Syria: The case for inaction

**John T. Fishel** · 09-07-2013

but you don't go far enough IMO. In a situation of international anarchy norms - not laws - will be enforced by those who can and have the will. If they are not enforced, the norms lose their status as norms (incidentally one of the few times I agree with my President even though I don't believe he has any intent or will to enofrce the norms he verbally champions). If the norm not to use chemical weapons is upheld by the US - not very likely at the moment - then it will be a long time before a state or leader is tempted to risk the consequenses by using them again and by extension other WMD. If, on the other hand, there is little or no cost to Assad for using chmical weapons he will likely use them again and others will be tempted to push against the limits of other treaties like the NPT and, perhaps use other unacceptable weapons.

Let me return to the prior point: All international law is ultimately consensual and enforceable only by the strong in coalition or alone. the highest legitimacy in enforceing IL against a transgressor is gained if the UNSC is able to act - that is the Great Powers agree and are joined by enogh lesser powers on the UNSC. Then, and only then, is the "law" enforced. Otherwise, a norm is enforced by one or a coalition of powers.

Cheers

JohnT

**Fuchs** · 09-07-2013

"very long"? Sorry, but this sounds like fairy tale to me.
Only ten years ago Americans invaded a neighbour of Syria under the pretence of WMDs, and still don't leave that neighbour fully alone. Syria knew this fully well and still there's now this Sarin incident.

Face it; the U.S. is not the super cop who can make all baddies cower in fear if he's just ruthless and violent enough.
That's merely the story as fed by warmongers.
---------------------------
And one power or a coalition there of cannot enforce a norm. It can only go rogue and violate a couple norms while doing so, all the while pretending to uphold some specific norm.
Vigilantism doesn't enforce laws.
---------------------------
The problem is that the United States want it both ways; it wants others to obey IL and itself not be restricted by it.

Its veto right in the UNSC is welcome when it serves U.S. policy, but when others veto a UNSC action this just gets disrespected and the weasel lawyers in Washington DC make some BS up about how blatant violation of rules is legal under some BS doctrine they just pulled out of their seat cushion.
The most natural consequence of such immature behaviour is a perpetual conflict, disrespect and hostility in the world.

There was a time when the United States helped construct IL and establish the rule of law internationally, thus helping to tame the savage wars which crippled the Western civilisation twice.
Sometime during the Cold War, this was thrown overboard, and post -'91 it became increasingly obvious that the political and cultural forces in the U.S. which disrespect obligations, rules, other countries, the UN and generally the rule of law dominated U.S. foreign policy and UK foreign policy.

It's hideous and ridiculous that the obvious pro-rule of force faction still makes up BS legal justifications for its actions.

There will be backlash again and again as long as the US/UK punish others for not obeying IL while violating it themselves at will, usually even in the act.
It's a grand strategy worthy of an eight year old school yard bully.

**Watcher In The Middle** · 09-07-2013

Not being as eloquent as most of the previous posters, just wanting to add a little more fuel of a different type to the fire:

As known:

01 The American people are not in support of "POTUS's Great Adventure". And it's not even close. The polls are showing that simple fact. It's Not Even Close

02 Congress is not on board. When leadership on both sides comes out in favor, but they're not willing to push on their membership to follow their lead, that's a 'tell' in that each member gets to make up their own mind, and so far, it's a rout.

03 The economics of this could totally blow up in our face:

According to the U.S. Treasury, foreigners now hold approximately 5.6 trillion dollars of our debt. Over the past couple of decades, the proportion of our debt owned by foreigners has grown tremendously, and today we very heavily depend on nations such as China to buy our debt.

At this point, China owns approximately 1.275 trillion dollars of our debt, and Russia owns approximately 138 billion dollars of our debt.

So what would happen if China, Russia and other foreign buyers of our debt all of a sudden quit purchasing our debt and instead started dumping the debt that they already own back on to the market?

In a word, it would be disastrous.

As has been written about previously, the U.S. government will borrow about 4 trillion dollars this year.

Close to a trillion of that is new borrowing, and about three trillion of that is rolling over existing debt.

If China and other big foreign lenders quit buying our debt and started dumping what they already hold, that would send yields on U.S. Treasuries absolutely soaring.

Better think long and hard about the economics

04 Lastly, I'm starting to wonder how much of this is really still about Syria, and how much of this has become a pissing contest between the US and Russia/China?

