The Agreement and the Criminal Element

16 Monday Sep 2013

Posted by michelinewalker in The Middle East, United States

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?

Breaking News: a “War Crime” (Ban Ki-moon)

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

We have an Agreement, but we also have a suspected criminal. If I were Bashar al-Assad, I would respect that Agreement without further delay.

___________________________________

Sources:

– CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation)

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

– BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation)

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

http://www.bbc.com/news/?ocid=global-news-pinned-ie9

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23967669

– Syria online

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

– The Telegraph (UK)

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

etc.

– United Nations

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

Sergei Rachmaninoff (1 April 1873 – 28 March 1943)

Prelude in G minor, Op. 23, No. 5

Andre Kostelanetz and his Orchestra

September 16, 2013

WordPress

Syria on my Mind

09 Monday Sep 2013

Posted by michelinewalker in The Middle East, United States

≈ 18 Comments

Tags

a dead end, ambivalence, Asher Brown Durand, chemical weapons, Hudson River School, recent news, Russia, weapons of mass destruction

The Catskills (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In the Woods (Photo credit: Metropolitan Museum of Art)

9/11

This week, we remember the attacks of 9/11: the World Trade Centre, the Pentagon and flight 93.

I was in my office. A colleague came rushing in and pulled me to a television set. The second tower was about to crumble and, to everyone’s horror and disbelief, it did crumble. The person who had filmed the catastrophe had started filming before the attacks. Therefore, when the video was replayed, we saw the first plane hit one of the towers and then people jumping out the windows. Another plane hit the second tower. Firefighters were now on the scene and many died when the second tower crumbled.

What does one do when one loses the one person who makes a difference in one’s life?

Ironically, this year, the United States is facing another attack. It did not take place on American soil but it is a serious violation of international law.

One cannot use chemical weapons and citizens of a nation do not attempt to exterminate fellow citizens. What is happening in Syria is genocide. Those are crimes against humanity and such a matter requires the attention and intervention of a united world.

This is what I am now seeing.

The citizens of the US oppose another war in the Near East, now called the Middle East.
President Obama is demonstrating “ambivalence,” with respect to a strike. I am quoting CNN’s Gloria Borger.
There is little the United Nations can do because of the presence in its midst of powerful nations that can veto decisions that could help the Syrians. In other words, paradoxically, the UN may serve rather than hinder Assad’s regime.
Despite its debt, the US remains a superpower and possesses a formidable arsenal.

What I know is that Syria crossed the line by using chemical weapons, i.e. weapons of mass destruction.
I suspect that the wars waged during a previous administration may have been interpreted as provocation or “meddling” on the part of the Middle East.
Given that Russia supports Assad’s regime, I am tempted to say that old habits die hard, but I could be wrong.

I will therefore conclude by stating that, in my opinion, the current situation is a dead end. I cannot see just how a military engagement on the part of the US can be narrow, limited and targeted. There has to be another resolution.

However, what do I know? There is information a government cannot disclose without jeopardizing a “narrow” but possibly successful intervention in Syria.

May this be the moment when superpowers close shop? What precisely did the historical Jesus of Nazareth mean when he said “turn the other cheek,” and what is the meaning of Leo Tolstoy‘s The Kingdom of God Is Within You (first published in Germany in 1894)?

In the News

-The UN Charter

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2013/09/_the_u_n_charter_is_broken_what_should_replace_it.html

-The Reluctant Salesman

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/09/the-reluctant-salesman-how-president-obama-can-win-enough-votes-on-syria.html

-Assad: “You can expect everything.”

http://www.lemonde.fr/proche-orient/video/2013/09/09/bachar-al-assad-attendez-vous-a-tout_3473648_3218.html

-La Russie a appelé la Syrie à mettre sous contrôle international ses armes chimiques et à les détruire.

-Russia has called on Syria to put its chemical weapons under international supervision and to destroy them.

http://www.lemonde.fr/

9 September 2013

WordPress

Syria, cont’d

04 Wednesday Sep 2013

Posted by michelinewalker in The Middle East, United States

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

Aberdeen Bestiary, al-Assad, chemical weapons, interview, Le Figaro, provocation, Rwandan genocide, Syria, The Middle East, the United Nations, war as the greater evil

The Declaration of Independence, 4 July 1776, by John Trumbull, 1817 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

John Drumbull (6 June 1756 – 10 November 1843)

When I posted my previous article on Syria, I was afraid. I thought that my colleagues at WordPress would not look upon my post as a call for peace. I was wrong. Many of my WordPress colleagues also think the US should not enter into war. Banishing the use of chemical weapons can be addressed without entering into a military conflict.

However, I then watched CNN and heard many individuals express the view that America should saddle up — knights in shining armour — and enter Syria as though it were America’s mission to save the World. It is not America’s mission to save the world and I still feel the gassing to death of 1,429 Syrians by fellow Syrians could be provocation.

Provocation

Given the confidence the Syrians are expressing, I suspect they have powerful allies. It is therefore possible that the intended “narrow” intervention of a coalition led by the United States would escalate into a war and that the United States would again be seen as the “ugly American” who meddles into the affairs of the Middle East. Under Barack Obama’s Presidency, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton won diplomatic victories that should not be jeopardized.

An Illegal Act of War

It is incumbent upon the World to make sure the “criminals” who gassed to death 1,429 innocent individuals are brought to justice. “Punishing” criminals is legitimate. Nobody wants a reenactment of the Rwandan genocide. However, attacking a sovereign “nation” could be construed as an illegal act of war.

The International Community

Consequently, it remains my opinion and conviction, that the US should continue to leave the Middle East, where it has long been despised, and let the World deal with the criminal acts committed under al-Assad’s dictatorship. The World has institutions, the UN and other agencies, whose duty it is to look after such matters.

