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. 

Syria: An Aussie Shahid, The Endangered Christian Minority, & David Singer On Putin

I understand from an expert in these matters that some 80 per cent of Syrian rebels are Jihadists, about 60 per cent of them affiliated to the Muslim Brotherhood.  (See, incidentally, Edgar Davidson's salutary post here.) It's reported that about 100 Australians are in Syria fighting with the rebels, and there are unconfirmed reports that one of them, Queensland man Abu Asma al-Australi, had the distinction a few days ago of becoming Australia's first ever suicide bomber, when he blew himself up in a car bombing attack on a school housing government troops carried out on behalf of the proscribed Al Quaeda-linked al-Nusrah Front.  The ABC reported last week that ASIO believes that 100 Australians are in Syria espousing the rebel cause ...

The alleged Aussie suicide bomber; Photo: The Age & The Sydney Morning Herald

Over at the Almond Rod blog, a Christian blog that supports Israel, Anglican Ian G in recent posts has drawn attention to the pitiful plight of Syrian Christians, and in his current post here he brings his readers' attention to a petition the Barnabas Fund has initiated urging Western governments to take action on their behalf.

Meanwhile, in an article entitled "Putin Puts International Law Before War," Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer writes:

'Russia’s President – Vladimir Putin – has trumped America’s President – Barack Obama – in urging the American nation to put international law before war to prevent any armed attack on Syria threatened by President Obama as a result of the chemical weapons atrocity perpetrated on 21 August that killed 1429 people.

Putin’s message had already been clearly heard by President Obama when he  called on the Congress to postpone a vote approving any such military offensive – choosing instead to now pursue the collection and destruction of chemical weapons in Syria with the backing of a Security Council resolution – which will  undoubtedly be finalised on such terms as are acceptable to Russia.

Putin sought to reinforce this end game in spectacular fashion by publishing an op-ed – (or should it have been called a ” victory speech”?) – in the New York Times under the heading – “A Plea for Caution From Russia – What Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria”

Putin’s concentration on stressing the importance of the UN Security Council as the sole legal authority to declare war – and conversely to help end war – was particularly revealing.

On the role of the Security Council – Putin declared:

“The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.

No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.”

The inability of the five Permanent Members of the Security Council to agree on the terms of a resolution to collect and destroy all chemical weapons in Syria – certainly could signal a lack of “real leverage” – threatening the future of the Security Council.

America’s objective in preventing the future use of chemical weapons in Syria or elsewhere will now be met – perhaps not entirely to America’s complete satisfaction – by accepting the terms of any Security Council resolution proposed by Russia.

However Putin now certainly needs to explain the lack of “real leverage” demonstrated by the failure of those same five Permanent Members to agree on the terms of a resolution to end the 30 month civil war in Syria that has already claimed over 100,000 lives, created two million refugees and displaced 5 million Syrians in their own country.

Russia needs to do its own soul searching as it continues to exercise its veto vote to paralyse all efforts by the majority of the other Permanent Members to obtain a Security Council Resolution to try and end this humanitarian outrage.

Russia cannot continue to be the impediment frustrating a resolution to try and end this conflict – if Putin wants to be taken seriously.

Putin has pointedly omitted mentioning the United Nations General Assembly – and for very good reason. The voting bloc comprised by the member states of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference and third world nations ensures that the most fanciful resolutions can be passed with impunity to demonise and denigrate other member States.

The fact that resolutions of the General Assembly have no legal effect is not understood by most people – who continually quote those General Assembly resolutions to justify their own viewpoints.

The classic example is the large number of General Assembly resolutions declaring Israeli settlements in the West Bank as being illegal in international law – when there are contradictory legal opinions asserting they are legal.

Repeated mantra like – these non-binding resolutions take on a life and misleading legal status of their own – when indeed nothing could be further from the truth.

On the need to be bound by the rule of law – Putin stated:

“From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. 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.”

Putin’s words – whilst very noble in their import – suffer from the old adage “two lawyers – three opinions”

Regrettably the International Court of Justice remains the only tribunal within the UN framework with jurisdiction to deal with disputes between States – but only if those States agree to accept its jurisdiction.

The Court has the power to issue advisory opinions – but they are also non-binding.

Calling in the lawyers to clarify the law is a worthwhile objective Putin and Obama should certainly pursue.

The Security Council can play an important role in the formation of a new Court system with teeth – possessing the ability to have its judgements respected and enforced.

Yes – the law is the law, is imperfect and is often reversed on appeal.

Yet it still remains the most effective way of settling disputes between States if those States themselves are incapable of doing so.'