US & Syria - What drives Kerry?

[kenberg]

Ah yes, I was just visiting the grandkids. The twins, age 9, certainly agreed that Kerry did not know what he was talking about. . Joe, who will be 4 next week, is still a bit uninformed. But he's an American kid, so what can you expect?

[Aberlour10]

Ken, maybe I should not use this ironic-mode in my posting above but Kerry's statement is so ridiculous....

[kenberg]

Actually I am fine with your phrasing. I won't hold you to proving it literally. I just couldn't resist a little riffing.

 

It reminded me of a scene from Bachelor Mother, an old Ginger Rogers film, where she got backed into claiming her six month old could talk.

 

As to knowledge, I am not a greatly informed American but I pay some attention. I am absolutely not equipped to debate the structure of various rebel groups in Syria, or anywhere.

[blackshoe]

But it makes no sense to pretend that security can be had by force.

It makes no sense to pretend that security can be had without force, either.

[blackshoe]

My view is that sovereignty is not absolute. There are international laws that apply to all governments. The role of an international police force is to ensure that those laws are enforced.

My understanding is that the US has never given up any of its sovereignty to the UN. As for "international law" that's a different class of object than the laws with which most people are familiar. International law is sort of like a set of "gentlemen's agreements", to which nations adhere, or not, as they see fit. There are a lot of people who would like things to be different, who would like the UN to be a true world government, but it ain't. Not yet.

[Trinidad]

My understanding is that the US has never given up any of its sovereignty to the UN. As for "international law" that's a different class of object than the laws with which most people are familiar. International law is sort of like a set of "gentlemen's agreements", to which nations adhere, or not, as they see fit. There are a lot of people who would like things to be different, who would like the UN to be a true world government, but it ain't. Not yet.

There are these things called treaties, conventions, charters and declarations that have signatures at the end of the document.

 

An example of such a document is the Charter of the United Nations. The USA have put their signature at the end of that document in 1945. One of the articles in this charter is article 25:

 

The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.

 

These are not "gentlemen's agreements". These are contracts. As a consequence, decisions of the UN Security Council are binding, also for the USA. That means that the USA has legally given up some of its sovereignty to the UN Security Council.

 

Every time you sign an agreement, you give up some of your sovereignty. The fact that -in practice- it is hard to enforce some of those agreements, particularly on countries with powerful armed forces, does not change that.

 

Rik

[Winstonm]

It makes no sense to pretend that security can be had without force, either.

 

Security is an illusion. What is crazy is to think it is an attainable goal.

[kenberg]

As far as I know, the Security Council has not made any decision regarding Syria.

 

My earlies recollection of Security Council actions goes back to 1950, I woke up one morning to find that North Korea had crossed into South Korea, and that the U.S. had brought the matter to the United Nations Security Council. Action by the United Nations was authorized, and many nations sent troops to back up the action of the Security Council. I was only eleven at the time, but still I am really pretty certain that the Soviet Union did not send troops to fight, or at least they did not send troops to fight on the side of the United Nations.

 

No doubt there will not be any Security Council action on Syria, so Russia will not be obligated to send any troops.

[PassedOut]

As far as I know, the Security Council has not made any decision regarding Syria.

 

My earlies recollection of Security Council actions goes back to 1950, I woke up one morning to find that North Korea had crossed into South Korea, and that the U.S. had brought the matter to the United Nations Security Council. Action by the United Nations was authorized, and many nations sent troops to back up the action of the Security Council. I was only eleven at the time, but still I am really pretty certain that the Soviet Union did not send troops to fight, or at least they did not send troops to fight on the side of the United Nations.

 

No doubt there will not be any Security Council action on Syria, so Russia will not be obligated to send any troops.

The United Nations and the Korean War

 

The actual invasion of the South by the North took place on June 25th 1950. The Security Council of the United Nations met the same day. The Russian delegation to the Security Council did not attend the meeting as they were boycotting the United Nations for recognising Chiang Kai-shek’s government in Taiwan as the official government for China whilst ignoring Mao’s communist regime in Beijing. Therefore, the obvious use of the veto (which it is assumed the USSR would have used in this case) did not occur.

