimes has stopped.
A ceasefire is nowhere in sight. Each day Annan continues his mission, al-Assad kills more opponents. Annan has failed. His mission should be terminated.
Washington Post Editorial of March 22, 2012
The Washington Post, in an editorial on March 23, 2012, has also noted that Annan’s mission is ill-conceived and bound to fail. The Editorial stated,
AFTER THE U.N. Security Council endorsed a six-point diplomatic plan for Syria by former secretary general Kofi Annan on Wednesday, U.S. ambassador Susan Rice sounded almost jubilant. “Annan’s proposal,” she said, “is the best way to put an end to the violence, facilitate much-needed humanitarian assistance and advance a Syrian-led political transition.” We can only hope that the envoy does not take her own words too seriously.
In fact, there is virtually no possibility that the new initiative will accomplish any of those aims — as the Obama administration should know by now. Instead, it will likely provide time and cover for the regime of Bashar al-Assad to continue using tanks and artillery to assault Syrian cities and indiscriminately kill civilians. That’s exactly what the regime was doing Thursday — pounding the city of Hama, where at least 20 people have been reported killed in army attacks in the past two days.
The Annan plan won’t work because, like the Arab League plan before it, it calls for the Assad government to take steps that would lead to its swift collapse — and the regime has no intention of capitulating. It says that Syrian forces should stop using heavy weapons in cities, begin a pullback of troops, permit a daily “humanitarian pause” for the delivery of aid and accept a U.N.-supervised cease-fire, while allowing freedom of assembly and the free circulation of journalists. To buy time last year, the regime accepted nearly identical demands by the Arab League, admitted its monitors — and then proceeded to ignore its obligations completely.
…
What the Annan mission does not offer is “the best way to put an end to the violence.” It is just the opposite: a guarantee that the bloodshed will continue, and probably worsen. The fighting in Syria will end only when Mr. Assad is forced to stop — or he succeeds in killing his way to victory.
–Editorial Board, “The Post’s View: The U.N.’s unworkable plan for Syria,” Washington Post, March 22, 2012.
Human Rights Council Resolution of March 23, 2012
The U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva adopted a further resolution (A/HRC/19/L.38/Rev.1) condemning Syria today, March 23, 2012.
–Reuters, UN rights forum extends Syria investigators’ mandate; [Human Rights] Council adopts EU resolution on widespread crimes by Syrian forces, says perpetrators must be brought to justice; China and Russia vote against text; mediator Annan going to Moscow and Beijing this weekend”, The Jerusalem Post, March 23, 2012.
The vote tally or breakdown was as follows:
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour (41): Angola, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chile, Congo, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Djibouti, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Italy, Jordan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Nigeria, Norway, Peru, Poland, Qatar, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, United States and Uruguay.
Against (3): China, Cuba and Russian Federation.
Abstentions (2): Ecuador and Uganda.
A summary of the resolution and statements made before or after the vote are found here.
Developments on the Ground
See
“Mass protests and fresh violence in Syria; Mortar fire and clashes between security forces and opposition fighters as activists report mass rallies around country,” Al Jazeera, March 24, 2012 (04:10 h).
Rakan al-Fakih and Antoine Amrieh, “Thousands take part in anti-Syria protests across Lebanon,” The Daily Star, March 24, 2012 (01:52 AM).
Antonio Pampliega (Binnish) “Binnish será un infierno; La ciudad del norte de Siria aguarda el asalto de las tropas leales a Bachar el Asad, El País, 23 de marzo de 2012 (11:50 CET).
For an overview of the responsibility to protect since 2005, see Andreas Ross, “Pyrrhus-Durchbruch; Von Ruanda bis Syrien: Legitimiert die Schutzverantwortung auch Regimewechsel? Der designierte UN-Vizegeneralsekretär Eliasson hält etwa den Libyen-Einsatz weiterhin für richtig,” Frankfurter Allgemeine, den 23 März 2012.
Matthew Brunwasser, “Is Syria’s Idlib Like Srebrenica?” PRI’s The World, March 23, 2012.
The Trenchant Observer
observer@trenchantobserver.com
www.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.
***
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: A/HRC/l.38/rev.1, Andreas Ross, annan, Antoine Amrieh, Antonio Pampliega, bad star trek episode, Bashar al-Assad, binnish, China, Crimes Against Humanity, Cuba, Ecuador, editorial, editorial board, El País, empowered interlocutor, Franfurter Allgemeine, Human Rights Committee, Human Rights Council, jerasulem post, kofi annan, kofi annan is not god, mediation, military intervention, Rakan al-Fakih, Reuters, rusia, Russia, Russian Federation, script, security council vetoes, Siria, struggle for democaracy in Syria, struggle for democracy, Syrie, Syrien, The Daily Star, the envoy, Uganda, unworkable plan for Syria, war crimes, Washington Post
Posted in Barack Obama, China, Crimes Against Humanity, extrajudicial execution, History, human rights, internal supporters of human rights, NATO, Russia, State Department, State Department Legal Adviser, syria, Torture, U.N. Security Council, U.S. Intervention, U.S. Military, United States, use of force, war crimes | 1 Comment »
Wednesday, February 29th, 2012
Revised March 1, 2012
For earlier articles on Syria by The Trenchant Observer, see the Articles on Syria page.
