Syria: The case for inaction

[Tukhachevskii]

Fuchs, you miss the point totally (either deliberately or inadvertently).

This is about enforcing the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons which is especially important when a country which has refused to sign on to the convention uses these weapons on a repeated and escalating basis.

And who exactly, has used them? That chemical weapons were deployed has been proven. WHO deployed them has not. Jumping the gun as usual, JMA.

Recently John Kerry used Kosovo as a precedent. Given that the response by NATO was exactly what the KLA wanted when they initiated their pseudo-operations is often forgotten (as is the fact that Kosovo is now run by said criminals); specifically the targeting of civilians by the KLA to prod the Serbs (who by then had become "bad guy #1" in the Western imaginary). This connection is rather fitting becuae there are now reports that some of the Syrian insurgents (yes, [Assad's] Syria proper is fighting a counter-insurgency) were trained by the KLA. Poetic no?

Before that our esteemed political wise men were "willingly" duped over Bosnia too. See also here for the lamentable manner in which sloppy "western" journalists were co-opted by their largely Muslim translators, the corporate media machine and the psuedo-neutral UN.

This whole affair smells a lot like a giant steaming pile of hugger-mugger, confused "interests" (loosely defined as usually nothing more than domestic egoism cloaked in "moral outrage") and downright stupidity......

[davidbfpo]

I was surprised no-one at the G20 Summit asked their host did Russia go to the UNSC before it attacked Georgia? Ah well it was diplomacy in action, so such questions are not asked, even thought of.

Since 1945 I am sure the vast majority of nation-state coercive actions against other nation-states have not gone to the UNSC. Yes, the UNSC has often got involved,with diplomacy and sometimes a 'peacekeeping' fog, sorry role has commenced.

[Tukhachevskii]

Debate: Does The U.S. Have A Dog In The Fight In Syria?

[JMA]

And who exactly, has used them? That chemical weapons were deployed has been proven. WHO deployed them has not. Jumping the gun as usual, JMA.

5 days ago I posted this:

http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...0&postcount=34

Listen son, the rule is if you want to take a cheap shot at least get your facts straight.

[John T. Fishel]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Tukhachevskii]

Listen son, the rule is if you want to take a cheap shot at least get your facts straight.

Had I been your son I wouldn't have been for long.


Debunking Obama’s Chemical Weapons Case Against the Syrian Government

Syrians from the town of Ghouta – the site of the chemical attack – tell a very different story from the one being told by the US government. Residents provide very credible testimony that “certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the dealing gas attack.” What makes such testimony even more compelling is that it comes from anti-Assad Syrians, many of whom have seen their children die fighting Assad’s forces. One of the Ghouta residents described his conversations with his son, a fighter tasked with carrying the chemical weapons for the Nusra Front jihadi group, who spoke of Saudi-supplied weapons being unloaded and transported. His son later was killed, along with 12 other rebels, inside a tunnel used to store weapons.

[Dayuhan]

Debunking Obama’s Chemical Weapons Case Against the Syrian Government

I don't find this story particularly credible, for a whole raft of reasons. Official accounts certainly deserve skepticism, but the multiplicity of unofficial accounts deserve at least equal skepticism.

I also don't find the legal arguments to be terribly persuasive. Maybe I'm just an American neanderthal, but we all know the UNSC is inutile and "international law" is unenforceable and thus too abstract to be of any real utility. I'd have no issues at all with action without UN authorization IF there was a truly compelling US interest at stake, if the goal was clear, practical, and achievable, if there was a clear plan in place for controlling escalation when the other side calls the bluff, and if the risk/reward and cost/benefit equations justified action.

My problem with the whole proposal is that I don't see any of these criteria being met.