David Singer: Trump and Putin Must Co-operate to Defeat Islamic State

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

President Trump made his intention to destroy Islamic State crystal clear in his stirring address to the Congress on 28 February:

"As promised, I directed the Department of Defense to develop a plan to demolish and destroy ISIS -- a network of lawless savages that have slaughtered Muslims and Christians, and men, women, and children of all faiths and beliefs. We will work with our allies, including our friends and allies in the Muslim world, to extinguish this vile enemy from our planet.”

The Department of Defense plan had already been delivered to members of the National Security Council's Principals Committee – and Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis was due to brief the committee on 27 February.

Whether this plan recommends co-operation with Russia still remains under wraps.

Certainly President Obama’s decision in September 2014 to degrade and destroy Islamic State by forming a broad international coalition of 68 States without:

1. Including Russia and

2. first securing a Security Council resolution endorsing such action

has proved both catastrophic and very expensive.

The State Department trumpeted that the breadth and diversity of America’s coalition partners demonstrated the global and unified nature of Obama’s endeavour.

Yet Islamic State today remains undefeated in Syria and Iraq. Support for – and pledges of allegiance to – Islamic State by over 30 radical Islamic terrorist groups world-wide are creating horrific humanitarian problems – some far removed from the Middle East.

Defeating Islamic State in Iraq and Syria will see these “lawless savages” joining such disparate groups in their drive to establish the restoration of the Caliphate and the implementation of Sharia law world-wide.

Members of the US-led Coalition have not been contributing their fair share towards dealing with Islamic State – leaving the burden to fall squarely on America. Australian Prime Minister – Malcolm Turnbull – declared last week that Australia was in fact the second largest international contributor to the US led coalition after the United States – shaming NATO countries like Germany, France and the United Kingdom and Middle East members Saudi Arabia, Qatar and United Arab Emirates.

The remaining 125 UN member States have escaped sharing the cost and responsibility of confronting and defeating Islamic State.

Trump’s reprimand of NATO would indicate he considers the Obama-led coalition has been a very bad deal for America.

Trump can rectify this situation by jointly co-sponsoring with Putin a United Nations Security Council resolution authorising the use of force against Islamic State under Chapter V11 of the UN Charter.

Russia and America have previously expressed their willingness to involve the Security Council. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov made this clear on 18 November 2015:

“The Security Council needs to give preferential attention to the task of creating a solid legal foundation for the fight against this evil [Islamic State] and for the mobilization of an actual global coalition in response to this common uncompromising challenge for us all.”

President Obama preached a similar mantra in St Petersburg on 6 September 2013:

“And I respect those who are concerned about setting precedents of action outside of a U.N. Security Council resolution. I would greatly prefer working through multilateral channels and through the United Nations to get this done.”

Mentioning any relationship with Russia is a very sensitive issue in American politics today. However Trump may well have had Russia in mind when he told Congress:

“America is willing to find new friends, and to forge new partnerships, where shared interests align. We want harmony and stability, not war and conflict.”

Defeating Islamic State is a shared interest of Trump and Putin.

Co-operation in the United Nations Security Council will materially advance that objective.

David Singer: Trump and Putin need Security Council Resolution to Defeat Islamic State

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

The United States and America seem set to jointly confront their common enemy – Islamic State – once President-elect Donald Trump is sworn into office on 20 January 2017.

This possibility emerged after a telephone call between Trump and Vladimir Putin following Trump's stunning presidential victory on 8 November.

President Obama's failure to co-operate with Putin for the last two years in seeking to degrade and destroy Islamic State has resulted in hundreds of thousands of needless civilian deaths and injuries and the internal and external displacement of millions of Syrians and Iraqis.

Islamic State has been confronted in Mosul – Iraq's second largest city – for the last three months without Security Council authority by a US-led coalition airborne force supporting 100000 Iraqi and Kurdish infantry against an estimated 7000 Islamic State fighters. Some territorial gains have been made but little progress in ending the 30 month rampage by Islamic State and the spawning of  many offshoots in at least 25 other countries.

