The Syrian Invasion

[Warren Dew]

Fucking Jimmy Carter had a better grasp on foreign policy.

To be fair, Jimmy Carter probably had a better grasp on foreign policy than Bill Clinton, as well. There were issues with his understanding of the Soviets, but he made more progress on the Middle East than all other presidents combined.

[laklak]

Well, up until that Iranian unpleasantness. Several unpleasantnesses, IIRC.

[JimC]

It would be good if this handing over of chemical weapons works. No need to lob some bombs and piss a whole lot of people off.

I agree, but I'm not sure I want Putin in charge of what happens to them...

I vote for the Germans. They would never be a party to gassing people...

Wait...

[laklak]

It would be good if this handing over of chemical weapons works. No need to lob some bombs and piss a whole lot of people off.

I agree, but I'm not sure I want Putin in charge of what happens to them...

I vote for the Germans. They would never be a party to gassing people...

Wait...

We need sober, peaceful folks to look after them. Bosnians, maybe. Or Kurds.

[Coito ergo sum]

It would be good if this handing over of chemical weapons works. No need to lob some bombs and piss a whole lot of people off.

I agree, but I'm not sure I want Putin in charge of what happens to them...

The handing over of weapons red herring was Putins way of sticking it to Obama. Kerry's gaffe gave them the opportunity. They took it. Nobody is going to be handing over anything. They just bought years of inaction on Syria.

Now, the humanitarian crisis that a week ago was intolerable can go on unabated.

[Clinton Huxley]

Aye, it's looking like Putin has kicked any punishment of his client into the long grass.

[Coito ergo sum]

Somehow, Obama makes a speech last night calling for immediate action on Syria, and at the same time calling for Congress to "delay" its vote on Syria pending resolution of this weapons hand-over.

What a joke and a half.

He doesn't want a vote on Syria in Congress, because he won't win that vote. Why would there need to be a delay in the voting? Congress can vote to AUTHORIZE force and then Obama would have that in his pocket --- comply, or I already have authority to use force.

And, he pretended that this fucking weapons handover thing was all part of the plan....

Yes, this situation is intolerable and immediate action is required! .....after a delay until I'm no longer President...

[Coito ergo sum]

Syria and chemical weapons.

Since Syria hasn't signed the chemical weapons convention, what is Obama talking about when he claims that Syria violated international law?

I mean, obviously, if Assad attacked civilians that is a violation of other international law principles, but the mere ownership of chemical weapons is not a violation, is it?

[klr]

Syria and chemical weapons.

Since Syria hasn't signed the chemical weapons convention, what is Obama talking about when he claims that Syria violated international law?

I mean, obviously, if Assad attacked civilians that is a violation of other international law principles, but the mere ownership of chemical weapons is not a violation, is it?

It bloody well should be. Those countries that have them can only be excused if they are currently trying to dispose of their stockpiles.

[Coito ergo sum]

It bloody well should be. Those countries that have them can only be excused if they are currently trying to dispose of their stockpiles.

But, the way international law works, if a country doesn't sign onto a treaty, then it's not bound by its terms. Syria never acceded to, signed or ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention. So, it isn't in violation of the chemical weapons convention.

Possessing chemical weapons is not a violation of any other international treaty to which Syria is a party, and it is not a principle of jus cogens which would be generally applicable without consent.

Maybe it "should" be, but it isn't. So, what is the issue here? What business is it of the US that Syria has such weapons, and if there is an internal civil war in Syria, what business is it of the US?

What say those who opposed either the Afghanistan or Iraq theaters of war?

EDIT: Quote tag corrected - KLR

[klr]

...

But, the way international law works, if a country doesn't sign onto a treaty, then it's not bound by its terms.

...

And that is what makes international law an ass of gigantic proportions. Individuals don't get to pick and choose what laws they want to obey. Why should countries be any different? Especially for something so important/

In this case, I would say to hell with international law. Syria has stockpiles of chemical weapons, and has stated its intent to use them in certain situations - if there is foreign military intervention, yada, yada. Chemical weapons have been used on civilians* without even that condition being met.

*Note that I did not say by whom, but if it was not by government forces, then the problem is just as bad, because it means the government is unable to keep the weapons under its control, or even account for them all.

[Coito ergo sum]

...

But, the way international law works, if a country doesn't sign onto a treaty, then it's not bound by its terms.

...

And that is what makes international law an ass of gigantic proportions. Individuals don't get to pick and choose what laws they want to obey. Why should countries be any different? Especially for something so important/

sovereignty.

In this case, I would say to hell with international law. Syria has stockpiles of chemical weapons, and has stated its intent to use them in certain situations - if there is foreign military intervention, yada, yada. Chemical weapons have been used on civilians* without even that condition being met.

*Note that I did not say by whom, but if it was not by government forces, then the problem is just as bad, because it means the government is unable to keep the weapons under its control, or even account for them all.

Iraq had chemical weapons and did not account for them all, which was part of the reason for Resolution 1445, and part of the justification for military intervention.

[klr]

...

But, the way international law works, if a country doesn't sign onto a treaty, then it's not bound by its terms.

...

And that is what makes international law an ass of gigantic proportions. Individuals don't get to pick and choose what laws they want to obey. Why should countries be any different? Especially for something so important/

sovereignty.

Bingo. That's the problem. Despite all the guff one hears about everyone having the same universal rights, sovereignty apparently overrides these. The "rights" of a nation state - which is but an artificial construct - are more important than the rights of the actual people who live in it.

