This is the weekly selection of news and opinion from sources outside the American mainstream media. Today's topic is Syria. As the US prepares to take international law into its own hands (again) and as neocons bang the drums for deeper involvement (again), some saner voices are now being heard. Sources include The Religious News Service and L'Osservatore Romano.
PeaceTeam.NET , has set up an action page: After all the preaching we have heard coming out of the White House this week about "international norms", nothing would violate those norms more than a unilateral US strike. To do so would forever discredit the whole concept of international law, and would counter-productively endorse the idea of other countries taking their own solo "enforcement" actions anytime they please as well. The fact remains that we have absolutely no right to take international law into our own hands.
A MoveOn.org poll showed 73% of its membership opposed to the bombing of Syria. Win Without War, CREDO Action, MoveOn.org, Progressive Change Campaign Committee, and USAction are organizing hundreds of vigils around the country, urging local legislators to vote against the authorization for use of US military force in Syria. The vigils will be held Monday September 9.
The Religion News Service reported on Thursday of Pope Francis' appeal to the world leaders gathered at the G-20 summit in Russia. He told them that a military intervention in Syria would be “futile,” urging them to focus instead on dialogue and reconciliation to bring peace to the war-torn country....Francis took the unusual step of penning a letter to world leaders ahead of a global day of fasting and prayer for peace in Syria that Catholics will observe on Saturday (Sept. 7). Francis will preside a marathon five-hour vigil in St. Peter’s Square, and the Vatican has invited believers of all faiths and even nonbelievers to join in in whichever way they see fit. To reinforce the pope’s peace effort, on Thursday the Vatican also briefed ambassadors from some 70 countries on its position on the Syrian conflict. The Vatican’s foreign minister, Archbishop Dominique Mamberti, explained that the church’s major concern is “stopping violence” and that any future peace plan must ensure that the rights of minorities, including Christians, are protected. In his letter to world leaders gathered in St. Petersburg, Francis wrote that so far “one-sided interests have prevailed and in fact hindered the search for a solution” to the Syrian conflict.
On Sunday September 1, Pope Francis appealed for peace at the Angelus in St. Peter's Square. ...in these days my heart is deeply wounded in particular by what is happening in Syria and anguished by the dramatic developments which are looming....With utmost firmness I condemn the use of chemical weapons: I tell you that those terrible images from recent days are burned into my mind and heart. There is a judgment of God and of history upon our actions which are inescapable! Never has the use of violence brought peace in its wake. War begets war, violence begets violence. With all my strength, I ask each party in this conflict to listen to the voice of their own conscience, not to close themselves in solely on their own interests, but rather to look at each other as brothers and decisively and courageously to follow the path of encounter and negotiation, and so overcome blind conflict. With similar vigour I exhort the international community to make every effort to promote clear proposals for peace in that country without further delay, a peace based on dialogue and negotiation, for the good of the entire Syrian people. The complete text of the Pope's earlier appeal of September 1 is given in the L'Osservatore Romano.
Showing posts with label international law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label international law. Show all posts
Monday, September 9, 2013
Saturday, August 31, 2013
Saturday Round-Up August 31, 2013
This is the weekly selection of news and opinion from sources outside the US mainstream media. Today's subject is the potential US military intervention in Syria. Sources are The Guardian, Oxfam America, and The Nation.
The Obama Administration is scrambling to define a position justifying a potential strike on Syria for the alleged use of chemical weapons by that country's security forces. There is no such justification for any unilateral, "a deux" or "coalition of the willing" military action. Two bodies are already established to try and punish perpetrators of international crimes - the International Court of Justice (United Nations) and the International Criminal Court established by the Rome Statute of 2002.
The Guardian reported on Thursday on the UK Parliament's vote against support for a United States airstrike on Syria. The vote was 285-272 with many of PM Cameron's coalition joining Labour in opposition. Asked by Labour leader Ed Miliband for an assurance that he would not use the royal prerogative to sanction British involvement in the military action, the prime minister told MPs: "I can give that assurance. ...it is clear to me that the British parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that and the government will act accordingly."
On Wednesday, prior to the vote, Guardian columnist Martin Kettle wrote: After two years in which, tragically, the world has been unable to prevent Syria's catastrophe deepening ever further, the Cameron government is suddenly in a hurry to act. Partly this is because of the outrageous use of chemical weapons in Syria. But it is also because the US administration, having boxed itself in about responding to such horrors, now summons Britain to give support. But would the Obama administration, elected to end the war in Iraq and anxious to end the one in Afghanistan, really want to engage in Syria, even to the extent of an arm's-length bombing campaign, without either UN support or major international allies? ...It is arguable that a vote in the UK parliament could stay Washington's hand from a politically controversial, premature strike that would raise massive issues of legitimacy.
On Friday, a Guardian editorial praised the action of the MP's, noting: There is no evidence that British public opinion has turned isolationist. There is plenty of evidence that it is fed up with the debilitating post 9/11 years of national sacrifice, with the humiliating excesses of US national security policy (not least its abuses of human rights and surveillance), with the unequal burden-sharing among allies and, above all, with the failures of policy. Iraq casts a very long, very dark shadow. As a result, right from the start of its spiralling civil war, Syria has felt like a sacrifice too far. When the latest call to arms came, though it came from a respected American president and was provoked by clearly intolerable war crimes, the answer was a clear one. Enough.