Identified as a threat to world peace and security in a number of Security Council resolutions – the UN's resolve to defeat Islamic State has stopped short of authorising military action.

An eye witness account published on 7 December in the Wall Street Journal says it all:

"Yet ISIS hangs on. Is it because it concentrated its most seasoned personnel in Mosul proper? Is it because the remaining fighters have their backs to the wall and battle here with furious desperation? Or is it that the coalition – with the cold weather setting in, with the rain and low, cloudy skies interfering with airstrikes – is getting weary?

Whatever the explanation, I return home with a deep sense of unease. Between Al-Zohur and Al-Qadisiyyah, a handful of fanatics manages to hold off an Iraqi counterterrorism unit. A little to the west, in Mishraq, a single sniper holed up alone in a mosque stalls the coalition’s advance. One senses that the battle for Mosul, which began with a flourish, could bog down.

Is it possible that we might become resigned to the idea of a strange war in which 4,000 cornered fighters stop an ultra-powerful coalition? For the children of Mosul, held hostage and on the verge of famine, that possibility would be catastrophic. And, in the capitals of the West where populations already live in fear of the next terrorist attack, it would be an admission of weakness that could only embolden aspiring jihadists whose hearts beat to the rhythm of the supposedly great feats of their big brothers in the “caliphate” of Iraq and Syria.

The fire must be stamped out. And very soon. To bring this about, one looks to Barack Obama, who might prove willing to quicken the pace so as to end his second term with a victory for civilization over the pseudo-state that presently threatens every real state in the world."

The chances of President Obama rising to the occasion seem very remote.

Regrettably the conflict is set to escalate unless Trump and Putin can agree on joint action to defeat Islamic State.

Their first step should involve obtaining a Security Council Resolution under Articles 42 and 43 of the UN Charter authorising the use of military force and obliging all member States to contribute such forces and resources as are necessary to defeat Islamic State in Syria and Iraq.

A Security Council Resolution is vital – if the mistakes of America's 2003 invasion of Iraq are not to be repeated.

Whilst Russia and America continue to fiddle, Syria and Iraq bleed and burn.

It is time to start getting serious.

David Singer: Islamic State and al-Nusrah Survive Whilst America and Russia Crash Dive (sequel to previous post)

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.  It is a sequel to the one posted yesterday, in view of further developments.

Writes David Singer:

Botched airstrikes by American, Australian and British warplanes in Syria have accidentally killed at least 62 Syrian soldiers and wounded more than 100 – leading Russia to making the accusation that the “White House is defending Islamic State”.

The boot was however on the other foot when America blamed 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.

A very angry American Secretary of State – John Kerry – addressed the UN Security Council on 21 September:

“For weeks over the summer, experts from my government worked with our counterparts from Russia in good efforts to develop a plan that would take into account the lessons learned from the original cessation, and the key elements of that plan launched in Geneva two weeks ago include the renewal of a cessation of hostilities, excluding only Daesh [Islamic State – ed] and al-Nusrah.

Importantly, it included arrangements for the unfettered delivery – unfettered delivery – of humanitarian aid to people in Aleppo and elsewhere in the country, and it envisioned the possibility – providing humanitarian assistance was unimpeded and sustained, and provided there were at least seven days of consecutive adherence to the cessation – that the United States and Russia would begin to coordinate their efforts against Daesh [Islamic State] and al-Nusrah. And I want to make it clear, under President Obama’s orders, all preparations were being made in order to achieve that cooperation in terms of our military and intelligence community and the work we would do. So we’re committed to that."

America and Russia had again put the cart before the horse – and these two tragic events have happened as a result.

Russia, America and their respective cohorts now need to get on with the job of first destroying their commonly agreed enemies - Islamic State and al- Nusrah – but only after first obtaining a UN mandated Security Council Resolution - rather than acting independently of the UN by pursuing some joint co-ordinated action of their own.

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.”

Obama and Putin should urgently co-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 to defeat and remove Islamic State and al-Nusrah 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.

Only a UN-mandated military force led by a single commander-in-chief can ever hope to defeat Islamic State and al-Nusrah.

