Al Bhatti
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2009
- Messages
- 5,686
- Reaction score
- 6
- Country
- Location
Some are speculating Tomorrow, Thursday and also that it will be very very limited.
-----------------------------------
August 27, 2013
Analysis: Preparing for a strike on Syria
The negotiations and considerations of taking action against Damascus
Few question that there was a major chemical attack in Syria last week that killed hundreds, and the United States and its allies have made clear that they blames the government of President Bashar Al Assad. Now, the question is how President Barack Obama and other international leaders will respond? For almost two years, Obama has avoided direct military involvement in Syrias civil war, only escalating aid to rebel fighters in June after suspected smaller-scale chemical weapons attacks by Syrian government forces. It seems to be a case of when rather than if the Syrian regime will be struck.
Can the US act without a UN resolution?
Yes. The US has intervened in conflicts before without Security Council backing, most notably in the Kosovo War in 1999, and could do so again. Any strike by the US, Britain, France and others without a clear UN mandate would likely infuriate Russia, which could be expected to denounce it as illegal.
A coalition of the willing?
Legitimacy for a strike on Syria could come from a coalition of the willing of individual countries that support retaliation against Al Assad to demonstrate that the use of weapons of mass destruction will not be tolerated. That coalition could include Arab countries and have formal backing from Nato or other institutions.
Can the US act unilaterally?
Yes, but it is not inclined to do so. President Barack Obama has tried to distinguish himself from his predecessor, George W. Bush, on foreign policy by presenting himself as more multilateralist. He no doubt would like some kind of international legitimacy if the US attacked Syria. But the tough tone of comments on Syria by Secretary of State John Kerry and strong suggestions that US naval forces are moving into position might mean Obama will go ahead with an attack on Al Assads forces no matter what.
Does Obama need support of Congress?
US President Barack Obama has the authority to launch air strikes against Syria. But he has to notify lawmakers in Congress a process which has begun, according to both sides. Who supports military intervention?
BRITAIN
Amid expectations that UK Prime Minister David Cameron will announce that parliament is to be recalled later this week to discuss the Syrian crisis, No 10 indicated that Britain and the US would not be bound by the findings of the UN weapons team which inspected the Damascus suburb hit in the chemical attack. A nuclear-power Trafalgar-class submarine, carrying Tomahawk missiles is close to the ASyrian coast, while Britian Rmilitary bases in Cyprus would also be likely used for air support.
ISRAEL
Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu said the Syrian regimes use of chemical weapons must not be allowed to continue. Israels finger must always be on the pulse If necessary, it will also be on the trigger. We will always know to defend our people and our state against whoever attacks us, tries to attack us or has attacked us.
TURKEY
Ankara has thrown its weight behind the gathering western consensus on military intervention. Speaking to the Turkish daily newspaper Milliyet, foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu said Turkey would consider taking part in an international coalition against the Syrian regime, even if the UN security council failed to endorse military action: We always make it a priority to act in accord with the United Nations and the international community. If the security council does not reach a decision [to take action], we will address other possible options. These alternatives are currently being discussed by 36 to 37 countries. If a coalition emerges from these discussions, Turkey will be a part of it.
GERMANY
German politicians across the political spectrum were urging extreme caution. The governing Christian Democrats of Chancellor Angela Merkel, insisted Germany was pressing on in pursuit of a diplomatic solution, but suggested for the first time that it might support an international military response if it was proved that Syrian government troops used chemical weapons to attack its opponents. The spokesman to Merkel, Steffen Seibert, said if UN inspectors confirmed the use of chemical weapons, Syria must be punished. The foreign minister, Guido Westerwelle, said that if the attack was confirmed, Germany would be among those who consider consequences to be appropriate.
FRANCE
The French president, François Hollande, says the west cannot not respond to the use of chemical weapons in Syria. Everything will be decided this week, he told the Parisien newspaper. We will also leave a little time for the diplomatic process, but not too much time. We cannot not react to the use of chemical weapons. Hollande, defence minister Jean-Yves Le Drian and Laurent Fabius, the foreign affairs minister, have been holding talks on Syria since the chemical attack. Hollande told Obama that France, like Britain, would be at his side if an action of force was decided.