 

At the meeting, America claimed that North Korea had broken world peace by attacking South Korea. America called on North Korea to withdraw to the 38th Parallel. Nine out of the eleven countries in the Security Council supported this view. Russia was absent and one abstained.

Since then, Russia has not been boycotting the UN.

[kenberg]

Yes, I remember how it happened. Truman was given the credit for realizing that there was this opportunity to avoid a Soviet veto.

 

But I was responding to the legal argument that we must "accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council". Legalistic arguments get legalistic responses. We are required to carry out decisions of the Security Council. If the Security Council makes no decision, there is no obligation to carry out a non-decision.

Actually, I am not simply being legalistic. "Obligated to act to carry out Security council decisions" is quite different from "Obligated to not act without Security Council authorization". Presumably they said what they meant when the wrote it. I seriously doubt that we, or the Soviets, or the Brits or the French, would have agreed to "obligated to not act without Security Council authorization". At any rate, they were not asked to agree to that. They agreed to act to carry out decisions when the Security Council took action, that's all they agreed to.

[PassedOut]

At any rate, they were not asked to agree to that. They agreed to act to carry out decisions when the Security Council took action, that's all they agreed to.

No doubt about that. Agreeing to work together toward common objectives is not the same as giving away the right to pursue one's own objectives. The fact that I accept the legitimacy of the local police force does not mean that I've given up my right to self-defense or that I believe that the police always get it right.

 

My opinion is that it is in the long-term interest of the US to refrain from acting as the unelected police force of the world. But in a situation like the 9/11 attacks, for example, I totally agree that it was correct for the US to go after bin Laden and his training camps in Afghanistan and clean them out without asking the UN.

 

The correct course after 9/11 was to do that and only that and then come right back home. Had the US president taken his head out of his rear and done just that, we'd be in a much better position today.

 

Just saw this in the NY Times: Brutality of Syrian Rebels Posing Dilemma in West

 

As the United States debates whether to support the Obama administration’s proposal that Syrian forces should be attacked for using chemical weapons against civilians, this video, shot in April, joins a growing body of evidence of an increasingly criminal environment populated by gangs of highwaymen, kidnappers and killers.

 

The video also offers a reminder of the foreign policy puzzle the United States faces in finding rebel allies as some members of Congress, including Senator John McCain, press for more robust military support for the opposition.

And it's not as though Assad is not Syrian.

Edited September 5, 2013 by PassedOut

[kenberg]

I largely agree with this. I most seriously wish Obama had never said "Assad must go" and I wish he had never said anything about lines of various colors. From the time of the campaign in 2008 I have been unenthusiastic about Obama's speeches. I didn't hear the much praised one in 2004, but I am always skeptical when I hear such extraordinary praise for a speech. The man is far too fond of his own voice and far too confident that whatever he says will happen actually will happen. And now we are in a jam. I get the sense that the movement is toward a much more muscular strike. As I mentioned, jokingly, there are high level discussions regarding Richard's earlier post. But not jokingly, a three day in and out sounded stupid. And the out part is always harder than the in part.

 

Whatever we do, I think this will be a change in how Obama is seen. Not a change he will enjoy.

[ArtK78]

The issue here is not whether we want to or need to take sides. The issue here is the use of chemical weapons.

 

It appears that the US has sided with the rebels, but this is an uneasy alliance at best. As time passes, it becomes more clear that the rebels do not represent what is "right" in Syria (if anything is) and also do not share the objectives of the US. I would not be the least bit surprised if the rebels would be just as anti-American and anti-US interests as the Assad regime if the rebels were to gain power. So, the bottom line is that this is a no-win situation for the US as far as the civil war in Syria is concerned.

 

But, again, that is not the issue.

 

The man is far too fond of his own voice and far too confident that whatever he says will happen actually will happen.