I can understand that President Obama and his administration are motivated to intervene because 1,429 innocent individuals were gassed to death near Damascus. But it could be that 1,429 innocent citizens were gassed to death so President Obama and his administration would be motivated to intervene?

All things considered and as horrible as this may sound, war is a greater evil than the despicable gassing to death of 1,429 individuals. In the event of a war, there would soon be 14,429 victims, and then 144,299 victims.

Howard Chandler Christy‘s Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States, 17 September 1787 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Howard Chandler Christy (10 January 1873 – 3 March 1952)

Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad was interviewed by France’s Le Figaro.

“President Assad: From my perspective, power lies in your ability to prevent wars not in igniting them. Power comes from ones ability to stand up and acknowledge their mistakes; if Obama was strong, he would have stood up and said that there is no evidence that the Syrian government used chemical weapons, he would have stood up and said that the right way forward is to wait for the results of the UN investigations and work through the UN Security Council. However, as I see it, he is weak because he succumbed to internal pressure from small groups and threatened military action. As I said strong leaders are those who prevent wars not those who inflame them.

Malbrunot: What do you say to members of congress whose vote will determine whether or not there will be any military action?

President Assad: Members of congress are entrusted to serve in the best interests of their country. Before they vote, they need to weigh up their decision in the interests of their own country. It is not in the interests of the US to perpetuate instability and extremism in the Middle East. It is not in their interests to continue – what George Bush started – spreading wars in the world.

If they think logically and in the interests of their country, they will not find any benefits to these wars. However many of them they have not mastered the art of logic in their political decision-making.

Malbrunot: How will you respond to these strikes, should they happen?

President al-Assad: If we think of the Middle East as a barrel of explosives close to a fire that is coming ever closer, then it becomes clear that the issue is no longer contained to a Syrian response, but rather what will happen after the first strike. The architects of the war can define the first strike – in other words they can determine what they will do, but beyond that it is impossible for anyone to predict what will follow. Once the barrel explodes, everyone loses control; nobody can determine the outcome, however what is certain is the spread of chaos, wars and extremism in all its forms everywhere.”

http://www.syriaonline.sy/?f=Details&catid=12&pageid=7073

4 September 2013

WordPress

Syria

01 Sunday Sep 2013

Posted by michelinewalker in History, The Middle East

≈ 9 Comments

Tags

Alex Colville, chemical weapons, congenital malfaesance, playing dead, provocation, Syria, The Middle East

Photo credit: The Emyoku Project and Google images

The Battle of Ager Sanguinis, 1119

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Syria: the Use of Chemical Weapons

As reported by Secretary of State John Kerry, on 21 August 2013, Syria “gassed to death” 1,429 of its citizens including 426 children. It has therefore made it imperative for the entire world to stand up and oppose the death of innocent people.

President Obama is absolutely right: “We cannot accept a world where women and children and innocent civilians are gassed on a terrible scale.”

provocation

However, I now suspect a motivation on the part of Syria to provoke the West in general and the United States in particular into entering endless hostilities, as though the Crusades had not ended. This, I believe, was provocation: see agent provocateur. Under such circumstances, the US needs to consider “playing dead.” Something has to be done, but it would be my opinion that the United States’ best option is to be part of an international mission and to address, with partners, the use of chemical weapons.[i] They kill quickly and may harm an already ailing planet.

9/11

Please remember the brutal attacks of 9/11. There had to be a response on the part of the United States. However, these attacks were perpetrated by a global terrorist organisation: Al-Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden. These attacks were not perpetrated by a nation. Therefore, President Bush’s best recourse was to track down Osama bin Laden, thereby

sparing the United States and the world two wars
while avoiding the near collapse of an economy that has gone global. He chose war and he spent trillions.

The Current Conflict

In the eyes of some US citizens, barging in to avenge the misdeeds of the Middle East might seem the “American” thing to do. Such a belief is rooted, at least in part, in the antiquated Manifest Destiny. But the truth is that the US does not have to solve the problems of the World. Moreover, I doubt that it can enter a sovereign nation. The Syrians killed 1,429 of their own people and it may well be that they were trying to provoke the West, especially the United States. However, although I suspect provocation, there was no attack on the United States. The temptation to enter Syria and punish the barbarians who killed 1,429 of their own citizens, using chemical weapons to boot, must be enormous. Yet no nation can elbow its way into another nation to teach it a lesson? The Syrians acted criminally and should face the International Court of Justice.

Negotiations

Moreover, may I suggest that one does not help those who will not help themselves. It is the duty of the embattled countries of the Middle East to put an end to their own misery. These factious nations are perfectly capable of finding their way to the negotiating table, if there is anyone left. For instance, the United States has long tried to broker a deal that would be acceptable to both the Israeli and the Palestinians. However, whatever deal has been proposed has also been opposed. So why try to resolve conflicts the belligerents themselves want to perpetuate? In the case of Syria, why should any nation punish the malfaesants who killed their own people? They may have wanted to infuriate the West, but in doing so they committed a horrible crime. They must face the consequences of this crime, but need it be war? There’s a tribunal.

Conclusion

Too intense a degree of engagement on the part of the United States in the conflicts of the Middle East would harm Americans and I doubt it would help the Middle East. I am not saying that the US should contemplate isolationism, but it would be my opinion and conviction that it should 1) continue to pull out of the Middle East, where it remains the “ugly American,” 2) let congenital belligerents face an indignant world and, 3) when a nation has acted criminally, make sure the concerned individuals are brought to trial.

I very much fear another war, the evil that followed 9/11. I’m so glad the White House is still Barack’s house.

______________________________