Who is opposed to military intervention?
RUSSIA
Moscow on Tuesday warned a military intervention in Syria could have catastrophic consequences for the region and called on the international community to show prudence over the crisis. Attempts to bypass the Security Council, once again to create artificial groundless excuses for a military intervention in the region are fraught with new suffering in Syria and catastrophic consequences for other countries of the Middle East and North Africa, foreign ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said. We are calling on our American partners and all members of the world community to demonstrate prudence [and] strict observance of international law, especially the fundamental principles of the UN Charter, he said in a statement.
IRAN
Iran has warned that foreign military intervention in Syria will result in a conflict that would engulf the region. Iranian foreign ministry spokesman, Abbas Araqchi, indicated it was equally resolved to defend Al Assad. Shiite Iran is Syrias closest ally and has accused an alliance of militant Sunni Islamists, Israel and western powers of trying to use the conflict to take over the region.
HEZBOLLAH
Everything depends on the nature, the extent and the goals of a Western strike and, for the moment, I expect nothing more than a warning strike, said Joseph Bahout, a professor at Sciences Po in Paris and a Syria expert. In this scenario, neither Hezbollah nor Iran will go too far. We can expect lateral and indirect moves like aggression towards UNIFIL (the UN peacekeeping force in Lebanon) or anonymous rockets against Israel, but in the end, it will not be anything new.
Will Jordan be brought into the conflict?
Jordan will not be a launchpad for military intervention in Syria, a senior government official said Tuesday, as Western and Muslim army chiefs wrapped up a meeting on the conflict. Jordans position has not changed. Jordanian territories will not be used as launchpad for any military action against Damascus, the official told AFP on condition of anonymity. Amman has repeatedly called for political solution in Syria.
The role of the United Nations
The UN Security Council: In the face of a UN Security Council deadlocked on Syria, the US and its allies could seek other means of legitimising any retaliatory strike they launch against Syrias government for last weeks alleged gas attack on civilians. The 15-nation council has been split on Syria since 2011. Russia, President Bashar Al Assads ally, and China have vetoed three resolutions condemning Al Assad and calling for punitive steps against his government.
The self-defence argument: Article 51 of the UN Charter speaks of the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations. In theory, Turkey or Israel could ask the US and its allies for self-defence assistance in light of the cross-border violence the two countries have faced during Syrias two-year civil war. But Article 51, UN diplomats say, might be difficult to construe as the basis for a response to an attack that did not directly affect any of Syrias neighbours, the US or its allies.
What is the Kosovo principle? US and European officials have cited a bombing campaign carried out by members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in May, 1999, intended to pressure then Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic to withdraw troops and militia from Kosovo. In that case, the United States bypassed the Security Council to avoid a Russian veto and got backing instead from NATO.
The Uniting for Peace argument: There is also the Uniting for Peace resolution of 1950, which allows for the UN General Assembly to call an emergency session to take up matters related to international peace and security when the Security Council is deadlocked due to a disagreement between its permanent members. That resolution enabled the United States and its allies to thwart Soviet attempts to use its Security Council veto to cut off support for UN-mandated forces in the 1950-53 Korean War.
A resolution from the General Assembly: It is possible Washington could seek political support from the General Assembly in the form of a non-binding resolution to help legitimise action on Syria. While it would not carry the legal weight of a Security Council mandate, an assembly resolution could demonstrate that most of the world supports retaliation provided Washington secured sufficient support in the 193-nation body. All General Assembly votes on Syria have had a majority of nations opposing Al Assad, though that majority narrowed in the last vote.
Timing of UN approval: The assembly option has potential. China and Russia will fulminate against any missile strikes on Syria, but they could be severely outnumbered at the UN. The General Assembly could offer political support for military action even if the Security Council is paralysed. But the assembly option might take time and it is not clear if Obama will be willing to wait if he decides to retaliate. There is also the option of an assembly approval after a strike has been carried out.
War Crimes and the Red Cross: The International Committee of the Red Cross last year described the Syrian conflict as a civil war, which means the Geneva Conventions on warfare apply. Gassing could be a war crime or even crime against humanity, UN diplomats say. The US and its allies for more than a decade have carried out military actions that they say had international mandates, which Moscow has rejected.