Syrian tank firing in Homs
“So, is the world helpless? Must we simply stand by and watch the slaughter, and accept a future world where we are comfortable with the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity, because we don’t have the will and the courage to use military force to stop it?”
Mediation with war criminals during ongoing commission of war crimes?
Francisco Goya, Saturn devouring his son
Look carefully at Goya’s painting of Saturn devouring his son. Feel the horror. That is the horror that exists today in Syria.
The Future for Opponents of the Al-Assad Regime
Human Rights Council Receives Special Commission Report; Adopts Resolution on Escalating Grave Human Rights Violations and Deteriorating Humanitarian Situation in Syria (March 1, 2012)
The commission of crimes against humanity, war crimes, and other grave violations of fundamental human rights continues in Homs and other cities and towns in Syria. See
Report of the Human Rights Council’s Commission of Inquiry on Syria, February 22, 2012.
–Alan Cowell and Steven Lee Myers, “U.N. Panel Accuses Syrian Government of Crimes Against Humanity,” New York Times, February 23, 2012.
For the full text of the 72-page report, see “Report of the independent international commission of inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/19/69 (22 February 2012).
Human Rights Council in Geneva
March 1, 2012 Human Rights Council Resolution
Beginning February 28, the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva debated a new resolution (A/HRC/19/L.1/Rev.1) on the the escalating grave human rights situation and deteriorating humanitarian situation in Syria. See
Statement by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay at The Urgent Debate on the Human Rights and Humanitarian Situation in the Syrian Arab Republic at the Human Rights Council 19th Session, February 28, 2012.
Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, “Council adopts resolution on escalating grave human rights violations and deteriorating humanitarian situation in Syria,” March 1, 2012.
The text of Resolution A/HRC/19/L.1/Rev.1 is found here.
The Resolution was approved on March 1 by a vote of 37 in favor, 3 against, with three abstentions. The vote tally or breakdown was as follows:
In Favor
Austria
Bangladesh
Belgium
Benin
Botswana
Cameroon
Chile
Congo
Costa Rica
Czech Republic
Djibouti
Guatemala
Hungary
Indonesia
Italy
Jordan
Kuwait
Libya
Malaysia
Maldives
Mauritania
Mauritius
Mexico
Nigeria
Norway
Peru
Poland
Qatar
Republic of Moldova
Romania
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Spain
Switzerland
Thailand
United States of America
Uruguay
Against
China
Cuba
Russian Federation
Abstentions
Ecuador
India
Philippines
Not voting, with explanation (absent from room)
Burkino Faso – would have voted in favor
Kyrgyzstan – would have voted in favor
Angola – would have abstained
Not Voting, without explanation
Uganda
The actual vote tally sheet is found here.
Obama: “We can’t stand on the sidelines” [but let me think it over while I have a latté]
Obama has reportedly vetoed a plan to take military action to set up a secure zone within Syria by the use of air power. See “Obama rules out military intervention in Syria, weighs humanitarian corridors,” DEBKAfile, February 29, 2012.
Secretary of State Hilary Clinton muses aloud, on camera, that if we call Al-Assad a war criminal, it may make it harder to get him to resign. Well, he is a war criminal, and is committing war crimes and crimes against humanity as we speak. The Nuremberg Charter was not about convenience. The dilemma is real. But that is no reason to hide in an Orwellian world in which the Secretary of State and the President are afraid to describe a horrific reality with real words.
See Richard Spencer, Syria: “Bashar al-Assad could be regarded as a war criminal, says Hillary Clinton; The Syrian president Bashar al-Assad could be regarded as a war criminal, Hillary Clinton suggested as the United Nations said 100 people were dying in his country every day,” The Telegraph, February 28, 2012.
How Many Will Die Before the International Community Stops Al-Assad–With Force if Required?
Meanwhile, United Nations Under Secretary General for Political Affairs, Lynn Pascoe, told the Security Council on Tuesday, February 28, that the U.N. now estimates that 7,500 civilians have died in Syria, up from 4,500 estimated in December.
The Urgency Is to Act Now, Today
Kofi Annan has been given a mandate to “mediate” with Al-Assad and others, and has demanded that his mediation process be the sole mediation process to resolve the dispute. This is a major mistake by U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon. Annan’s mission should be limited to a week, in the initial phase. Other mediation efforts should continue.
Annan is no Richard Holbrooke with the full military might of the United States standing behind him, which enabled Holbrooke to broker a peace in Dayton with Milosovic in 1995, after three years of devastating war in the former Yugoslovia. Then, as now in Syria, the international community didn’t want to get involved militarily.
There is absolutely no reason to expect that Annan will succeed where the Arab League and the major Western and Arab powers failed. This is Al-Assad’s game, which he played masterfully with the Arab League sanctions, which were postponed as a result of his acceptance of their November peace plan and the Arab League observer mission, gaining months of time, for months of repression. He never complied with the peace plan’s terms, and in retrospect appears never to have intended to.
He wants more time, more time to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity to eliminate his opponents in Homs, and everywhere else. He will always play for more time. The question is, “When will the international community, led by the U.S. or France, tell him that his time is up?”
He should not be given more time. He should be stopped, by force if necessary. In the next few days.
