The Syrian Crisis & the United Nations

19 Thursday Sep 2013

Posted by michelinewalker in The Middle East

Tags

Ban Ki-moon, diplomatic solution, exceptional nations, John Kerry, Lex Talionis, retaliation, Syria, The Middle East, United Nations, Vlaldimir Putin

Vladimir Putin

(Photo credit: Valeriy Melnikov/Host Photo Agency via Getty)

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/17/mckeon-responds-to-putin-in-the-moscow-times.html

Retaliation or the Lex Talionis

Life teaches us not to let ourselves be provoked. Indignation has its place, but if someone gets angry, it is best to leave the room and let that person simmer down. Whether or not he or she is right or wrong, the first response to anger may well be to get out of harm’s way.

Retaliation, the lex talionis, an eye for an eye, is at times applicable. For instance, Assad may have to compensate the Syrian citizens who have left the country and the families of those who have been killed. However, in all likelihood, retaliation, i.e. a strike on the part of the US, would, at the moment, make matters worse.

When George W Bush entered Iraq, he entered a sovereign nation. This was a transgression. We may therefore be witnessing an instance of retaliation (lex talionis).

Using Chemical Weapons: “war Crime”

However, forces under Bashar al-Assad’s command now stand accused of a “war crime.” The use of chemical weapons, weapons of mass destruction, is a criminal violation of international law. Given that Assad’s forces killed indiscriminately 1,429 Syrian citizens using a chemical weapon, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad may have to face the International Court of Justice, at The Hague, as may Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Matters have changed

In other words, on 16 September 2013, when the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, reported that sarin gas had been used, matters changed. It is now for a united world to act. A strike on the part of the United States may no longer be the appropriate course of action.

http://webtv.un.org/watch/ban-ki-moon-syria-security-council-media-stakeout-16-september-2013/2676128008001/

US Secretary of State John Kerry

US Secretary of State John Kerry pared the problem down to the use of a chemical weapon, the “war crime.” In an “off-the-cuff” remark, John Kerry stated that if Syria put its chemical weapons under international control and destroyed them, there would not be a strike on the part of the United States. The world welcomed this idea, including Ban Ki-moon, the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

The Deal of a lifetime

In the meantime, as mentioned above, it has been determined by the United Nations that Bashar al-Assad’s forces used sarin, a chemical weapon, to kill 1,429 Syrian citizens. On 16 September 2013, Ban Ki-moon, reported that a “war crime” had been committed. If it is acceptable to the international community, Mr Kerry’s deal may be the deal of a lifetime for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. At any rate, President Assad has accepted to put his chemical weapons under international control. They will be destroyed.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/19/syria-chemical-weapons-bashar-al-assad-tv-interview

The US viewed as “exceptional”

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Fundamentally-Freund-Yes-Mr-Putin-America-is-exceptional-326415

According to Michael Freund of the Jerusalem Post, “America is truly different, both because of its principles and its performance on the world stage.” The United States has been and remains a superpower, but should the world entertain the notion that certain states are exceptional? This concept warrants serious analysis.

For one thing, the US’ status as “superpower” has been a burden on US President Barack Obama and his nation.

RELATED ARTICLES

Felix Mendelssohn (3 February 1809 – 4 November 1847)

Song without Words, opus 109

Jacqueline du Pré (cello)

Portrait of Felix Mendelssohn by the English miniaturist James Warren Childe (1778–1862), 1839

Photo credit: Wikipedia

(Please click on the image to enlarge it.)