America seems unable to understand that resolving this world threat to international peace and security in Syria must first happen before it becomes possible to start resolving the 5 year old civil war in Syria.

Meantime Islamic State and al-Nusrah survive – and the inhumane suffering in Syria continues.
Russia and America must use the United Nations Security Council for the purpose it was created – not as a debating forum to play the blame game.

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.

Obama’s Failure to Test Putin’s Sincerity Could Seriously Compromise America’s ME Policy, warns David Singer

Photo credt: Reuters/E.Munoz

Earlier this week I posted Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer's spotlight on Abu Mazen's UN-bedazzling economy with the truth (it's proving a popular read, so please have a look if you've missed it).

And now, here's David's latest article, entitled  "Iraq Exacerbates America-Russia Standoff on Destroying Islamic State".

He writes:

America and its 62 nation coalition is becoming increasingly isolated and irrelevant as Russia maintains its airstrikes in Syria and has now commenced firing cruise missiles from warships in the Caspian Sea 1500 kilometres away.

Russia is presently contemplating entering Iraq if requested by Iraq’s Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi [pictured above, addressing the UN on 30 September]  – who had reportedly indicated last week that he would welcome a Russian bombing campaign to destroy Islamic State’s presence in Iraq.

Abadi then said Russian strikes were a “possibility” but had not been discussed.

Russia’s Foreign Minister – Sergei Lavrov – made Russia’s position clear on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly:

“We are polite people. We don’t come if not invited.”

Lavrov’s comment was clearly critical of the American coalition’s air strikes in Syria having being undertaken without any invitation from President Assad – dubiously being justified by America as legal to defend Iraq’s territorial sovereignty against further incursions by Islamic State from Syria.

Now just one week later Abadi has upped the ante - reportedly saying he would welcome Russian airstrikes in Iraq if they were coordinated with the American-led coalition and that he sought to maintain cordial relations with both America and Russia.

He called the American-led coalition “a small help”– adding:

“This doesn’t mean that I reject the small help. Even the one single bomb would be helpful to me”

President Obama would not have been very impressed with Abadi’s mean-spirited disparaging comment.

The American-led coalition has been bombing Islamic State targets in Iraq for more than a year – but Iraqi officials have repeatedly complained that their efforts are insufficient to decisively turn back Islamic State. The United States has spent more than $25 billion training and equipping Iraq’s military.

Valentina Matviyenko – head of Russia’s Federation Council – the upper house of parliament – said this week:

“In case of an official address from Iraq to the Russian Federation, the leaders of our country would study the political and military expediency of our Air Force’s participation in an air operation. Presently we have not received such an address”

Iraq’s concern at destroying Islamic State has been heightened following Islamic State claiming responsibility for a series of bombings that killed more than 50 people throughout Iraq on 5 October.
Abadi’s wish for Russian intervention to be co-ordinated with the American-led coalition has offered Obama probably the last opportunity to come to an agreement with Russia on forming a legally
constituted armed military force authorized pursuant to a Security Council Resolution under Article 42 of the UN Charter.

Obama’s past insistence that any America-Russia co-operation be conditioned upon President Assad’s removal has stymied any possible earlier attempt.

Abadi’s timely lifeline should be grabbed by Obama before Syria and Iraq slide into an escalating conflict of indescribable carnage. Abadi could invite Russia to come to its assistance without American co-ordination if Obama continues to delay seeking Russia’s co-sponsoring of such a Resolution. Obama should heed President Putin’s advice expressed in his New York Times op-ed on 11 September 2013:

“We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression."

Obama’s failure to test Putin’s sincerity could risk America’s Middle East policy being seriously compromised.

David Singer: Syrian Sinkhole Swallowing Obama and Putin’s Credibility and Political Judgement

From today's London Times

The last of my September posts concerns Jeremy Corbyn's curiously Israelrein address to the Labour Friends of Israel (shame on the sycophants who applauded and cheered him, and well done Michael Foster!); the first of my October posts concerns the wider Middle East, and is the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

Writes David Singer:

President Obama’s continuing focus on removing Syria’s President Assad to secure America’s co-operation with Russia to destroy Islamic State – whilst President Putin has now independently commenced Russian air strikes in Syria – supposedly on Islamic State forces – exposes both leaders lack of credibility and political judgement.