Obama must face the harsh realities in Syria. This is not a “kumbaya” moment in history. The Russians are willing to play for time so Al-Assad can finish killing off the opposition. They are providing munitions including weapons and ammunition, and probably intelligence, money and other support to assist him.
Obama must understand that the hour is now late. In the end, no U.N. resolution will, in and of itself, stop Al-Assad from slaughtering his opponents. At this point, only a resolution authorizing military action–and the ensuing military action–could do this. But such a resolution is not going to be approved by the Security Council any time soon.
So, is the world helpless? Must we simply stand by and watch the slaughter, and accept a future world where we are comfortable with the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity, because we don’t have the will and the courage to use military force to stop it?
The civilized world has stopped crimes against humanity before, without Security Council authorization, in Kosovo and Serbia. It is now time to act, militarily, to stop Al-Assad. There is no imaginable scenario whereby he can remain in power with a license to hunt down and execute his opponents, without other outside powers being drawn into an ever-widening civil war and regional conflict.
Iran is watching. This conflict is in important respects a conflict also with Iran. Obama has spoken of having all the options on the table with Iran if they don’t agree to stop the development of a nuclear weapons capability or nuclear weapons. He will have no credibility with Iran, and no credibility that he will in fact stop an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, if he does not show some decisiveness now. Netanyahu is coming to Washington next week, in all likelihood in an effort to get a green light to launch such an attack. Things are not going to get any easier for Obama as time goes by.
Obama is known for his words, and the fact that they are frequently not backed up by actions. In fact, in foreign policy, he is seen by many as lacking leadership skills and “resolve”.
Netanyahu defied him early on with respect to settlements, and Obama backed down. Obama gave the Russians their greatest objective in arms control talks, by withdrawing plans to base defensive missiles in Poland and Czechoslovakia–and got nothing in return. He didn’t even tell the Poles and the Czechs in advance. He did nothing to support the Green Revolution in Iran in 2009, which subsequently was crushed–like the Syrian opposition will be crushed if there is no outside help. The Iranians are advising Al-Assad. He stood on the sidelines in Egypt when the Arab Spring arrived, and even cut back on support of civil society programs through foreign assistance in the years leading up to those events. He was opposed to getting involved in Libya for a long, long time, and only got involved when pushed to do so by the French and the Bristish. He oversaw the disastrous failure of American diplomacy in failing to negotiate a status of forces agreement with Iraq, leading to the precipitous withdrawal of the U.S. in a manner that puts the entire Iraqi enterprise in doubt. His policies in Afghanistan have manifestly failed. Above all, he lacks any strategic vision. He doesn’t see a connection between halting Al-Assad’s butchery in Syria and halting Iran’s drive to obtain nuclear weapons. Outsiders have serious doubts he can stand up to Netanyahu and prevent an Israeli attack on Iran. The list could go on.
Nonetheless, despite these weaknesses and shortcomings, he must act now to lead the civilized world in halting the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Syria. He needs to put military action on the table as an option, and immediately take overt steps to put that option in place so that it can be executed on short notice.
That could help diplomacy produce the desired concrete results–an immediate cessation of hostilities–an immediate halt to the firing of tanks, anti-aircraft weapons, and artillery against civilian neighborhoods, and an immediate halt to the ground sweeps of opponents that are taken out and shot.
It goes without saying that attacks on medical personnel and facilities, which constitute war crimes, must immediately halt.
Humanitarian assistance must be allowed, but it will have no durable meaning if Al-Assad’s onslaught against his own civilian population is not stopped now.
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: 7500 civilians killed, A/HRC/19/L.1/Rev.1, al-Assad, Angola, Argentina, arms, Austria, Ban Ki-Moon, Bangladesh, Barack Obama, Bashar al-Assad, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, bote tally, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Crimes Against Humanity, Cuba, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, dilemma, diplomats founder, Djibouti, Ecuador, February 28, Folter in Syrien, Gabon, Guatemala, High Commissioner for Human Rights, Hilary Clinton, Human Rights Council, Human Rights Council Commission of Inquiry Into Syria, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Intelligence, Iran, irish times, is the world helpless?, Italy, Japan, Jordan, kofi annan, kosovo, kumbaya moment, kumbayah moment, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Libya, Luxembourg, Lynn Pascoe, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Mauritius, mediation, Mexico, military intervention, military intervention in Syria, more time to finish off his opposition, munitions, Navi Pillay, Nigeria, Norway, Obama vetoed military intervention, on-going commission, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Pinheiro report, Poland, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Richard Spencer, Romania, Russia providing, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Secretary General, Senegal, Serbia, Siria, Slovakia, Spain, struggle for democracy, struggle for democracy in syria, Switzerland, Syrie, Syrien, terreur en Syrie, terror en Siria, terror in Syria, Thailand, tHE tELEGRAPH, U.N., Under Secretary General for Political Affairs, united arab emirates, United Kingdom, United Nations, United States of America, urgency to act, urgency to act today, Uruguay, vote breakdown, wants more time, war crimes, war criminal
Posted in Barack Obama, Dictatorship, extrajudicial execution, France, Germany, human rights, human rights reports, Intelligence, internal supporters of human rights, International Law, Iran, Israel, kosovo, Russia, Serbia, State Department, syria, targeted assassinations, targeted killings, Torture, U.N. Charter, U.N. Security Council, U.S. Intervention, U.S. Military, United States, use of force | No Comments »
Monday, February 13th, 2012
A curious thing has occurred since both China and Russia vetoed the draft Security Council resolution on Syria on February 4, which was supported by the remaining 13 members of the Council.