In this case, I would say to hell with international law. Syria has stockpiles of chemical weapons, and has stated its intent to use them in certain situations - if there is foreign military intervention, yada, yada. Chemical weapons have been used on civilians* without even that condition being met.

*Note that I did not say by whom, but if it was not by government forces, then the problem is just as bad, because it means the government is unable to keep the weapons under its control, or even account for them all.

Iraq had chemical weapons and did not account for them all, which was part of the reason for Resolution 1445, and part of the justification for military intervention.

Indeed. "Watch this space ..."

[klr]

Syria crisis: UN report to confirm chemical arms attack

A UN report expected next week will "overwhelmingly" confirm that chemical weapons were used in Syria last month, the secretary general says.

Ban Ki-moon made no comment on who was to blame for the 21 August attack in the Ghouta area of Damascus, as that is not part of the report's remit.

But he did say Syria's president was guilty of "crimes against humanity".

The US and Russian foreign ministers are continuing their talks on a plan to make safe Syria's chemical weapons.

A spokeswoman for Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the talks with US Secretary of State John Kerry in Geneva would head into the night, adding: "They are working on some real substance."

...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24088277

[JimC]

An interesting open letter to the new Prime Minister in today's Melbourne Age:

An open letter on war to the new PM


Among the many big-picture items missing from Australia's recent election campaign was foreign policy. While Australians were voting, the United States President was seeking US congressional and international approval to launch a punitive military action against the government of Syria, which would almost certainly bring further suffering and disruption to populations in the region.

We welcomed the news that the US would hold off on a military strike because Syria has ''already agreed'' to an initiative by Russia for Damascus to hand over its chemical weapons stocks to international control. However, the danger of another disastrous military intervention persists.

The newly elected Australian government may soon have to decide whether, how and under what circumstances we would support our major ally in another armed intervention in the Middle East.

Ten years ago Australia strongly supported the US invasion of Iraq on the decision of the prime minister. We believe that on this occasion Australia should independently assess how best we can serve the interests of the people of Syria and broader international security interests.

Advertisement
There is a related, fundamentally important issue that will apply not only now in relation to Syria but every time the possibility of Australian support or involvement in military action is considered. How and by whom should a decision to send Australian troops to war be made - by the prime minister or by a broader consultative process?

We invite prime minister-elect Tony Abbott to tell the Australian people whether he believes that a prime minister should continue to have the authority to take Australia into international armed conflict on her/his own, or whether he would support a bill requiring parliamentary debate and approval before the Australian Defence Force is deployed overseas in combat.

Specifically, in relation to concerns about weapons of mass destruction, does he believe Australia should defer to the established international channels for WMD verification, monitoring and compliance?

The importance of these issues is stark. There has been no policy review of the decision made by Australia's leadership in 2003 to invade Iraq, and no inquiry into the decision-making process to draw out lessons or make recommendations for the future.

We appear now to be at risk of repeating the errors of 2003. Before the election, the Rudd government made supportive comments about US plans for a military strike against Syria, despite the absence of a report from UN weapons inspectors, and in the absence of authorisation from the UN Security Council. While Coalition comments at the time appeared to be commendably more cautious, a commitment to a proper and transparent decision-making process is lacking.

At the same time, the British Parliament has considered and rejected Prime Minister David Cameron's bid for British involvement, President Barack Obama has decided to turn to Congress to seek wider political endorsement of his planned military strike, and French President Francois Hollande has also decided to consult his parliament.

At the recent G20 summit, a majority of participating governments did not support the case for US military action in Syria without an authorising UN Security Council resolution. The situation in Britain demonstrates the valuable role of legislatures in acting as a brake on the impulsive use of executive power.

Australia's policy is particularly crucial during our current term on the UN Security Council, and our presidency of the council this month. The responsibility to respect and protect the pre-eminent role of the United Nations in examining the evidence and all possible responses to security threats and violations, weighs heavily on us.

International law states that no military action is legal unless authorised by the Security Council or in a country's own self-defence. While the crisis in Syria demands an international response, military intervention would be the most risky, destructive and costly option, and one that would make a terrible situation worse.

We urge that the lessons of 2003 be heeded, and that Australia follow the lead of the majority of our allies and major regional partners in withholding support for the course of action now being proposed by President Obama.

We also urge that parliamentary debate and approval become standard before the Australian Defence Force is deployed overseas in combat. If Parliament cannot be persuaded that Australia should be at war, then the case for authorising it is not sufficiently strong. If MHRs and senators are required to debate and vote on a case for war, they will be individually and collectively responsible for Australia's decision.

Deploying the Australian Defence Force into international armed conflict is the gravest decision a government can make. This is not a decision for a leader acting alone, nor for a leader in concert with a small group of cabinet colleagues. Australians have the right to expect that such a decision would receive the most rigorous scrutiny of all possible consequences, including humanitarian, military, legal, strategic and political, by all those elected to represent us.

This article is signed by:

Paul Barratt AO, former secretary, Department of Defence

John Menadue AO, former secretary, Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet

Malcolm Fraser, former Liberal prime minister

Professor Ian Maddocks AM, Senior Australian of the Year

Professor Peter Baume AC, former federal Liberal minister

Garry Woodard, retired ambassador

Professor Ramesh Thakur, former UN assistant secretary-general

Elizabeth Evatt AC, former judge

Kellie Merritt, widow of Flight Lieutenant Paul Pardoel, who was killed in Iraq

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/an-ope ... z2epv29YYE