Analysis: Preparing for a strike on Syria | GulfNews.com
-----------------------------------
August 27, 2013
Analysis: Preparing for a strike on Syria
The negotiations and considerations of taking action against Damascus
Few question that there was a major chemical attack in Syria last week that killed hundreds, and the United States and its allies have made clear that they blames the government of President Bashar Al Assad. Now, the question is how President Barack Obama and other international leaders will respond? For almost two years, Obama has avoided direct military involvement in Syrias civil war, only escalating aid to rebel fighters in June after suspected smaller-scale chemical weapons attacks by Syrian government forces. It seems to be a case of when rather than if the Syrian regime will be struck.
Can the US act without a UN resolution?
Yes. The US has intervened in conflicts before without Security Council backing, most notably in the Kosovo War in 1999, and could do so again. Any strike by the US, Britain, France and others without a clear UN mandate would likely infuriate Russia, which could be expected to denounce it as illegal.
A coalition of the willing?
Legitimacy for a strike on Syria could come from a coalition of the willing of individual countries that support retaliation against Al Assad to demonstrate that the use of weapons of mass destruction will not be tolerated. That coalition could include Arab countries and have formal backing from Nato or other institutions.
Can the US act unilaterally?
Yes, but it is not inclined to do so. President Barack Obama has tried to distinguish himself from his predecessor, George W. Bush, on foreign policy by presenting himself as more multilateralist. He no doubt would like some kind of international legitimacy if the US attacked Syria. But the tough tone of comments on Syria by Secretary of State John Kerry and strong suggestions that US naval forces are moving into position might mean Obama will go ahead with an attack on Al Assads forces no matter what.
Does Obama need support of Congress?
US President Barack Obama has the authority to launch air strikes against Syria. But he has to notify lawmakers in Congress a process which has begun, according to both sides. Who supports military intervention?
BRITAIN
Amid expectations that UK Prime Minister David Cameron will announce that parliament is to be recalled later this week to discuss the Syrian crisis, No 10 indicated that Britain and the US would not be bound by the findings of the UN weapons team which inspected the Damascus suburb hit in the chemical attack. A nuclear-power Trafalgar-class submarine, carrying Tomahawk missiles is close to the ASyrian coast, while Britian Rmilitary bases in Cyprus would also be likely used for air support.
ISRAEL
Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu said the Syrian regimes use of chemical weapons must not be allowed to continue. Israels finger must always be on the pulse If necessary, it will also be on the trigger. We will always know to defend our people and our state against whoever attacks us, tries to attack us or has attacked us.
TURKEY
Ankara has thrown its weight behind the gathering western consensus on military intervention. Speaking to the Turkish daily newspaper Milliyet, foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu said Turkey would consider taking part in an international coalition against the Syrian regime, even if the UN security council failed to endorse military action: We always make it a priority to act in accord with the United Nations and the international community. If the security council does not reach a decision [to take action], we will address other possible options. These alternatives are currently being discussed by 36 to 37 countries. If a coalition emerges from these discussions, Turkey will be a part of it.
GERMANY
German politicians across the political spectrum were urging extreme caution. The governing Christian Democrats of Chancellor Angela Merkel, insisted Germany was pressing on in pursuit of a diplomatic solution, but suggested for the first time that it might support an international military response if it was proved that Syrian government troops used chemical weapons to attack its opponents. The spokesman to Merkel, Steffen Seibert, said if UN inspectors confirmed the use of chemical weapons, Syria must be punished. The foreign minister, Guido Westerwelle, said that if the attack was confirmed, Germany would be among those who consider consequences to be appropriate.
FRANCE
The French president, François Hollande, says the west cannot not respond to the use of chemical weapons in Syria. Everything will be decided this week, he told the Parisien newspaper. We will also leave a little time for the diplomatic process, but not too much time. We cannot not react to the use of chemical weapons. Hollande, defence minister Jean-Yves Le Drian and Laurent Fabius, the foreign affairs minister, have been holding talks on Syria since the chemical attack. Hollande told Obama that France, like Britain, would be at his side if an action of force was decided.
Who is opposed to military intervention?