See The Trenchant Observer, “Chinese and Russian Vetoes of 4 February 2012 Security Council Resolution on Syria (including video, text of resolution, break-down of vote, and transcript of proceedings)—Syria Update #4,” February 5, 2012.
Almost all of the criticism of the veto has been directed against Russia, with very little directed against China. It is almost as if the cognitive dissonance is too great, and the world does not want to be confronted with the hard fact that China is supporting this brutal regime, which is committing crimes against humanity on an immense scale.
If Russia had voted for the resolution and China had exercised its veto, the resolution would not have been adopted.
While hardly an excuse, at least Russia arguably has strategic interests in Syria it is trying to protect: a warm-water naval base and port on the Mediterranean at Tartus, a key listening post to intercept electronic communications in the region, significant arms sales commitments, and commercial relationships, in addition to its steadfastness in supporting its last client state in the Middle East.
China has no such interests, but it still vetoed the resolution.
This veto, and China’s vision of its future and contructive role as a Permanent Member of the Security Council, should be one of the central issues discussed by U.S. officials and lawmakers with Xi Jinping during his current visit to the U.S. Xi Jinping is the apparent successor to Hu Jintao, and in all likelihood will lead China for the next ten years, from 2012 to 2022.
At any press conference or in any interview while in the U.S., Xi Jinping should be asked directly to explain why China blocked Security Council action on Syria, given the barbarism and crimes against humanity being committed by the Bashar al-Assad regime every day.
This barbarism has only intensified since China’s veto (with that of Russia). In view of this veto, doesn’t China bear an enormous moral and political responsibility for al Assad’s use of terror against the Syrian people?
What possible justification can China give the world for its veto of the resolution and also that of October, 2011?
Does China as a leading world power feel no obligation to stop the killing and other fundamental human rights violations in Syria?
For a description of what is going on, see the statement to the General Assembly made today, February 13, by Navi Pillay, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights:
“Navi Pillay, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Report of Human Rights Council on Syria, 95th Plenary Meeting – General Assembly,” United Nations Webcast, February 13, 2012.
Reporters should not accept without direct and hard-hitting follow-up questions any answer which is filled with 1970s rhetoric to the effect that “the country’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity must be respected,” and “the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter must be respected.”
Of course. But the resolution did not violate any of these principles, and the days are long gone when tyrants can justify bloodbaths behind these shibboleths.
Russia continues to be viewed as the primary obstacle to Security Council action, as suggested by the following quote taken from an account of U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Nivi Pillay’s appearance before the Security Council today.
Efforts by the Arab League and Syrian critics at the United Nations to halt the mayhem in Syria have been effectively blocked by Russia, Mr. Assad’s most powerful foreign ally. Russia signaled its opposition earlier Monday to the Arab League proposal for a joint peacekeeping force with the United Nations, arguing that such a force would be meaningless without a cease-fire.
–Rick Gladstone and Neil MacFarquhar, “U.N. Rights Chief Decries Inaction Over Syrian Assault, “February 13, 2012
Yes, Russia has been acting to block Security Council action.
But would Russia take on the entire international community without China’s support?
Why is China not playing an independent and constructive role, as befits a leading world power, instead of hiding behind Russia?
The Trenchant Observer
observer@trenchantobserver.com
www.twitter.com/trenchantobserv
***
REPRISE: China defends Syrian regime committing crimes against humanity, blocking Security Council action—Syria Update #2
(originally published February 5, 2012)
China and Russia on Saturday vetoed a Security Council resolution supporting the Arab League peace initiative and transition plan in Syria, even after it had been watered down to meet their objections. The 13 remaining members of the Security Council voted in favor of the resolution, including India and South Africa.
Many will now continue to die daily in Syria, as the al-Assad regime seeks to smother civil opposition with brute force and terror.
The obstruction of Security Council action on the issue of Syria, against the wishes of the rest of the international community, is particularly disappointing. Each of the Security Council’s Permanent Members (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States) has enormous responsibility to the world as a whole, not just to the narrow interests of their own country.
It is particularly disappointing to see China in an obstructionist role in the Security Council, just as Hu Jintao’s heir apparent, Xi Jinping, comes to Washington in mid-February. If the world is going to be a reasonably governable place, China will have to assume the role of responsible world leader, not just that of a sheepish follower of Russia which looks the other way as thousands are slaughtered.
For, as noted in an earlier article,
Today we can see clearly the dividing lines between nations, between the democracies and those countries that at least are moving in transitions toward democracy, on the one hand, and those countries such as Libya and Syria which employ terror against their own citizens to retain their hold on power, on the other.
See The Trenchant Observer, “The Struggle for Democracy in Bolivia, Spain, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Lebanon, Ivory Coast, and Iran,”
March 3, 2011
What has changed is the spread throughout the human population of universal ideals of respect for the human person, observance of fundamental human rights by governments, and a demand for democratic government and accountability. There are new demands for an end to corruption in closed societies, in which new generations see their chances for advancement blocked by those who cling to power by terror and the use of force.
