Category Archives: Britain

Britain, Foreign Affairs, Government, Middle East, Russia, Syria, United States

Syrian recriminations continue. Is the tide turning towards Russia?

FRATRICIDAL SYRIAN CIVIL WAR

The continued recriminations over Syria remain fast-paced, but there is one central fact that remains unchanged: neither the Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, nor his enemies have the strength to achieve outright victory. A fratricidal civil war of this scale – in which a third of the total Syrian population have now been displaced – can only end with a political settlement.

A key question is whether Britain’s parliamentary veto and abdication from military intervention (and America’s possible withdrawal under a similar scenario) will make the achievement of such a resolution of political will more or less likely? A case could be constructed either way.

The optimist might suggest that President Vladimir Putin, satisfied that his Western rivals will not tread the path that Moscow warned them most sternly against, could now become a more willing and amenable partner by delivering Assad to the negotiating table. From this stance, a combination of the G20 summit that opens in St Petersburg on Thursday, the humiliation of the British prime minister following last week’s Commons vote, and new doubts that are emerging by the day whether President Obama will execute his threatened punitive strike, all create something of a slender opportunity. If that is so, something good might yet come from the acrimony of the past few days.

Unfortunately, though, the pessimistic scenario looks more likely. Mr Putin now has the glee of satisfaction of watching Britain retreat from the Syria drama and America’s continued prevarication over whether to enforce its ‘red line’ over the use of chemical weapons. Putin is hardly the kind of leader ennobled for his munificence; instead of trying to find ground with his chastened and frustrated opponents, the Russian President is more inclined to press home his advantage and insist that he was right all along. Mr Putin is still angered over the West’s intervention in Libya, and has sought to make Syria an example in various ways.

Russia’s position has always been that the West must stay out of Syria and leave the problem to be resolved by the Kremlin. Some will baulk at that given Russia’s continued supply of arms and munitions to the Assad regime, but Vladimir Putin’s preferred solution is to help the regime in Damascus achieve a Carthaginian peace by crushing rebel units. As for the Syrian President, he is bound to feel emboldened by recent events and his acolytes hailing Mr Obama’s climbdown as the ‘beginning of the historic American retreat.’ If Assad feels that events are turning his way, what reason will he have to negotiate?

Mr Obama publicly declared that his mind was made up in using military force against Assad’s use of chemical weapons which claimed the lives of more than 1,400 civilians, more than a third of which were children. But, his insistence that he must now first ask Congress makes him look indecisive.

It is not inconceivable to believe that another attempt could be made by the British Parliament in the light of any new evidence that may emerge that action is necessary. Despite the setback of last week’s Commons vote, Britain should remain confident in itself as a nation with the will and the means to help shape a better world.

Standard
Britain, France, Government, Politics, Syria, United States

Syria: America’s change of political tack…

BARACK OBAMA’S DECISION TO CONSULT CONGRESS ON SYRIA

The parliamentary defeat for the Government in the House of Commons – last week – over Syria, has led many to comment over the long shadow of Iraq, of poor party management by the whip’s office, and, in some quarters, of the perfidious anti-war sentiments of those MPs who rebelled against the Government’s motion. But, with the majority of the British public opposed to military action, the result that so humiliated the prime minister was simply transparent politics and democracy at work: a far cry from that which materialised when Britain joined the U.S. in toppling Saddam Hussein from power in the Iraq war.

As events in Washington over the last few days make plain, the consequences of the British veto are only just beginning to be felt. Over the past week the US had been preparing for retributive air strikes, but the equivocation of the American President was evident enough. It had been left to Secretary of State John Kerry to fulminate against the ‘moral obscenity’ of chemical weapons, while Mr Obama talked in measured terms of a ‘limited and tailored operation’ and a ‘shot across the bow’. London’s embarrassing climb-down for the prime minister could have been met with White House declarations that the US would not be deterred. But whether that bravado would have proved sustainable has now been countered by a President who insists the decision must be ratified by Congress first, even though the President had already made up his mind to take military action.

In the immediate term, America’s change of political tack is significant enough. Mr Obama has been keen to stress that the proposed action (‘limited in duration and scope’ but still enough to ‘hold the Assad regime accountable’) is not time dependant. The president talks now of a ‘surprise’ punitive strike, an answer perhaps that the operational advantages of an early strike has already been lost.

The political and legal climate will not get any easier as time moves on. Russia’s pro-Assad stance, and Moscow’s insistence of a veto-able UN resolution, along with the G20 gathering in St Petersburg this week, is surely testament to the difficulties that lie immediately ahead.

President Obama is far from assured on the support he needs. For one, Congress is not due to reconvene until the 9th of September – with the President having a week to persuade reluctant US lawmakers to support intervention. And, with the American public as equally ‘war weary’ as they are in Britain, and the dynamics of Capitol Hill unfavourable, Barack Obama may find himself in a similar humbling situation to David Cameron.

Regardless of the outcome, the President’s decision to consult Congress has far-reaching implications. As Commander-in-Chief, the President’s powers to commit the US to war will be open to interpretation. Seeking explicit legitimacy from legislators speaks volumes about his concern at the legal basis for action in Syria. A sense of isolation imploded upon by an ambivalent public and a crucial ally lost, means the constitutional balance of the US has changed with Mr Obama choosing to put the matter to a vote. Future presidents may be forced to follow his example as precedent becomes set.

The repercussions go further still. The pro-interventionist French President is also now facing demands to hold a parliamentary vote on Syria. The effects of the British decision in the House of Commons last week are spreading fast and wide.

Standard
Britain, Government, Legal, Military

‘Legal justification’ for air strikes over Syria raises a storm…

THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT’S LEGAL POSITION

MILITARY action against Syria will be legal even if Britain fails to get a fresh UN resolution, the Government has claimed.

In a highly unusual move, the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, ordered the release of a brief summary of the Government’s ‘legal position’ for launching retaliatory strikes against Bashar al-Assad of Syria. The document is effectively a summary of the advice drawn up for the Cabinet by the Attorney General Dominic Grieve.

Former UN deputy secretary general Lord Malloch-Brown has warned that the legal case set out in the 660-word document was ‘a little tenuous’. Lord Malloch-Brown, who served as a minister in the last Labour government, said it was not clear that action in Syria would save lives – a key test in international law for using force on humanitarian grounds.

Other experts have warned the Government’s case was ‘extremely controversial’.

Mr Cameron told MPs the ‘excellent’ advice made it clear that intervention on humanitarian grounds would be legal even if, as expected, Russia vetoes a new resolution Britain is seeking at the UN Security Council condemning the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime and giving authority for the world to use ‘all necessary measures to protect civilians.’

The document says that without the UN resolution, three key tests would have to be met. There has to be ‘convincing evidence’ of ‘extreme humanitarian distress.’

It must be ‘objectively clear that there is no practicable alternative to the use of force if lives are to be saved’. And the use of force must be ‘necessary and proportionate’ and ‘strictly limited in time and scope’. The document says that ‘all three conditions would clearly be met in this case’ as the Assad regime had been ‘killing its people for two years’ and had repeatedly used chemical weapons, diplomacy had failed and the planned strikes were limited to ‘averting a humanitarian catastrophe’.

But Michael Caplan, QC, said ‘all possible avenues’ at the UN must first be explored before any strikes, if Russia vetoes the Security Council resolution. This could include a rare referral to full UN General Assembly to provide greater legal cover, he said.

Standard