Ken, in reading your posts, I thought you were above this type of unsupported characterization. I always read your posts as representing a voice of reason in a Forum often lacking reason. I am disappointed.

 

I assume that you have not had personal conversations with President Obama or those close to him which would support your assessment of his being "far too fond of his own voice."

 

If Mr. Obama were indeed "far too fond of his own voice" then I would expect him to be making far more formal addresses to Congress and to the nation than he does. His major speeches have been few and far between.

 

As for the rest of that sentence, I would hope that President Obama has confidence in obtaining his objectives but also skepticism of his ability to get his way by merely stating what he wants. His dealings over the last 4 1/2 years with Congress and the international community should provide him with ample evidence that he can't get his way by merely stating what he wants.

[blackshoe]

That means that the USA has legally given up some of its sovereignty to the UN Security Council.

Well, no. We have, as someone pointed out upthread, veto power over any decision of the UNSC. A decision that has been vetoed is no decision at all. It didn't happen.

 

There are many treaties the US has not signed precisely because it would require giving up some of our sovereignty (or because they directly conflict with the US Constitution, for example the Paris Accords of, I think, 1856, which "abolished" the issuance of letters of marque and reprisal).

[blackshoe]

My opinion is that it is in the long-term interest of the US to refrain from acting as the unelected police force of the world. But in a situation like the 9/11 attacks, for example, I totally agree that it was correct for the US to go after bin Laden and his training camps in Afghanistan and clean them out without asking the UN.

 

The correct course after 9/11 was to do that and only that and then come right back home. Had the US president taken his head out of his rear and done just that, we'd be in a much better position today.

With this I wholeheartedly agree.

[kenberg]

 

Ken, in reading your posts, I thought you were above this type of unsupported characterization. I always read your posts as representing a voice of reason in a Forum often lacking reason. I am disappointed.

 

I assume that you have not had personal conversations with President Obama or those close to him which would support your assessment of his being "far too fond of his own voice."

 

If Mr. Obama were indeed "far too fond of his own voice" then I would expect him to be making far more formal addresses to Congress and to the nation than he does. His major speeches have been few and far between.

 

As for the rest of that sentence, I would hope that President Obama has confidence in obtaining his objectives but also skepticism of his ability to get his way by merely stating what he wants. His dealings over the last 4 1/2 years with Congress and the international community should provide him with ample evidence that he can't get his way by merely stating what he wants.

 

Of course, to be fair, I find most politicians very difficult to listen to. Here I will confine myself to Syria. "Assad must go". Must he? I prefer that my president, whatever his name or party, not say such things lightly. We have plans? Well, he went out of his way to explain the limited nature and objectives of the strike. The use of chemical weapons is a red line? Well, maybe. But it's a vague statement. Some sort of a red line. I suppose the National Security Council has people who contemplated in advance that chemical weapons might be used. Assad has large stocks of such weapons and not much of a sense of restrant, so surely they planned for this. But it has the look of a very ad hoc operation.

 

The Middle East is a mess, we all know that, and no one should have high expectations of any diplomatic initiative there. It would be good for rhetoric to reflect this reality.

[Winstonm]

A viable solution: at last

Poll: Majority Of Americans Approve Of Sending Congress To Syria

[Chas_P]

A viable solution: at last

 

With Generalissimo Obama as the commanding officer on the ground?

[Trinidad]

Actually, I am not simply being legalistic. "Obligated to act to carry out Security council decisions" is quite different from "Obligated to not act without Security Council authorization". Presumably they said what they meant when the wrote it. I seriously doubt that we, or the Soviets, or the Brits or the French, would have agreed to "obligated to not act without Security Council authorization". At any rate, they were not asked to agree to that. They agreed to act to carry out decisions when the Security Council took action, that's all they agreed to.

Well, article 25 is not the only article in the charter. There is a whole chapter (chapter VI) devoted to the pacific settlement of disputes that they all agreed to. This chapter starts with article 33 sub 1:

 

The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.