The advent and exponential growth in penetration of the Internet, satellite television, mobile phones, and the ever-quickening pace of technological change itself, particularly in regards to communications and connections among people, have spread ideas and ideals, deepened awareness of events in other parts of the world, accelerated demands for change, and made it increasingly hard to hide acts of barbarism behind walls of secrecy.
The new battle lines have been drawn. Now we can see in sharp relief that our greatest opponents are those who use state terror and other forms of political terror and mass crimes against their own populations to seek or stay in power.
And it is manifest that our truest allies are those governments, groups and individuals which respect the sanctity of the human person, and the fundamental human rights that enable individuals to live together freely and in harmony in democracies governed by the rule of law.
–The Trenchant Observer, “Repression in Syria, and the spread of universal ideals throughout the world,” May 11, 2011
The Chinese veto of the Security Council resolution on Syria on February 4, 2012, on the eve of Xi Jinping’s visit to Washington in mid-February, is an awfully sorry note on which to begin the relationship between the new generation of Chinese leaders led by Xi Jinping and U.S. leaders in Washington.
China can do better than this. We expect China to do better than this.
The Trenchant Observer
observer@www.trenchantobserver.com
www.twitter.com/trenchantobserv
For recent and earlier aticles on Syria, please use the Search Box on the main page, which can be accessed by clicking on “The Trenchant Observer” at the top of this page.
Tags: 2012, address to General Assembly, Arab League, barbarism, Bashar al-Assad, China, china can do better, china can do better than this, China defends Syrian regime, Crimes Against Humanity, December 13, february 13, free ride, general assembly, gets free ride, heir apparent, hiding behind Russia, Hu Jintao, Human Rights Council, la Chine, led by Xi Jinping, looks the other way, Mededev, military intervention, military intervention in Syria, Morocco, Navi Pillay, Neil MacFarquhar, new generation of Chinese leaders, new leader, Putin, Qatar, resolution of February 4, Rick Gladstone, Russia, security council, sheepish follower of Russia, sour note on which to begin a new relationship, struggle for democracy, struggle for democracy in syria, syria, Syria Update #3, syrian regime, Syriua update #5, Tartus, U.N. HIgh Commissioner for Human Rights, vet, visit of Xi Jinping, Xi Jinping, zong guó
Posted in China, Crimes Against Humanity, human rights, human rights reports, internal supporters of human rights, International Law, Russia, State Department, syria, Torture, U.N. Charter, U.N. Security Council, United States, use of force, war crimes | No Comments »
Wednesday, January 18th, 2012
An editorial today in The Daily Star (Beirut) reviewed the major developments and factors at play in Syria, including
1) the report of the Arab League monitors to be issued this weekend;
2) the UN offer to help enhance the performance of the Arab League monitors;
3) the emir of Qatar’s suggestion that sending Arab troops to stop the killing could be a viable option;
4) the Syrian government has informally floated a proposal to form a new government including key representation for the opposition, which would split the latter; and
5) the Syrian National Council and the Syrian Free Army have announced closer cooridnation of their efforts, which are aimed at toppling the al-Assad regime.
Against this background, the Editorial pointed to the human and social cost of delay:
Throughout all these developments, there is a common thread: None of these actions, or possibilities of action, has been able to stop the daily killing of Syrian citizens. A number of foreign actors are studying the situation and issuing daily pronouncements, assessments and ultimatums (emphasis added). None of them has managed to convince Assad and other Syrian officials that a hard-line crackdown is the wrong approach. The body count continues to rise on a daily basis, in a war of attrition between the regime and its opponents that only means average Syrians are being steadily ground down.
With each passing day, the violence continues, as the social fabric of Syria unravels. Every day, thousands of ordinary Syrians take stances on the popular uprising, whether for or against, and alienate the other side. When the crisis ends, huge efforts will be required to put the country and its economy back together again.
It is positive to see officials in the U.N. and leading countries in the world, and the region debate the various scenarios and try to produce a workable plan. But their timeframe is not indefinite; every passing day means more damage, and a bigger hole to dig out of.
–Editorial, The Daily Star, January 18, 2011
We are faced once again by the sharp disparity between diplomatic time and the real-world time of citizens who are living and dying every day as the result of government repression. In Libya, many of the citizens of Zawiya and Misurata died while outside powers engaged in long and drawn-out diplomatic consultations and deliberations.
Russia continues to block any forceful action by the Security Council.
See “Russia threatens Syria resolution at UN: Sergei Lavrov also accused Western countries of being one-sided,” BBC, January 18, 2012.
But Western Nations have also shown a great unwillingness to expose the callousness of the authoritarian regime of Mededev-Putin in defending the war criminals in Syria. Just this week, a Russian ship reportedly bearing munitions for the Syrian regime docked in Syria.
On January 9, Rami Khoury, a leading columnist for the Daily Star, underlined the positive aspects of the Arab League’s involvement in Syria, while also pointing toward the next steps which are urgent. Wrote Khoury:
The monitoring mission in Syria has been unimpressive due to a combination of logistical constraints and management weaknesses. This reflects the two structural sources of its weakness: the Arab League, being a collection of Arab governments, suffers chronic incompetence; and the Syrian government does not seem to be serious about implementing its agreement with the Arab body, which requires it to stop killing peaceful demonstrators.