If it's become more about Russia/China, then POTUS needs to step back and re-assess his strategy (assuming a coherent one exists).

**Fuchs** · 09-07-2013

The bond interest rate concern is bogus.

The interest rates may rise, but they are bound to rise from almost nothing to something sooner or later anyway.

I doubt that foreigners could/would stop buying U.S. treasury bonds and cause rates to rise significantly beyond said "something" for a meaningful duration.

The system is rigged and rigid enough to prevent that.

The Federal Reserve bank already keeps the interest rates close to zero with its policies, and it can continue with this racket.

The foreign powers such as the PRC cannot simply cut off this kind of capital stream without serious repercussions.
Capital export = goods and services export + transfers.

The Chinese lend USD to the USA so the very same USD can be used to purchase the Chinese export surplus with the USA.
They may stop to lend USD to the U.S.government, but it would need to still lend USD to some Americans, or else they couldn't pay the net imports with them. And it's not important whether the Chinese lend the money to the US gov directly or through some intermediates. In the end, the Chinese can only maintain their trade (and thus their industry, employment, postponing of social conflicts et cetera) if they keep lending.

**John T. Fishel** · 09-08-2013

is more than a little skewed, Fuchs. Go back to 1648 in the Germanies. The end of the 30 years war created the world that we know today, only slightly modified. The world is Westphalian (Realist in Hans Morgenthau's term) with some modification brought about by Wilsonian Idealism (but damned little). The critical fact about the Wilsonian institution of the UN is that the UNSC reflects Realist view of the world. In many ways, the UNSC is the Concert of Europe expanded to include China. But for the Wilsonian vision to work the Great Powers must agree. When they don't, the biggest dogs will act and will be driven by their own interests whether seen narrowly or expansively. Ranting against the US and UK has as much utility as King Canute ordering the tide to stop rising - well perhaps a little more because those democracies (and a few others) sometimes listen to their critics. Try ranting against Putin's Russia or the PRC if you want to see what Canute was really up against.

As i said in an earlier post, IL is a weak reed to lean on. It ain't domestic law; in fact it isn't even law in the sense that law exists in all nation-states. It is a set of consensual norms made up of treaties (that apply only to signatories), regulations established by organizations created by those treaties, and customary behavior. No IL can be enforced against a state without either its consent or the power of a major state power or 2 or 5 or 9.If IL must be enforced by a major power(s) it will be done by an act or acts of war. That is true whether it is done with UNSC sanction or not.

Here is a little something to think about: Between 1933 and 1939 the League of Nations remained a functioning organization and Britain and France were Great Powers. In 1936, the Leader of Germany (another Great Power) flouted the treaty that ended the Great War and remilitarized the Rhineland in violation of international law; the other Great Powers did nothing. In 1938 Germany annexed Austria and threatened Czechoslovakia. Britain and France responded with the Munich Agreement for "peace in our time." In 1939 Germany invade Poland (incidentally in violation of IL just as in all the other cases) only this time Britain and France upheld their treaty and IL but it was nearly too late -especially because the other real Great Power, Russia (the USSR) had a non-aggression pact with Germany and opted to seize half of Poland for herself. And the other Great Powers - Japan was busy trying to carve up China and the US couldn't be bothered! The League Council (like the UNSC) was paralyzed and had been so since 1931 when Japan invaded China through Manchuria. Note that all of this took place outside of or in violation of IL. What does this ancient history have to do with today? If IL is not enforced by "acts of war" that are relatively small, the next act of war is likely to be a hell of a lot bigger and a hell of a lot more destructive. Oh, as Saint Carl suggested, the outcome of war is never certain. And, I would add, the outcome of a big war is far less certain with much greater consequences than the outcome of a small one. (I use small here in both its literal and Small Wars meaning.)

On that note,
Cheers

JohnT

**Fuchs** · 09-08-2013

Nice analogy, so befitting of Godwin's law.

There's a problem, though: Think about which country is a serial offender in regard to aggressions and bullying lately.

Sometimes the U.S. government is really not the solution to our problems; it is part of the problem.

It's still ridiculous and takes a lot of Kool-aid to think of the U.S. government as enforcing international rules. The hypocrisy-meter exploded long ago.