 

I don't think one can really say that the USA has sought a solution by negotiation, mediation, arbitration or anything similar to solve their dispute with Syria.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

What dispute? We don't have a "dispute" with Syria. Obama just doesn't like what Assad is doing to his own people.

[ArtK78]

There is a principal at work here, and it has obvious broader applications.

 

If Assad is allowed to gas his own people, in violation of nearly universal condemnation of the use of chemical agents in warfare, what is to prevent Iran or North Korea from employing nuclear weapons?

 

The US cannot allow the use of chemical weapons to pass without action.

[kenberg]

I earlier asked for help in checking my memory. This time I looked it up.

 

http://en.wikipedia....weapons_program

 

Don't get me wrong on this. I would like to do something about the use of chemical weapons. But I believe that historically we have let it pass without action. Well, you could say we invaded Iraq, and in fact I do recall that Iraq's use of chemical weapons was brought up at the time as part of the justification, but it was a bit late and justifications changed daily.

 

Maybe someone can refresh my memory, but I don't much recall anyone saying or doing much about the Iraqi use of chemical weapons in its 1980s war with Iran. I always presumed Reagan's attitude toward Iraqis and Iranians killing each other was "Remind me again why this is bad". The 80s were in fact the time of our famous "tilt toward Iraq".

 

Can we in fact do something good?

 

A mildly hopeful view from David Ignatiius

http://www.washingto...f8ef_story.html

 

A more pessimistic view from the military

http://www.washingto...b3a8_story.html

 

And very reluctant support from a conservative

http://www.washingto...f8ef_story.html

 

 

If anyone thinks that the answer here is obvious, well I don't. I am no military genius or foreign policy genius, but really I don't think three days of cruise missiles will impress anyone with out determination. The serious support for action seems to quite honestly be pessimistic about the outcome, but insist that we must do something. Maybe so. I hope that someone smarter than I am is thinking this through.

[ArtK78]

I earlier asked for help in checking my memory. This time I looked it up.

 

http://en.wikipedia....weapons_program

 

Don't get me wrong on this. I would like to do something about the use of chemical weapons. But I believe that historically we have let it pass without action. Well, you could say we invaded Iraq, and in fact I do recall that Iraq's use of chemical weapons was brought up at the time as part of the justification, but it was a bit late and justifications changed daily.

 

Maybe someone can refresh my memory, but I don't much recall anyone saying or doing much about the Iraqi use of chemical weapons in its 1980s war with Iran. I always presumed Reagan's attitude toward Iraqis and Iranians killing each other was "Remind me again why this is bad". The 80s were in fact the time of our famous "tilt toward Iraq".

 

Can we in fact do something good?

 

A mildly hopeful view from David Ignatiius

http://www.washingto...f8ef_story.html

 

A more pessimistic view from the military

http://www.washingto...b3a8_story.html

 

And very reluctant support from a conservative

http://www.washingto...f8ef_story.html

 

 

If anyone thinks that the answer here is obvious, well I don't. I am no military genius or foreign policy genius, but really I don't think three days of cruise missiles will impress anyone with out determination. The serious support for action seems to quite honestly be pessimistic about the outcome, but insist that we must do something. Maybe so. I hope that someone smarter than I am is thinking this through.

Citing Ronald Reagan as precedent is not a very compelling argument.

[Trinidad]

What dispute? We don't have a "dispute" with Syria. Obama just doesn't like what Assad is doing to his own people.

Even more so. If you are not supposed to attack a country that you have a dispute with do you think that you are supposed to attack a country that you don't even have a dispute with?

 

But I get it now. The USA don't attack other countries over a dispute. They just do it as a hobby and to make the President's resume look good.

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

It seems that the USA are calming down.

 

Kerry seems to have told his European allies that he wants to wait for the UN report before they decide on a strike against Syria. That is very sensible.

 

To be honest, I thought that this was Obama's reason to ask for approval from Congress. It buys the time that the UN inspectors need for their report.

 

And if that report concludes that Assad is responsible for a gas attack, Obama will have a large part of the world in favor of some sort of strike.

 

Rik