RUSSIA
Moscow on Tuesday warned a military intervention in Syria could have catastrophic consequences for the region and called on the international community to show prudence over the crisis. Attempts to bypass the Security Council, once again to create artificial groundless excuses for a military intervention in the region are fraught with new suffering in Syria and catastrophic consequences for other countries of the Middle East and North Africa, foreign ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said. We are calling on our American partners and all members of the world community to demonstrate prudence [and] strict observance of international law, especially the fundamental principles of the UN Charter, he said in a statement.
IRAN
Iran has warned that foreign military intervention in Syria will result in a conflict that would engulf the region. Iranian foreign ministry spokesman, Abbas Araqchi, indicated it was equally resolved to defend Al Assad. Shiite Iran is Syrias closest ally and has accused an alliance of militant Sunni Islamists, Israel and western powers of trying to use the conflict to take over the region.
HEZBOLLAH
Everything depends on the nature, the extent and the goals of a Western strike and, for the moment, I expect nothing more than a warning strike, said Joseph Bahout, a professor at Sciences Po in Paris and a Syria expert. In this scenario, neither Hezbollah nor Iran will go too far. We can expect lateral and indirect moves like aggression towards UNIFIL (the UN peacekeeping force in Lebanon) or anonymous rockets against Israel, but in the end, it will not be anything new.
Will Jordan be brought into the conflict?
Jordan will not be a launchpad for military intervention in Syria, a senior government official said Tuesday, as Western and Muslim army chiefs wrapped up a meeting on the conflict. Jordans position has not changed. Jordanian territories will not be used as launchpad for any military action against Damascus, the official told AFP on condition of anonymity. Amman has repeatedly called for political solution in Syria.
The role of the United Nations
The UN Security Council: In the face of a UN Security Council deadlocked on Syria, the US and its allies could seek other means of legitimising any retaliatory strike they launch against Syrias government for last weeks alleged gas attack on civilians. The 15-nation council has been split on Syria since 2011. Russia, President Bashar Al Assads ally, and China have vetoed three resolutions condemning Al Assad and calling for punitive steps against his government.
The self-defence argument: Article 51 of the UN Charter speaks of the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations. In theory, Turkey or Israel could ask the US and its allies for self-defence assistance in light of the cross-border violence the two countries have faced during Syrias two-year civil war. But Article 51, UN diplomats say, might be difficult to construe as the basis for a response to an attack that did not directly affect any of Syrias neighbours, the US or its allies.
What is the Kosovo principle? US and European officials have cited a bombing campaign carried out by members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in May, 1999, intended to pressure then Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic to withdraw troops and militia from Kosovo. In that case, the United States bypassed the Security Council to avoid a Russian veto and got backing instead from NATO.
The Uniting for Peace argument: There is also the Uniting for Peace resolution of 1950, which allows for the UN General Assembly to call an emergency session to take up matters related to international peace and security when the Security Council is deadlocked due to a disagreement between its permanent members. That resolution enabled the United States and its allies to thwart Soviet attempts to use its Security Council veto to cut off support for UN-mandated forces in the 1950-53 Korean War.
A resolution from the General Assembly: It is possible Washington could seek political support from the General Assembly in the form of a non-binding resolution to help legitimise action on Syria. While it would not carry the legal weight of a Security Council mandate, an assembly resolution could demonstrate that most of the world supports retaliation provided Washington secured sufficient support in the 193-nation body. All General Assembly votes on Syria have had a majority of nations opposing Al Assad, though that majority narrowed in the last vote.
Timing of UN approval: The assembly option has potential. China and Russia will fulminate against any missile strikes on Syria, but they could be severely outnumbered at the UN. The General Assembly could offer political support for military action even if the Security Council is paralysed. But the assembly option might take time and it is not clear if Obama will be willing to wait if he decides to retaliate. There is also the option of an assembly approval after a strike has been carried out.
War Crimes and the Red Cross: The International Committee of the Red Cross last year described the Syrian conflict as a civil war, which means the Geneva Conventions on warfare apply. Gassing could be a war crime or even crime against humanity, UN diplomats say. The US and its allies for more than a decade have carried out military actions that they say had international mandates, which Moscow has rejected.
Analysis: Preparing for a strike on Syria | GulfNews.com