Sadly, Syrians struggling for their freedom and rights will continue to die by the dozens every day, it seems, until some other mechanism is found that forces the government to end its policy of mass murder.
The weakness of the monitoring mechanism to date could be offset by the determination of the Arab League to go to the next step and take the issue to the U.N. Security Council or even seek indictments of Syrian officials at the International Criminal Court. Neither of those options guarantees that the killing will stop, or that Syrians can expect a peaceful transition to a democratic system of government. Yet for the Arab League to embark on a path that ultimately leads to these two bodies is a novelty worth monitoring.
–Rami Khoury, “A hopeful path for the Arab League?” The Daily Star, January 9, 2012
It is now time fror the Arab League to refer the question of Syria to Security Council for further action, which could include enlisting the Arab League’s assistance in carrying out its decisions under article 53 of the U.N. Charter.
Khoury’s second action item, a decision by the Security Council to invest the International Criminal Court with authority to investigate and prosecute the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity by the al-Assad regime and any other forces in Syria, is long overdue.
On December 12, 2012, Navi Pillay, the U.N. Commisioner for Human Rights, called for the Security Council to grant authority to the ICC to investigate and try Syrian officials potentially guilty of crimes against humanity.
Ian Black, Middle East editor, “”Syria blasts call for ICC investigation by UN human rights commissioner: State TV blames ‘conspiracy’ against Bashar al-Assad’s regime after Navi Pillay says situation in Syria is intolerable,” The Guardian, December 13, 2012.
AP, “Syria: 5,000 dead in violence, says UN human rights chief: Navi Pillay says at least 300 children are among the dead as US ambassador Susan Rice urges security council to act,” The Guardian, December 12, 2011. The article contains a video of remarks made by her at at a press conference the U.N.
“Refer Syria to ICC – Navi Pillay, ” Tamil Guardian, 13 December 2011 The article contains excerpts from her remarks to a closed session of the Security Council.
So, as Syria spirals downward toward all-out civil war, what can be done?
It is time for Western and Arab governments to stop wringing their hands over their powerlessness, and to bring a motion in the Security Council to authorize the International Criminal Court to investigate and prosecute the commission of crimes against humanity and war crimes in Syria by al-Asad and government forces, or anyone else. That motion should be put to a public vote.
The argument against going public would be that it undermines efforts to develop a consensus among the permanent members of the Security Council, without which it cannot act. However, in view of Foreign Minister Lavrov’s declarations today, as reported by the BBC, any consensus among the five on Syria is not likely to develop in the short term. In fact, to get the Russians to stop blocking action on Syria at some point in the future, public pressure on them in the Security Council now, in the context of specific reolutions, could be the most effective action the West and the Arab states could take.
At the same time, neither the Russians nor the Chinese should be ignored at the Security Council, and intense efforts should continue to bring them, and Russia in particular, to the view that avoiding a civil war in Syria is in their interests as well as those of the West and the Arab countries.
The hour has come for urgent action by the international community on Syria. If necessary, let us have a public debate in the Security Council on a motion to refer the question of crimes against humanity and war crimes to the International Criminal Court.
Western and Arab nations should spare no efforts in convincing each and every one of the other members of the Security Council of the importance of each country’s vote.
If the Russians want to veto that resolution, let them do so publicly, and pay the diplomatic and political cost. The time to act is now, before Putin’s anticipated re-election as president of Russia in March.
The Trenchant Observer
observer@trenchantobserver.com
www.twitter/trenchantobserv
Tags: AP, Arab League assistance, Arab League referral to Security Council, authoritarian regime, bbc, Beirut, diplomatic time, editorial, emir of Qatar, human cost of delay, Human Rights Council, Ian Black, Libya, Mededev, Mededev-Putin, military intervention, military intervention in Syria, Misurata, Navi Pillay, Putin, Rami Khory, real-world time, report of the Arab League monitors, Russia, Russian foreign minister, Russian ship, Russian ship with munitions, sending Arab troops to Syria, Sergei Lavrov, spirals downward toward divil war, struggle for democracy, struggle for democracy in syria, syria, Syrian free government, Syrian government proposal, Syrian National Council, Tamil Guardian, The Daily Star, The Guardian, U.N. commissioner for human rights, u.n. human rights commissioner, UN assistance to Arab League monitors, under Security Council authorization, Zawiya
Posted in Brazil, China, Crimes Against Humanity, France, Germany, History, human rights, internal supporters of human rights, International Law, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Middle East, NATO, Qatar, State Department, syria, Torture, U.N. Charter, U.N. Security Council, U.S. Intervention, U.S. Military, United Kingdom, United States, use of force, war crimes | 2 Comments »
Thursday, January 5th, 2012
The Observer has been trying to get inside President Obama’s head for over two years. Recently, he may have succeeded, or had a very strange dream, in which the following was revealed:
Obama’s 10 New Year’s Resolutions for Foreign Policy in 2012
1. Ok, I will finally try to read through the impenetrable legalese of Philip Alston’s Report to the Human Rights Council on the legality under international law of U.S. drone attacks.
2. Admitting that public international law was not my favorite course in law school—in fact I can’t remember if I even took it—I will accept State Department Legal Adviser Harold Koh’s longstanding offer to lead me in a weekly tutorial on the subject for, as Koh puts it, “as long as it takes for (me) to get it.”
