David Singer: Islamic State Crows as Russia and America Trade Blows

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.  (Update: There is a sequel here)

He writes:

Islamic State combatants were no doubt jumping with joy following botched airstrikes against them by American, Australian and British warplanes in Syria that accidentally killed at least 60 Syrian soldiers and wounded more than 100.

The 15-member United Nations (UN) Security Council met on 17 September after Russia demanded an emergency session to discuss the American-led airstrike fiasco.

The U.S. ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power, chastised Russia for the move:

"Russia really needs to stop the cheap point scoring and the grandstanding and the stunts and focus on what matters, which is implementation of something we negotiated in good faith with them"  

Russia made no bones about its feelings:

"We are reaching a really terrifying conclusion for the whole world: That the White House is defending Islamic State. Now there can be no doubts about that," the RIA Novosti news agency quoted Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova as saying.”

The boot was however on the other foot with America blaming Russia for an airstrike a few days later that killed 20 Syrian Red Crescent aid workers and truck drivers delivering humanitarian aid relief to 78000 civilians trapped in Aleppo province.

Islamic State no doubt relishes these recriminations and counter recriminations that will guarantee the end of the current tenuous ceasefire.

This disastrous state of affairs could have been avoided had Russia, America and their respective cohorts agreed to concentrate on jointly destroying their common agreed enemy –  Islamic State – under a UN mandated Security Council Resolution, rather than acting independently of each other.

President Obama’s decision to intrude uninvited upon Syrian sovereign territory in September 2014 without the backing of a Chapter VII UN Security Council Resolution has seen America behind the eight ball ever since.

President Putin warned in his speech at the UN just one year ago of the perils of operating outside a UN Security Council resolution:

“Russia stands ready to work together with its partners on the basis of full consensus, but we consider the attempts to undermine the legitimacy of the United Nations as extremely dangerous. They could lead to a collapse of the entire architecture of international organizations, and then indeed there would be no other rules left but the rule of force.”

The chickens are now coming home to roost for America as the consequences of its by-passing the UN unfolded this past week.

Obama and Putin now need to urgently sponsor a Security Council resolution under Article 42 of the UN Charter before the Syrian sinkhole opens even wider.

Such a Resolution would enable the UN to take action by air, sea, or land forces as might be necessary to defeat and remove Islamic State as a threat to international peace and security.

All UN Members would be obliged to make available to the Security Council, on its call, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of defeating Islamic State.

Only a UN-mandated military force led by a single commander-in-chief can ever hope to defeat Islamic State and end the threat to world peace that this evil organisation represents.

How many more horrendous incidents like these latest two have to occur before Russia and America agree to jointly initiate action in the Security Council to confront and eliminate Islamic State?

Resolving Syria’s horrific five year civil war cannot be achieved until Islamic State is comprehensively routed and driven out of Syria.

The name-calling and blame games being traded between Russia and America serve no purpose other than to prolong Islamic State’s existence and Syria’s suffering.

Wake up Russia and America.

Israel Invited To Help Destroy Chemical Weapons In Syria: David Singer reflects

Here is the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.  It's entitled "Israel Invited to Help Destroy Chemical Weapons in Syria,"

Writes David Singer:

'The passage of Security Council Resolution 2118 (2013) on 27 September calling for the collection and destruction of Syria's chemical weapons is a welcome breakthrough in ending the deadlock that has paralysed the Security Council's ability to act constructively to end the civil war in Syria for the past thirty months.

It also signifies that diplomacy United Nations style is indeed the art of the possible –  aimed at finding the lowest common denominators shared by the five permanent members of the Security Council.

Whilst a protocol has been put in place to destroy Syria's chemical weapons, the Resolution also offers something of substance to prevent anti-Assad forces using chemical weapons in Syria and to committing the United Nations to search for and locate any such chemical weapons.

Russia has maintained anti-Assad forces used the sarin gas that resulted in the deaths of 1429 civilians on 21 August – but has been unable to conclusively substantiate that claim.