Obama addressing the United Nations General Assembly on 28 September asserted:

“The United States is prepared to work with any nation, including Russia and Iran, to resolve the conflict. But we must recognize that there cannot be, after so much bloodshed, so much carnage, a return to the pre-war status quo…

… Yes, realism dictates that compromise will be required to end the fighting and ultimately stamp out ISIL. But realism also requires a managed transition away from Assad and to a new leader, and an inclusive government that recognizes there must be an end to this chaos so that the Syrian people can begin to rebuild."

Obama’s acceptance of Russia and Iran as acceptable partners – but not Syria – makes no sense. Russia and Iran have propped up Assad’s hold on power in Syria for the last five years enabling the bloodshed and carnage in Syria to continue unabated.

Putin however argues for co-operation with Syria’s armed forces:

“We think it is an enormous mistake to refuse to cooperate with the Syrian government and its armed forces, who are valiantly fighting terrorism face to face. We should finally acknowledge that no one but President Assad's armed forces and Kurds militias are truly fighting the Islamic State and other terrorist organizations in Syria.”

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com

Putin’s undisguised contempt for the American-led coalition’s efforts to degrade and destroy Islamic State is a harsh – and arguably unfair – indictment.

Nevertheless both Presidents differing viewpoints and responses are now on the public record - and need to be reconciled before any Security Council resolution creating a UN armed force to destroy Islamic State can emerge.

Obama’s preference for a Security Council Resolution can be gleaned from his comments made at a press conference in Russia on 6 September 2013 – shortly after chemical weapons had been used in Syria to gas 1400 people including 400 children. America took the view that Assad was the culprit – whilst Russia considered that the rebel forces battling Assad was the aggressor. President Obama reasoned:

“You know, there are number a of countries that just as a matter of principle believe that if military action is to be taken, it needs to go through the U.N. Security Council…

… It is my view … that given Security Council paralysis on this issue, if we are serious about upholding a ban on chemical weapons use, then an international response is required and that will not come through Security Council action.

And I respect those who are concerned about setting precedents of action outside of a U.N. Security Council resolution. I would greatly prefer working through multilateral channels and through the United Nations to get this done”

www.cable.com

Eight days later – after three days of negotiations between America and Russia – the Security Council in fact adopted a resolution – jointly sponsored by America and Russia - on destroying chemical weapons in Syria - contrary to Obama’s belief that such co-operation was not possible.

Concentrating on their commonly agreed problem – destroying chemical weapons – and not who fired them – averted any possible Security Council paralysis.

Similarly Russia and America need to concentrate on jointly destroying their common agreed enemy – Islamic State – under a UN mandated Security Council Resolution – rather than acting independently – and dangerously – of each other whilst arguing about Assad’s fate as President or Syria’s inclusion in any proposed UN force.

President Putin warned that the stakes of operating outside a UN Security Council resolution are high:

“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.

 We would get a world dominated by selfishness rather than collective work, a world increasingly characterized by dictate rather than equality. There would be less of a chain of democracy and freedom, and that would be a world where true independent states would be replaced by an ever-growing number of de facto protectorates and externally controlled territories.

On the basis of international law, we must join efforts to address the problems that all of us are facing and create a genuinely broad international coalition against terrorism.

Similar to the anti-Hitler coalition, it could unite a broad range of forces that are resolutely resisting those who, just like the Nazis, sow evil and hatred of humankind. And, naturally, the Muslim countries are to play a key role in the coalition, even more so because the Islamic State does not only pose a direct threat to them, but also desecrates one of the greatest world religions by its bloody crimes.” 

President Obama also understands the risks of acting unilaterally:

“No matter how powerful our military, how strong our economy, we understand the United States cannot solve the world’s problems alone.”

With Russian airstrikes seriously escalating the conflict in Syria, Obama and Putin need to urgently sponsor that Security Council resolution before the Syrian sinkhole opens even wider.