3. I accept the challenge to deliver a speech based on a rewrite of my Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech in Oslo which includes the themes of “a vision of peace” and “how to get there”.
4. To make my rewrite of the Oslo speech easy for everyone to understand, I will even stop avoiding the use of the words “international law”, which should be easier after (2), if not (1).
5. I will ask Ambassador Koh to explain to me in plain English what some of these European and European-influenced international lawyers keep referring to as “dédoublement fontionnel”, which I think has something to do with the idea that nations should try to build and strengthen international law, instead of just trying to see what they can get away with. I don’t really get the point, but maybe I’ll understand better if it is spelled out in English.
6. I agree that we don’t really want to be giving a lot of money to governments who murder outspoken journalists like Syed Saleem Shahzad. I think Admiral Mullen said something about this. Dexter Filkins made a pretty compelling case that the murder was ordered by the highest officials in the Pakistani military in his New Yorker article on September 19. (Letter From Islamabad: The Journalist and the Spies–The murder of a reporter who exposed Pakistan’s secrets. The New Yorker, September 19, 2011.)
There are even reports that the Pakistani Ambassador to Washington, until recently, fears for his life in Pakistan as a result of “memogate”. But, as Richard Holbrooke used to stress, we have to deal with the Pakistanis, unsavory as that may be. I will agree to cutting U.S. aid to the military there by one half—from $1.3 billion to $650 million. Once they’ve arrested and tried the general(s) allegedly responsible for the order to murder Syed Saleem Shahzad, the other half of the aid will be restored.
7. I will enlist the CIA, with Leon Paneta’s help if necessary, in a secret program aimed at persuading the top civilian and military officials involved in Bush’s torture program to retire. Attorney General Eric Holder has concluded that none of them except a few low-level types should be prosecuted for torture, but if he has new evidence and wants to take up the issue again, I’ll let him. If other parties to the Torture Convention arrest some of these officials while they are traveling abroad, and ask us if it is OK for them to try them themselves, I’ll let the Attorney General make the call.
8. Ok, guys, I will finally issue an executive order that confirms my interpretation of U.S. laws banning torture as banning all kinds of torture, as that term is defined in the U.N. Convention Against Torture.
9. After completing (2) and (1), I will reconsider the position that U.S. citizens may be executed by drones or special commando operations without trial if they have been placed on a special targets list. I don’t really get the point about the fifth amendment language that “no citizen will be deprived of …life..without due process of law” and I don’t see how these guys can be given the right to an attorney, but I will commit to not invoking the “state secrets” doctrine to block further consideration of these issues by the courts.
10. Ok, while I think we already examined our strategy in Afghanistan in 2009, ad nauseum, I promise I will reread Ambassador Karl Eikenberry’s memos from November, 2009, for whatever that’s worth.
The Trenchant Observer
observer@trenchantobserver.com
www.twitter.com/trenchantobserv
Tags: 10, 2009, 5th amendment, Admiral Mullen, Afghanistan, al aulaqi, Ambassador, attorney general, CIA, constitution, dédoublement fontionnel, Dexter Filkins, drones, due process of law, Eric Holder, Fifth Amendment, foreign policy, foreign policy new year's resolutions, Harold Koh, how to get there, Human Rights Council, International Law, legality, Leon Panetta, new yorker, Nobel Lecture, Nobel Prize acceptance speech, obama's new year's resolutions, Oslo, Oslo speech, Pakistan, Philip Alston, public international law, right to life, September 19, State Department Legal Adviser, Syed Saleem Shahzad, The New Yorker, torture convention, U.N. Convention Against Torture, vision of peace
Posted in Afghanistan, Barack Obama, CIA, debate over the efficacy of torture, human rights, International Law, Justice Department, Middle East, NATO, Nobel Lecture, Nobel Peace Prize, Oslo, Pakistan, Pakistan military, self-defense, State Department, State Department Legal Adviser, targeted assassinations, targeted killings, Torture, U.N. Convention Against Torture, U.N. Torture Convention, U.S. Military, United States, use of force, vision of peace | No Comments »
Sunday, July 17th, 2011
Recently a number of articles have been published that are of particular interest with respect to the development and use of drones.
See
William Wan and Peter Finn, “Global race on to match U.S. drone capabilities, Washington Post, July 4, 2011
Elisabeth Bumiller and Thom Shanker, “War Evolves With Drones, Some Tiny as Bugs,” New York Times, June 19, 2011
Peter Beaumont, “Campaigners seek arrest of former CIA legal chief over Pakistan drone attacks: UK human rights lawyer leads bid to have John Rizzo arrested over claims he approved attacks that killed hundreds of people,” The Guardian, July 15.2010
Michael Tennant, “U.S. Begins Drone Strikes in Somalia,” The New American, July 14, 2011
In previous articles, The Trenchant Observer has pointed to some of the troubling issues in international law raised by the use of unpiloted aircraft or drones in situations removed from the active battlefield in an on-going armed conflict.
Now, with other countries driving to develop comparable military capabilities in the form of drones, some as tiny as bugs, the short-sightedness of U.S. military policy regarding drones has come fully into view.
Moreover, as far as is publicly known, the United States has done nothing to develop in cooperation with other countries new international legal regimes and norms that might help to control what appears to be a headlong rush toward real anarchy among the nations of the world.