America has made it clear that it considers Syria responsible for the atrocity – as President Obama again made abundantly clear in his address to the General Assembly on 24 September:

"The evidence is overwhelming that the Assad regime used such weapons on August 21st. U.N. inspectors gave a clear accounting that advanced rockets fired large quantities of sarin gas at civilians. These rockets were fired from a regime-controlled neighborhood and landed in opposition neighborhoods.

It’s an insult to human reason and to the legitimacy of this institution to suggest that anyone other than the regime carried out this attack."

President Obama has certainly not done his own credibility any good by continuing to publicly castigate Syria –  asserting it is an insult to human reason and the legitimacy of the United Nations for anyone to think otherwise –  but then immediately agreeing to Resolution 2118 three days later without any mention of Syria's culpability.

Yet Russia and America have managed to agree on inserting the following mechanism in Resolution 2118 to try and find out whether the anti-Assad forces were indeed the culprits.

"Decides that Member States shall inform immediately the Security Council of any violation of resolution 1540 (2004), including acquisition by non-State actors of chemical weapons, their means of delivery and related materials in order to take necessary measures therefore; "

The United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1540 (2004) under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter on 28 April 2004 –  which affirmed that the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and their means of delivery constituted a threat to international peace and security. The resolution obliged States to refrain from supporting by any means non-State actors from developing, acquiring, manufacturing, possessing, transporting, transferring or using nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and their delivery systems.

The idea that any member state violating Resolution 1540 would now immediately notify the Security Council and incriminate itself is laughable.

However Resolution 2118 contains three further obligations:

(1) In underscoring:

" that no party in Syria should use, develop, produce, acquire, stockpile, retain, or transfer chemical weapons";

(2) In reaffirming:

“that all Member States shall refrain from providing any form of support to non-State actors that attempt to develop, acquire, manufacture, possess, transport, transfer or use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and their means of delivery, and calls upon all Member States, in particular Member States neighbouring the Syrian Arab Republic, to report any violations of this paragraph to the Security Council immediately";

(3) Demanding that:

“non-State actors not develop, acquire, manufacture, possess, transport, transfer or use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and their means of delivery, and calls upon all Member States, in particular Member States neighbouring the Syrian Arab Republic, to report any actions inconsistent with this paragraph to the Security Council immediately";

Singling out all member States neighbouring the Syrian Arab Republic to report any such activities by non-State actors in Syria is particularly intriguing.

There are eleven UN member states –  known as the London Eleven –  providing military and financial aid to the Syrian Free Army. Six of these States are Syria's neighbours – Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and UIA Emirates.

Are any of them aware that the Syrian Free Army has acquired chemical weapons? If so – they are unlikely to disclose their information and consequently be forced to withhold further aid - besides explaining why they continued supporting the Syrian Free Army knowing they held chemical weapons.

However, one of Syria's most immediate neighbours – Israel – is not a member of the London Eleven and is vitally interested in the Security Council taking steps to collect and destroy such weapons.

Resolution 2118 requires Israel to disclose to the Security Council any information it holds on chemical weapons acquired by any anti-Assad forces in Syria. Israel is widely assumed to have extensive knowledge of the existence of such chemical weapons in Syria.

Israel can deny it has any information – but risks being in breach of Resolution 2118 if information in its possession is subsequently revealed.

Russia has cleverly forced the Security Council to determine the truth of Russia's claim – whilst any evidence supplied by Russia and Israel will be critical in collecting and destroying those chemical weapons.

The impotence of the Security Council in ending non-State actors using chemical weapons in Syria has been brilliantly circumvented by this latest Resolution.

Such is the way convenient marriages are made in the Security Council.'

David Singer On Why The UN Security Council Must Reach Urgent Consensus On Syria

The latest article by one of my favourite Middle East-watchers, Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer, who of course is no stranger to regular readers of this blog, is entitled "Syria: Obama Left Red-faced Over Red Line".

Writes David Singer:

'President Obama has tripped over his own red line – leaving the prestige and authority of his Office and America's reputation in tatters.

The President's statement last year on the possible use of chemical weapons – supposedly then awash in Syria whilst a civil war had been raging for eighteen months between the Assad regime and a rebel group comprising Syrian civilians, deserting Syrian soldiers and foreign insurgents – was spot on:

“A red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.”

