US politics: back to school

[Angalin]

...although what courses anyone is taking mystifies me. Carry on.

[awesome possum]

And frankly, you can shove the "isn't it just so convenient" routine - things co-incide all the goddamn time. We live in a random universe. You want to advance this theory you need more than convenience.

Things do coincide all the time. The United States government gearing up to attack another country right before mandatory cuts are due to take place to the group in charge of attacking other countries is too big of a coincidence for me to ignore.

And I don't need to do anything for you, friend. This is my opinion. I don't need your approval to have and express what I believe.

Which one is that?

Article I, Section I of the UN charter: "Maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace."

Article 2, Section 4: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."

[Shryke]

And yet other parts of the UN Charter acknowledge the ability to use force.

Article 39:

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Article 42:

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

[Littlefingers In The Air]

...although what courses anyone is taking mystifies me. Carry on.

general psychologist, cultural diversity, algebra and college writing. Only algebra among that list is uninteresting.

[awesome possum]

And yet other parts of the UN Charter acknowledge the ability to use force.

The key there is with Security Council approval, which has not been given.

[Shryke]

The key there is with Security Council approval, which has not been given.

And what happens when the Security Council refuses to enforce it's own rules?

[awesome possum]

And what happens when the Security Council refuses to enforce it's own rules?

I don't know, Shryke, what happens?

[Shryke]

I don't know, Shryke, what happens?

Apparently you ask deliberately stupid questions.

Personally, I start considering what you do when international law comes into conflict with itself. It would seem you'd have to decide what you think is more important.

[awesome possum]

Apparently you ask deliberately stupid questions.

Personally, I start considering what you do when international law comes into conflict with itself. It would seem you'd have to decide what you think is more important.

I have decided which is more important. Not Syria is the long and short of it.

If you, however, feel that intervention is so important I'm sure you'll be writing to your local MP or Senator to express why Canada should lead this glorious march to freedom.

After you get finished pettily insulting strangers on the internet, that is.

[Angalin]

Ten posts into the new US politics thread: play nice, children.

[The Marquis de Leech]

And what happens when the Security Council refuses to enforce it's own rules?

That's the way the UN was set up. The Security Council gives veto powers to the Big Five in order to stop stuff happening (the idea was that it was better for small countries to occasionally suffer molestation at the hands of the US and USSR than for the UN to take sides in an inter-Superpower squabble).

[The Marquis de Leech]

To put it another way, if you want to legally invade another country, you need the support of the US, UK, Russia, France, and China (assuming there's no claim to self-defence).

[Mudguard]

Who says the Security Council is failing to enforce it's own rules? What specific rule isn't being enforced? Just because the Security Council isn't doing what the U.S. wants doesn't mean it's not doing its job. None of the rules in the U.N. Charter require the use of force. Similarly, none of the laws regarding chemical weapons use in the Geneva Convention authorize the use of force against a country that violates the ban on chemical weapons use.

There's loads of articles which support the position that the U.S. would be in violation of the international law, specifically the U.N. Charter, if it conducts a military operation against Syria without Security Council authorization, which it isn't getting anytime soon. Here's one from Slate written by Eric Posner, a professor of law at the University of Chicago. The US doesn't really care whether it's violating international law as long as its own security interests exceed the hit it would take to its reputation and credibility.

I'd like to know what Obama's long term goals, if any, are for conducting a limited strike against Syria. Is he just going have the US military launch cruise missiles and drop bombs on Syria as a punitive measure that will supposedly deter future use of chemical weapons? That seems rather pointless if it doesn't push Assad out of power. If the goal is to remove Assad, who will take his place? Since the US is rather unpopular in the Middle East, it's difficult for the US to publicly support a particular rebel group without also eroding popular support for that particular group.

[Ser Reptitious]

Article I, Section I of the UN charter: "Maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace."

Seems to me that this article could actually also be used to justify intervention in Syria: Assad is largely responsible for creating the on-going civil war in order to stay in power, so collective action (through a coalition of the willing) could be taken in order to remove a threat to the peace (i.e. Assad).

Article 2, Section 4: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."

But force would not be used against the territorial integrity or political independence of Syria.

In addition the Responsibility to Protect could certainly be cited as a legal justification for intervention. From the link:

1.A state has a responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing.

2.The international community has a responsibility to assist the state to fulfill its primary responsibility.

3.If the state manifestly fails to protect its citizens from the four above mass atrocities and peaceful measures have failed, the international community has the responsibility to intervene through coercive measures such as economic sanctions. Military intervention is considered the last resort.

Yes, military intervention should only be a last resort, but in an active civil war such as the one in Syria economic sanctions would be highly unlikely to have any impact since normal economic activity is already suspended as it is.