And one note to you and others here; the lowest respect for International Law among internet users can reliably be found amongst Americans. Other nationalities tend to be much more willing to give it a chance by respecting it more.
The problem isn't a lack of enforcement as you imply. The problem is a lack of respect. Some people have difficulties with this concept, but it really is possible to respect something without being threatened into it.

Again; try to understand your bunch is a major part of the problems in IL, not a major part of any solutions to problems in IL.

----------------

The good side of this all is probably that -lead by the lower chamber of the UK's parliament - the renewed age of racket interventions is probably nearing its end, with popular majorities finally reigning in on the warmongering through their representatives.

**John T. Fishel** · 09-08-2013

Fuchs--

One reason that small powers, medium powers, and former Great Powers fall back on IL is that they do not have the tools to enforce the norms they want to see enforced and IL is one of the few tools left. As someone else pointed out, this crisis - if it is indeed a crisis - is a conflict between the real Great Powers and their allies. The actual protagonists in the Syria case are the US and Russia along with Iran and their allies with the US unable to make a solid case to convince its allies that there is a real threat. Our President can't even convince his own countrymen so it is no wonder he can't convince a "hard head" like you!

In any case, my point stands: for "law" to be LAW it must be enforced. To be enforced, there must be agencies to enforce it. In the international community the only such agency is one or more of the Great Powers whether collectively in the UNSC or individually or in ad hoc coalitions.

Cheers

JohnT

**JMA** · 09-08-2013

Germany Joins US in Blaming Assad for Attack
http://goo.gl/pRgXZh

Not a surprise that Germany was the only European G-20 member not to sign the joint statement at the time... they needed time to seek permission fro their boss in the Kremlin.

German Energy Dependence on Russia
http://goo.gl/Tw70Hy

With Germany rapidly becoming a vassal state of Russia it surely poses a real threat to NATO and sovereignty of the EU.

So with Germany fingering Assad for the attack it surely signals a move in position of Russia on the matter?

**Ulenspiegel** · 09-08-2013

JMA,

your second article is really nice propaganda. It confirms again my opinion that the nuclear industry could learn a lot from NG producers.

1) A pipeline ties a producer to certain consumers, the disadvantages in a time with large amount of LNG on the spot market should be clear and were predicted around 2005. BTW Russia has only energy resources as export products, therefore, the dependencies are more complex. The new pipeline takes pressure from Russia, as Belorussia or Poland can not threaten the supply to central Europe any longer. Russia does not have the ability to change their customers on short notice, as her LNG prodcution capacity is very low and construction of alternative pipelines takes long.

2) The electricity production in Germany used 2012 14% less NG than 2011. NG can at the current price level easily be substituted with hard coal or lignite. Hard coal is available from the USA were shale gas substituted for coal. People often confuse power and energy. A high level of NG power capacity in a reneable scenario does not mean high full load hours of the power plants. :-)

3) The assumptions in respect to the energiewende are not convincing. In the field of electricity production it runs better than expected. I would read the publications of the German lignite producers (Braunkohleverband), they draw a different picture: NG and hard coal will come under severe pressure after 2022 when the decommission of NPPs does not longer compensate for increased production from RE. The trend of NG consumption for heating is also downwards.

**Ulenspiegel** · 09-08-2013

JMA,

your second article is really nice propaganda. It confirms again my opinion that the nuclear industry could learn a lot from NG producers.

1) A pipeline ties a producer to certain consumers, the disadvantages in a time with large amount of LNG on the spot market should be clear and were predicted around 2005. BTW Russia has only energy resources as export products, therefore, the dependencies are more complex. The new pipeline takes pressure from Russia, as Belorussia or Poland can not threaten the supply to central Europe any longer. Russia does not have the ability to change their customers on short notice, as her LNG prodcution capacity is very low and construction of alternative pipelines takes long.

2) The electricity production in Germany used 2012 14% less NG than 2011. NG can at the current price level easily be substituted with hard coal or lignite. Hard coal is available from the USA were shale gas substituted for coal. People often confuse power and energy. A high level of NG power capacity in a reneable scenario does not mean high full load hours of the power plants. :-)

3) The assumptions in respect to the energiewende are not convincing. In the field of electricity production it runs better than expected. I would read the publications of the German lignite producers (Braunkohleverband), they draw a different picture: NG and hard coal will come under severe pressure after 2022 when the decommission of NPPs does not longer compensate for increased production from RE. The trend of NG consumption for heating is also downwards.