No mention was made by President Obama of the need to identify who was utilizing such weapons.

"Utilized" was the operative word – not "utilizer"

That red line appears to have been definitely crossed on 21 August 2013 with a claimed chemical warfare attack using [the nerve gas] sarin causing more than 1429 confirmed deaths – including 426 children.

USA Today reported on 23 August: 

"Syria's chemical weapons program stretches back decades, allowing the country to amass a supply of nerve and blister agents capable of being mounted on long-range missiles that could reach neighboring countries, according to government and independent analysts.

Its program stretches back to the 1970s or '80s – experts disagree on the precise time – as a means of developing a deterrent against Israel's presumed nuclear capabilities, according to analysts and a Congressional Research Service report

... Syria has stocks of sarin and VX, which attacks the nervous system, and mustard gas, which burns the skin, according to the Defense Intelligence Agency.

... Syria has generally denied having any chemical weapons, but a spokesman for the Syrian Foreign Ministry, Jihad Maqdisi, said last year that Syria would never use chemical weapons and they were secured.

... Syria is one of a handful of nations that the United States says is pursuing an active chemical weapons program, along with Iran and North Korea.

... Syria has not signed the Chemical Weapons Convention, which was ratified by the United States in 1997. It is an international agreement banning the production of chemical weapons and calling for the destruction of stockpiles."

Syria's stockpile of any such suspected chemicals cache could have been accessed by the rebel forces during the long running conflict or additional supplies procured by them from other sources.

But did it matter who used chemicals on 21 August? Wasn't there real urgency now to ensure they could never be used again in this conflict?

Wasn't the Obama red line crossed because such weapons had in fact been used in Syria on Syrian civilians – no matter which side had launched such attack?

Instead of focusing on the actual use of such chemical weapons, Obama and his Western allies chose to waste valuable time by accusing the Assad regime as the user of those chemical weapons.

UK Prime Minister David Cameron announced that a resolution would be tabled with  the UN Security Council.

Cameron said the resolution would condemn “the chemical weapons attack by Assad” and authorize “necessary measures to protect civilian lives.” He also stressed that any intervention in Syria would have to be “legal, proportionate” and aimed at minimizing further loss of life.

Russia and China indicated they would veto such resolution.

The UN has since been sidelined as the UK and USA have threatened action without any UN Security Council Resolution as legal backing to justify any action they and their Allies might undertake.

Such action has so far proved illusory as both Cameron and Obama hesitated to initiate any action without the consent of their Legislatures. Indeed the British Parliament has already voted against intervening and any Congress decision will be at least seven days away.

Any vote by Congress for unilateral action would be fraught with difficulty and possibly invite retaliation on a massive scale.

Surely consideration should now be given to urgently securing Security Council approval to a resolution that:

1. Deplores the use of chemical weapons against the Syrian civilian population on 21 August 2013

2. Calls on Syria and the rebel forces to surrender control and custody over any chemical weapons in their possession within 72 hours to the United Nations

3. Reserves the right to take such further action as it considers fit in the event of non-compliance with the Security Council resolution.

There is evidence Russia and China would not veto such a Resolution

On 18 June 2013, The Group of 8 (G8) – consisting of the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Canada, Japan, and Russia – issued a statement in which they “condemn in the strongest terms any use of chemical weapons and all human rights violations in Syria.”

The document pointedly refrained from the need to assign blame for their use.

Australia – now occupying the Presidency of the Security Council – could be a driving force in resurrecting this G8 resolution as the basis for the necessary first step in disarming both sides of chemical weapons.

Precious time is being lost as the conflicting parties in Syria continue their war with increasing death and suffering to its hapless civilian population – with the threat of further chemical warfare now being a distinct possibility instead of a theoretical probability.

The UN Security Council must find common ground on this issue between its five permanent members – or be condemned for being totally unable to deal with this humanitarian outrage.

Like its predecessor – the League of Nations – the UN could be writing its own death certificate if it fails to rise to this challenge.'

(Incidentally, here's Israel's former Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, talking on Dutch TV about Syria, in a debate with an Iranian academic.  And here's a despicable article that I'm told Stephen Sizer has linked to on Facebook. D.A.)