September 18, 2013

WordPress

The Agreement and the Criminal Element

16 Monday Sep 2013

Posted by michelinewalker in The Middle East, United States

≈ 9 Comments

Tags

a war crime, Ban Ki-moon, Bashar al-Assad, chemical weapons, Professor Richard Price, the Agreement, The Middle East, the United Nations, Vladimir Putin

President Obama has exchanged letters with Iranian president

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24102915

A) Why Chemical Weapons are Taboo

Why chemical weapons are taboo, by Professor Richard Price

UBC (University of British Columbia, Canada) professor Richard Price, author of a history of chemical weapons, discusses why they’re considered so heinous with The Sunday Edition. Host Michael Enright.

http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/World/ID/2406448455/

B) Timeline

1) Assad violates an international law. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is a protégé of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

On 21 August 2013, Syria allows the wanton killing of 1,429 Syrians, including more than 400 children, using a chemical weapon: sarin. Chemical weapons are weapons of mass destruction.

2) The international community and the US are outraged. Syria “warns” that “after a strike, you can expect anything.”

By and large, United States citizens oppose a military strike on Syria. Military action, however narrow and targeted, is dangerous: “after a strike, you can expect anything.”

http://www.lemonde.fr/proche-orient/video/2013/09/09/bachar-al-assad-attendez-vous-a-tout_3473648_3218.html (in an interview, EN)

3) An agreement to put Assad’s chemical weapons under international control is reached. A dangerous strike would not be necessary. (9 September 2013)

US Secretary of State John Kerry makes an “off-the-cuff” remark. If Syria puts its chemical weapons under International Control, the matter is resolved. President Putin calls on President Bashar al-Assad to put his chemical weapons under international control and destroy them. Bashar al-Assad agrees to put his chemical weapons under international control.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/16/world/middleeast/deal-represents-turn-for-syria-rebels-deflated.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

4) Putin publishes a warning in The New York Times. (12 September 2013)

On 12 September 2013, Putin uses The New York Times to warn the US that it cannot break the law, the law being a decision not to strike by the United Nations’ Security Council. However, the Assad regime has acted criminally. Does one even vote under such circumstances?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10305483/Vladimir-Putin-warns-America-to-obey-international-law-over-Syria.html

5) However, it is the Assad regime that broke not only the law, but international law. Bashar al-Assad is now a suspected criminal and could be arrested. There is an International Court at The Hague, in the Netherlands. Let us return to 21 August 2013.

On 21 August 2013, forces under Syrian President Bashar al-Assad‘s command gassed to death 1,429 Syrian citizens using a weapon of mass destruction: a chemical weapon. Assad broke the law and Russia is backing Assad. Therefore, how can Russian President Vladimir Putin ask Americans to respect the law?

6) An Agreement has been reached, but Assad is trying to back out.

US President Barack Obama has respected the law. The US is nearly finished pulling out of the Middle East. Since 2008, President Obama and former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have done everything in their power to respect the sovereignty of the various countries of the Middle East. Current US Secretary of State John Kerry is also doing all he can to respect the sovereignty of the countries of the Middle East.

C) A Larger Threat

1. Danger: If the world allows President Bashar al-Assad to use chemical weapons, one can expect further attacks by chemical weapons.

2. Danger: In the event of a strike on the part of the United States leading a coalition, “one can expect anything.”

3. Danger: Russian President Vladimir Putin is Syria’s ally. The Syrian crisis does not begin and end in Syria. What if after a strike, Russia becomes the United States’ foe ?

4. Danger: Iran

President Obama has exchanged letters with Iranian president

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24102915

Obama’s Middle East dilemma, by Dr Marwan Al Kabalan

http://www.syriaonline.sy/?f=Details&pageid=606&catid=21

Conclusion

I still think it would be prudent on the part of the United States to insist that Assad put his chemical weapons under international supervision, at which point they will be destroyed, as he agreed to do. I have yet to exclude provocation on the part of the Assad regime. It could be that 1,429 Syrian citizens were gassed to death so the United States would feel motivated to intervene. Throughout the history of mankind, nations have killed their own people and made it seem the work of an enemy, thereby inviting hostility.

However, I still believe a strike can be avoided. There is an Agreement, and the entire world knows there is. Moreover, I am adding a new element: criminality. If there has been a crime against humanity and there is an identified suspect, what role should the Security Council play?