UK voted No all eyes cast to USA Congress, Franch Paliament

Important announcement please watch before reading the article below:

securedownloadThe White House has sent Congress a draft of a resolution authorizing President Barack Obama to use military force against Syria.

The draft follows through on Obama’s decision, announced Saturday, to seek congressional approval for a strike against Syrian President Bashar Assad‘s regime.

The resolution lays out the administration’s claim that Assad’s regime killed more than 1,000 last week in a chemical weapons attack. It says the objective of a U.S. military response would be to “deter, disrupt, prevent and degrade” the regime’s ability to use chemical weapons going forward.

photo[3]The resolution authorizes Obama to use the military as he determines “necessary and appropriate” to serve that goal.

The draft doesn’t lay out a timeline for action. But it does say only a political settlement can resolve the Syrian crisis.

photo(1)This is the other side of the coin that is beyond disgusting which should be leading the news. Yet few papers have mentioned it. David Cameron seems totally unaccountable for his Government actions. Not only should the UK not be involved in selling such items to dodgy countries, to do so after a human trash like Assad has murdered his own people is deplorable.

article-2114146-0A86672C000005DC-910_634x663Cameron has serious questions to answer, but he will hide and ignore the issue and that is the trouble he does that on all issues he does not want to answer. Now that the scum Assad has them, he has used them…Well I for one do not believe the rebels used it on themselves. And the chances are with no response from the west he may use them again.

Cameron should face investigations for this and the pressure must be solid because he should not be allowed to get of the hook for this. Selling arms must not come before human rights.

Mideast Lebanon SyriaThis has leads me to seek clarification if there may or may not be a hidden agenda besides the alleged usage of chemical weapons from both sides( rebels or president) to test the western world if they will do anything given there is international law which forbids the use of chemical or biological warfare in any form on its citizens or international communities.

Whoever is responsible must be brought to justice in the International Criminal Court to face trial be they be on the side of religious fanatics or dictator( general of army) which tantalize to genocide. The other issue is are the US intentions really for regime change which in this case it will be illegal under international law.

Granted there may or may not be a case for arm forces for intervention in Syria. In the UK David Cameron decided to make a case that Syrian President did use chemical weapons on his own people. In parliament the debate for action against a dictator was lost in a vote.

President Obama decided to follow suit to put the case to full congress in the hope to urge support as he is aware that there is not a strong will from the Americans to engage in war given the last experience that both US and UK were involved in Iraq and Afghanistan which have left both UK and American drained with their resources. It is said that President Obama may win debate but for me I’m not sure what would really be the outcome.

The big question for me is what will President Obama do if he gets eggs thrown in his face with a no vote will action against Syria come to a halt or does he continue with his mission and start to attend the G20 Summit to convince the committee with sweeteners on the table by using a political solution to bring both Russia and China on board to make the case  against Syria. In my opinion this would be the best option.

This has leads me to seek clarification if there may or may not be a hidden agenda besides the alleged usage of chemical weapons from both sides( rebels or president) to test the western world if they will do anything given there is international law which forbids the use of chemical or biological warfare in any form on its citizens or international communities.

I enclose the Draft UN Security Council Resolution sent by the UK:

The P5 members of the Council met this morning (28 August) to discuss a draft resolution on Syria introduced today by the UK. It seems the draft condemns the alleged chemical weapons attack on rebel-held areas in Syria on 21 August and seeks Council authorisation for “all necessary measures” under Chapter VII (which allows for the use of force) to protect Syrian civilians from chemical weapons. At press time the draft had not been circulated to the rest of the Council nor had a meeting been called.

The UK’s draft resolution comes in the wake of several days of increasingly strong statements from France, the UK and the US suggesting that they may be getting ready to take retaliatory action for what they are convinced was a chemical weapons attack by the Syrian government last week. Unlike the P3, China and Russia are not certain that the Syrian government used chemical weapons and have warned about jumping to conclusions. Russia has publicly stated that the Council should wait for the report of the weapons inspectors before discussing a resolution on Syria. France, the UK and the US appear to strongly believe that the Syrian government used chemical weapons in the 21 August attack with the US claiming to have evidence it will share in the coming days.

A UN chemical weapons team – which had already been in Syria at the time of the attack – was given permission following calls from a number of countries as well as the Secretary-General to visit the site of the alleged chemical attacks on Monday. Following a day’s delay due to security concerns, a second visit, to an eastern suburb of Damascus, took place today. The Secretary-General said today that the UN team needed to be given time to establish the facts.

Also today, at a press conference in Geneva, UN-Arab League Joint Special Representative for Syria Lakhdar Brahimi said that there was evidence suggesting that some sort of chemical “substance” was used in Syria. He also said that any military strike in response to the use of chemical weapons needed Security Council approval. The Arab League in a statement issued on 27 August blamed the Syrian government for the chemical weapons attack but stopped short of backing a possible retaliatory military strike.

On 21 August Council members were briefed in consultations by Deputy Secretary-General Jan Eliasson on the attacks that had taken place earlier that day but failed to agree on a statement condemning the attacks. In giving a summary of the meeting to the press, the Council president, Ambassador María Cristina Perceval (Argentina) said that there was strong concern among Council members about the allegations of the use of chemical weapons and a general sense that there must be clarity about what happened. She also said that all Council members agreed that the use of chemical weapons by any side under any circumstances is a violation of international law. Furthermore, she said that Council members welcomed the determination of the Secretary-General to ensure a thorough, impartial and prompt investigation.

It seems unlikely that the P5 discussion will result in consensus and if the draft resolution is put to a vote it seems unlikely to be adopted. While there has been no vote on Syria in the Council this year, both China and Russia have vetoed three resolutions on Syria in the past (October 2011, February 2012 and July 2012) and there has been no discernible shift in their positions. While elected members have not seen the draft and therefore may not have clearly defined their positions yet, issues related to protection of civilians in the aftermath of any sort of military intervention as well as uncertainty about how the resulting chaos might be used by the different actors are likely to make some elected members wary of authorising the use of force in this situation. There are also concerns about the impact of military intervention on the region.

Whereas the Council adopted a resolution ahead of air strikes in Libya in March 2011, establishing a no-fly zone and authorising states to take “all necessary measures” to protect civilians, there are other cases where military action has taken place without Council authorisation. A well-documented example is that of NATO air strikes on Kosovo in 1999. On 23 March 1999 NATO went ahead with strikes without Council approval. The next day Russia called for a meeting of the Council to “consider an extremely dangerous situation caused by the unilateral military action of NATO against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia”. On 26 March Belarus, India and Russia put forward a draft resolution (S/1999/328) which demanded immediate cessation of the use of force against Yugoslavia and resumption of negotiations. The resolution which went into blue and was voted on that same day had three votes in favour (China, Namibia and Russia) and 12 against (Argentina, Bahrain, Brazil, Canada, France, Gabon, Gambia, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Slovenia, the UK and the US).

At press time it was unclear if the draft resolution would be circulated to the full Council or if it would be dropped following the P5 discussions. Looking ahead, however, if the P3, together with their allies, go ahead with a military intervention without Council authorisation it is likely that questions will be raised about the legality of such action.

I close by say the morale of this story is wait to the outcome of the UN inspectors’ report.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s