At the end of the day, though, (just like Kosovo) the debate over whether military intervention is/was legal is academic, since, unlike domestic law, there is no final arbiter with the means to enforce its rulings.

Personally I'm neither pro nor against military intervention in this case. I find it shameful that, just like Bosnia, the world is once again giving a collective shrug of the shoulder as thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians get brutally murdered. I find the argument that nothing should be done unless it affects our national interest deeply reprehensible. Are Syrians somehow less human than "our own"? For the life is me I cannot comprehend this Pontius Pilate mentality.

On the other hand I recognize that two years of inaction by the outside world have now created the very clusterfuck that Assad was aiming at from the beginning: The moderate rebels are increasingly sidelined by hardcore Islamic fundamentalists and thus intervening on either side no longer seems like a great idea.

[snake]

Ser Rep,

R2P is a norm not a law. It may be adopted as law someday but as of right now it isn't. So no matter how you spin it, an attack against Syria without UNSC approval is breaking international law. Not that anyone really cares but those are the facts.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Ser Rep,

R2P is a norm not a law. It may be adopted as law someday but as of right now it isn't.

The test for such a norm becoming customary international law is (1) whether states habitually follow the norm, and (2) that they follow the norm because of a perceived obligation, not simply because they're being nice.

I'd agree that Responsibility to Protect doesn't quite meet that standard. In any case, everything hinges on the Security Council.

[Ser Reptitious]

Ser Rep,

R2P is a norm not a law. It may be adopted as law someday but as of right now it isn't. So no matter how you spin it, an attack against Syria without UNSC approval is breaking international law. Not that anyone really cares but those are the facts.

Tbh, given that there is no neutral arbiter (similar to courts in the domestic arena) to determine whether a military intervention is 'legal' and that it instead simply depends on the arbitrary mood of five governments, I'm far more interested in the moral case for intervention than the legal one. And I say that as someone who has studied and practiced law.

So even if R2P right now is more of a norm than law, it does in my mind set out the perfect perimeters for intervention on a moral basis. Now, how (and if) such intervention can be achieved in a useful way is of course a different question altogether, which is why I remain unsure about what can and should be done about Syria. But I do reiterate my disgust at the notion that we should just simply ignore the ongoing human suffering and do absolutely nothing about it because there are unsavory elements fighting on both sides.

[awesome possum]

Personally I'm neither pro nor against military intervention in this case. I find it shameful that, just like Bosnia, the world is once again giving a collective shrug of the shoulder as thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians get brutally murdered. I find the argument that nothing should be done unless it affects our national interest deeply reprehensible. Are Syrians somehow less human than "our own"? For the life is me I cannot comprehend this Pontius Pilate mentality.

I agree with you. It's shameful that we - the world, not just the US - have let over a hundred thousand die in Syria. But, if we weren't going to intervene then we shouldn't intervene now. We haven't intervened in most world atrocities unless we had a vested interested or could stake a claim to some of the leftovers afterward.

When Obama took office there was still 45,000 people dying a month in the Congo. From 1998 to 2008 over 5 million people died there - half were children. Are the people of Congo somehow less human than our own? To this day the pygmies are still being killed - and often eaten - by both sides of that conflict because they're regarded as subhuman. Where was and is the outrage?

Or Sri Lanka where the both sides of that civil war reportedly were committing atrocities, and which in 2009 saw up to 40,000 Tamil people slaughtered by the government. Are the Sri Lankan people somehow less human than our own?

In Darfur the lowest estimate for loss of lives is around 178,000.

Those who practice Falun Gong in China have seen at least 2,000 with estimates up to 70,000 killed.

You mention Bosnia. Bosnia had an estimated 40,000 civilian deaths. Rwanda the year before had between 500,000 and 1,000,000.

Cambodia - 1,000,000 to 3,000,000

East Timor - up to 180,000

Ethiopia - anywhere from 150,000 to 500,000

Burundi - 50,000 to 100,000

Equatorial Guinea - 20,000 to 80,000

Nigeria - 1,000,000 to 3,000,000

We've sat idly by through pretty much all of them. What makes Syria so special now? I'm not saying this applies to you personally Ser Rep so please don't think I'm talking directly to you here, but I find it very disturbing that "popular" outrage over atrocities usually is reserved for countries whose people can look Caucasian.

[Arch-MaesterPhilip]

What makes Syria so special now?

I think because they were naughty and used chemical weapons.

[awesome possum]

I think because they were naughty and used chemical weapons.

And that's a big No-No. Unless, of course, we're providing the chemical weapons to be used. Or using them on our own people.