President Barack Obama rarely, if ever, speaks of international law. In his Nobel Prize acceptance speech, he spoke not of international law and legal norms, but rather of international “rules” or “norms”. The words “international law” are absent from his discourse.
One consequence has been an approach to international law that can be summed up as “If I can get away with it I can do it,” a formulation that goes back to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.’s famous dictum about “the bad man theory of law”.
The system of international law is different from the domestic system in which a “bad man” might focus on the law only in terms of what he might be able to get away with. For the nations that are subject to international law are themselves the creators of the norms of international law. They are at once the legislature, the sheriff and the potential offender. This creates a dual responsibility on the part of nation states and their lawyers: They must not simply interpret international legal norms in a permissive way that allows them to do what they want, but also act to safeguard and strengthen the system of international law, and the way international legal norms wiil be interpreted by other countries. This is sometimes referred to by international lawyers as the “double-function” (or “dédoublement fonctionnel)” of international lawyers and states: in choosing a course of action they must not only seek to pursue their own short-term objectives, but also the critically-important longer-term objectives of building a viable international legal order that will contribute to their own security.
It is precisely in this area, of the obligation to build future international norms and regimes, while not weakening those that exist, that the United States has utterly failed with respect to drones. In past eras, legal regimes to prevent the use of space for military purposes, or the seabed, were developed in order to shape the future environment in which force might be employed. This the Obama administration has failed to do with respect to drones, both as a result of a very short-sighted pursuit of immediate military advantages through their use, and as a result of the fact that President Obama does not seem to understand very deeply the function of international law in safeguarding the nation’s security.
To facilitate reflection on these issues and the legality under international law of the use of drones, a review of the following articles previously published here might be useful.
See
UPDATE: Anwar al-Aulaqi: Targeted Killings, Self-Defense, and War Crimes, August 6, 2010
Targeted Killings: U.N. Special Rapporteur Alston Publishes Report to U.N. Human Rights Council, June 2, 2010
Targeted Killings by Drone Aircraft: A View From India, and Some Observations, May 20, 2010
Targeted Assassinations: Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, International Law, and Strategic Implications, February 17, 2010
U.S. Targeted Assassinations Violate Citizen’s Right to Life and Due Process, Undercut International Law
February 3, 2010
As Thomas M. Frank (1931-2009), a distinguished international lawyer and professor of international law at New York University, once observed, we should be careful whether to observe and how to interpret international law, because “the law you make may be your own.”
See Thomas M. Franck and Edward Weisband, “The Johnson and Brezhnev Doctrines: The Law You Make May Be Your Own,” Stanford Law Review, Vol. 22, pp. 979-1014 (1970).
The Trenchant Observer
www.twitter.com/trenchantobserv
Tags: acceptance speech, Afghanistan, African, allgemeinen Regeln des Völkerrechtes, Allies, American citizen, Anwar al-Aulaqi, arbitrary, armed reprisal, article 2 paragraph 4, Article 2(4), Article 25, Article 51, Artikel 25, assassins, authorization to kill, authorized to kill, Basic Law, Chase Madar, CIA, CIA drone atacks, customary international law, death warrant, dédoublement fonctionnel, Dennis C. Blair, Department of Justice, Director of National Intelligence, double function, drone, drone attacks, drones, Drones tiny as bugs, dubai, Elisabeth Bumiller, Ellen Nakashima, European, executions, extrajudicial, Federal Republic, Fifth Amendment, FRONTLINE, general principles, general rules, George Clemenceau, German Constitution, Germany, global race, Grundgesetz, guardian.co.uk, Hamas, hit squads, House Intelligence Committee, human rights, Human Rights Council, human rights law, Humanitarian Law, ICJ, India's National Magazine, International Court of Justice, International Human Rights, International Law, International Security Assistance Forces, ISAF, Israel, John Cherian, jus cogens, Latin, Latin American, law of war, lethal force, Litvinenko, Maghreb, Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, Mahmud al-Mabhuh, Michael Tennant, Mossad, NATO, New American, New York University, Nicaragua decision, Nicaragua vs. United States, Nobel Prize, North Africa, office of the legal adviser, Oslo speech, Pankaj Mishra, past actions, Paul Gimigliano, Peter Beaumont, Peter Finn, Peter Hoekstra, Peter Meaumont, Philip Alston, predator, public international law, reprisal, School of Law, self-defense, Somalia, South Asian, Special Rapporteur, Spencer S. Hsu, Stanley McCrystal, State Department, state department lawyers, summary, Tags: Anwar al-Aulaqi, targeted assassinations, targeted killings, Terrorism, terrorist activities, The Guardian, The Hindu, Thom Shanker, Thomas M. Franck, U.N., U.N. Charter, U.S. citizen, U.S. Constitution, united arab emirates, United Kingdom, United Nations, United States Foreign Relations, use of force, Viktor Yushchenko, Völkerrecht, war crime, war crimes, Washington Post, William Wan, World Court, Yemen
Posted in Afghanistan, CIA, human rights, internal supporters of human rights, International Law, NATO, Nobel Lecture, Nobel Peace Prize, Oslo, self-defense, State Department Legal Adviser, targeted assassinations, targeted killings, U.N. Charter, U.S Foreign Relations, U.S. Military, use of force | 3 Comments »