Tag Archives: Syria

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
First World War, History, Second World War, United States, Warfare

History is littered with examples of chemical and biological attacks…

…Damascus suffered an appalling gas attack in which hundreds died, but other incidents in history have been much worse.

IT was a singularly evil chemical weapons attack, but tragically the hundreds killed in Damascus just two weeks ago were the latest victims in a long history of the use of poison gas to kill soldiers and civilians. This entry is an examination of past atrocities where many exacted an even greater toll:

IRAQ AGAINST THE KURDS… Saddam Hussein’s regime used chemical weapons to remove Kurds from around 40 villages in northern Iraq. On March 16, 1988, he carried out the most deadly attack, dropping poisons including mustard gas, sarin and VX on the town of Halabja. Men, women and children choked to death in the indiscriminate attack.

The atrocity prompted the United Nations Chemical Weapons Convention in 1997, an international pact banning production, stockpiling or use of chemical weapons. Only seven nations (including Syria) are not signatories. The death toll in Halabja was reported as being up to 5,000.

IRAN-IRAQ WAR, 1980-88… Hussein used sarin and mustard gas against Iran to tip the war in Iraq’s favour and forced Tehran to negotiate. But newly declassified CIA documents revealed recently the US knew about the use of chemical weapons but refused to act because Washington feared an Iranian victory. Up to 20,000 people were killed in the 8-year war.

VIETNAM… Between 1965 and 1975, in the bitter war against North Vietnam, the US dropped millions of tons of incendiary napalm to defoliate dense forests in which enemy fighters were hiding. The jelly-like substance ignited and stuck to skin, burning through muscle and bone, causing hideous injury and often death. America also dropped 50 million tons of Agent Orange, a super-strength chemical herbicide, to destroy all plants. But poisonous dioxins seeped into the soil and water supply, entering into the food chain and leading to severe health problems and disabilities for generations. More than a million people perished, as well as 400,000 Vietnamese children born with birth defects were recorded due to exposure to Agent Orange.

HITLER… Hitler refrained from using chemical weapons in battle but millions of Jews were transported to extermination camps, notably Auschwitz in Poland, and were suffocated in gas chambers using cyanide-based Zyklon B. Some six million Jews died in the Holocaust, plus gypsies, homosexuals, the disabled, and Soviet prisoners.

WORLD WAR TWO… Between 1937 and 1945, Japan launched both chemical and biological attacks while invading China. Emperor Hirohito authorised use of toxic gas on more than 2,000 occasions. In 1941, members of a secretive Japanese research and development facility (Unit 731) airdropped fleas contaminated with the bubonic plague on the Chinese city of Changde. Tens of thousands were reported killed.

ITALO-ABNYSSINIAN WAR… Ignoring the 1925 Geneva Protocol banning chemical or biological agents in war, Mussolini’s Italy unleashed mustard gas during its invasion of Ethiopia in 1935. Retaliating for the killing of one of its pilots, the air force dropped up to 500 tonnes of poison. An estimated 15,000 perished.

FIRST WORLD WAR… Known as the ‘chemists’ war’ for introducing deadly poison to combat. In 1915, at Ypres, Belgium, Germany opened thousands of canisters of chlorine upwind of Allied troops, condemning many to an agonising death. By 1918 chemical weapons had proliferated on both sides – including phosgene, cyanide and mustard gas. Horrified by the effects, 15 countries signed the Geneva Protocol. Around 90,000 were killed and more than one million people were injured.

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