Addressing the plight of Syrians caught in middle of this civil war, Oxfam America condemns the attacks but makes a powerful case against military intervention: Over more than two years of fighting, more than 100,000 lives have been lost and millions of people are in need of immediate humanitarian aid. It has been especially devastating for children: just last week, the UN announced that one million Syrian children are now refugees. Many have seen their homes bombed, their schools reduced to rubble, their communities destroyed. The military intervention currently being debated will not – and is not aimed at – stopping the violence or helping these families start to rebuild. Instead of focusing on military options and arming the parties involved, President Obama, President Putin and other world leaders should intensify peaceful efforts to end the conflict, before Syria is destroyed and the region made even more unstable.
Finally, The Nation makes another powerful case against military intervention in an editorial. After pointing out the illegitimacy of a US military attack without UN Security Council approval and the Administration's obligation to seek congressional authorization for such action, the editorial lists practical and humanitarian reasons to be opposed to military action: On the practical level, there is little chance that limited airstrikes will have much deterrent effect on a ruthless regime that sees itself as engaged in an existential struggle for survival...It would make the United States a direct participant in what has become a regional sectarian conflict, further destabilizing Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and Turkey...On the humanitarian level, there is a strong chance that US airstrikes, no matter how “surgical,” will kill innocent civilians...[and] could worsen what is already a disastrous refugee crisis. Instead of military action, The Nation editorial calls for the United States to vastly increase aid to the 1.9 million refugees who have flooded across the country’s borders and join Russia in its effort to renew the Geneva negotiations. The editorial concludes that Moscow and Washington share an interest in not widening the war and strengthening jihadi extremists. It’s long past time for the two powers to concede that neither Assad nor the rebels are going to be defeated anytime soon....if the United States and Russia work together, they could use their combined influence to choke off the flow of arms from the outside and contain the conflict as they work toward a cease-fire. If they don’t, Syria’s disintegration will spread throughout the region.
The Obama Administration is scrambling to define a position justifying a potential strike on Syria for the alleged use of chemical weapons by that country's security forces. There is no such justification for any unilateral, "a deux" or "coalition of the willing" military action. Two bodies are already established to try and punish perpetrators of international crimes - the International Court of Justice (United Nations) and the International Criminal Court established by the Rome Statute of 2002.
The Guardian reported on Thursday on the UK Parliament's vote against support for a United States airstrike on Syria. The vote was 285-272 with many of PM Cameron's coalition joining Labour in opposition. Asked by Labour leader Ed Miliband for an assurance that he would not use the royal prerogative to sanction British involvement in the military action, the prime minister told MPs: "I can give that assurance. ...it is clear to me that the British parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that and the government will act accordingly."
On Wednesday, prior to the vote, Guardian columnist Martin Kettle wrote: After two years in which, tragically, the world has been unable to prevent Syria's catastrophe deepening ever further, the Cameron government is suddenly in a hurry to act. Partly this is because of the outrageous use of chemical weapons in Syria. But it is also because the US administration, having boxed itself in about responding to such horrors, now summons Britain to give support. But would the Obama administration, elected to end the war in Iraq and anxious to end the one in Afghanistan, really want to engage in Syria, even to the extent of an arm's-length bombing campaign, without either UN support or major international allies? ...It is arguable that a vote in the UK parliament could stay Washington's hand from a politically controversial, premature strike that would raise massive issues of legitimacy.
On Friday, a Guardian editorial praised the action of the MP's, noting: There is no evidence that British public opinion has turned isolationist. There is plenty of evidence that it is fed up with the debilitating post 9/11 years of national sacrifice, with the humiliating excesses of US national security policy (not least its abuses of human rights and surveillance), with the unequal burden-sharing among allies and, above all, with the failures of policy. Iraq casts a very long, very dark shadow. As a result, right from the start of its spiralling civil war, Syria has felt like a sacrifice too far. When the latest call to arms came, though it came from a respected American president and was provoked by clearly intolerable war crimes, the answer was a clear one. Enough.
Addressing the plight of Syrians caught in middle of this civil war, Oxfam America condemns the attacks but makes a powerful case against military intervention: Over more than two years of fighting, more than 100,000 lives have been lost and millions of people are in need of immediate humanitarian aid. It has been especially devastating for children: just last week, the UN announced that one million Syrian children are now refugees. Many have seen their homes bombed, their schools reduced to rubble, their communities destroyed. The military intervention currently being debated will not – and is not aimed at – stopping the violence or helping these families start to rebuild. Instead of focusing on military options and arming the parties involved, President Obama, President Putin and other world leaders should intensify peaceful efforts to end the conflict, before Syria is destroyed and the region made even more unstable.
Finally, The Nation makes another powerful case against military intervention in an editorial. After pointing out the illegitimacy of a US military attack without UN Security Council approval and the Administration's obligation to seek congressional authorization for such action, the editorial lists practical and humanitarian reasons to be opposed to military action: On the practical level, there is little chance that limited airstrikes will have much deterrent effect on a ruthless regime that sees itself as engaged in an existential struggle for survival...It would make the United States a direct participant in what has become a regional sectarian conflict, further destabilizing Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and Turkey...On the humanitarian level, there is a strong chance that US airstrikes, no matter how “surgical,” will kill innocent civilians...[and] could worsen what is already a disastrous refugee crisis. Instead of military action, The Nation editorial calls for the United States to vastly increase aid to the 1.9 million refugees who have flooded across the country’s borders and join Russia in its effort to renew the Geneva negotiations. The editorial concludes that Moscow and Washington share an interest in not widening the war and strengthening jihadi extremists. It’s long past time for the two powers to concede that neither Assad nor the rebels are going to be defeated anytime soon....if the United States and Russia work together, they could use their combined influence to choke off the flow of arms from the outside and contain the conflict as they work toward a cease-fire. If they don’t, Syria’s disintegration will spread throughout the region.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)