|
A “NATO Mandate” For War Would Be Illegal
Daniel Larison quotes from a (paywalled) Wall Street Journal report on the discussions inside the U.S. administration on a more open war on Syria. This point sticks out:
Lawyers at the White House and departments of Defense, State and Justice debated whether the U.S. had a “clear and credible” legal justification under U.S. or international law for intervening militarily. The clearest legal case could be made if the U.S. won a U.N. or NATO mandate for using force. Neither route seemed viable: Russia would veto any Security Council resolution, and NATO wasn’t interested in a new military mission.
There can be no legal NATO mandate for using force. NATO is not an organization that can wage war if some committee decides to do so.
Unless a NATO member is illegally attacked NATO has exactly zero legal authority to fight a war. While a case can certainly be made that Turkey is attacking Syria by harboring, training and supplying illegitimate forces that fight the Syrian state, no case can be made that Turkey is attacked by Syria.
Asides from the natural right of self-defense there is only one other source that could legitimize a war. That is, and only under certain circumstances, the UN Security Council.
That U.S. administration lawyers would even consider something like a "NATO mandate" shows that there are still a lot of neoconned minds with a quite false understanding of international law.
@Don Bacon
Scratch beneath the surface of Syria Comment and you’ve got another pro-opposition site. This is why it attracts the sort of people it does in its comments section. The evacuation of Dera’a by Government forces was a tactic adopted some time ago to bolster Damascus defences shortly before rebels launched another offensive to take the city. It was around the time that internet and mobile communication was cut off to leave the rebels high and dry in no-man’s land without the ability to call for backup. Much of the Dera’a area has already been razed to the ground.
—-
Anyway, on the subject of Syria, ever since the Russians were said to have suggested a Yemen type scenario, I’ve been certain that Russia sees no place for Assad in any future Government. They certainly wouldn’t engage in a direct military confrontation to keep him in place, as some here might hope. However, they are loath to ask Assad to step aside.
Firstly, to do so would undermine the position that the Russian Government has taken over the last 2 years – insisting that any decision regarding Assad’s future must be made in Syria by Syrians. Secondly, it would in all likelihood be seen as an act of betrayal by Assad and his core supporters, undermining Russia’s interests in a post-Assad Syria. After all, members of this Syrian Government will be present to form part of a transitional Government with the opposition, as stipulated by the Geneva agreement which all sides seem to have agreed to work on.
The Russians have no intention to surrender their base in Tartus. Who’s going to make them? It’s an Assad stronghold within an Alawite enclave – whatever happens in Damascus. Could you imagine some puppet opposition figure trying to get the Russians out? Him and what army? That would be the pro-Assad, pro-Russian army.
Russian interests are not dependent on Assad staying. I think the Russians are increasingly trying to develop a position where Assad can see for himself that his position has become untenable.
It was recently reported that a Russian Mediterranean task force would avoid Tartus and refuel in Beirut instead, citing the security situation in Syria as grounds for redirection. There is zero threat to the Russian navy in Tartus, but by docking in Syria it would have given Assad a sense of security and the perception that Russia has his back. Instead the Russians are trying to get Assad to feel the heat. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if these new calls to arm the rebels, which came after Lavrov met Kerry, have the implicit blessing of the Russians – designed to get Assad thinking ‘what if’ because, at the moment, he has good reason to believe that he can stay on.
The Syrian Government continues to oversee all the major towns and cities, bar one in the East. The population is resisting its ‘liberation’ by insurgents and Assad retains an almost God-like status among his core supporters. But could his letter to the BRICS summit, which called for intervention, be a signal of wavering confidence in his ability to maintain control of these areas? If so, he would have been left disappointed by the response, despite his diplomatic efforts to gain support.
If we are honest with ourselves, how can we expect Assad to remain as the Syrian president after so much has been invested, and is being invested, in his downfall? The Iranians, too, have been making contingencies for a Syria without him. Politics rules, and I don’t want the opposition to have the satisfaction of Assad ending up like Gaddafi.
Syria’s largest trading partners come from within the Arab League. Syria is utterly dependent on trade to function as a state. Even if Assad won a presidential election, could you see Erdogan and Obama willing to embrace him? We are faced with a scenario where his election has been made all but impossible by the sponsors of an insurgency who have reduced polling stations to rubble…and who will continue to create an environment where no Syrian Government can claim legitimacy in the polls until those who are creating the chaos have reason to let it stop.
The US, Qatar and the Brotherhood now have their man in Hitto to represent their interests within a transitional ‘Government’. Russia and Iran will have the ear of current members of the regime. With it, they will retain the support of the intelligence services and armed forces – the real power in Syria. Syria is bigger than one man.
Even though a transitional ‘Government’ will be seen to be in charge, the bulk and structure of the present Government will remain to oversee the day to day running of the country. Somebody has to do it.
Assad has been vilified as some sort of Godzilla creature; that if you lure him out into the open and have him eliminated, the country will be free from his tyranny. It’s a childish perception but, ironically, will allow much of the state to remain in its current form when he departs. He alone will provide a disconnect between past and present in the minds of many opposition supporters.
Assad remains the sticking point. He and a few another prominent members could well be sacrificed to create the impression that the regime is clean to do dealings with.
Once Qatar et al have representation in a transitional ‘Government’, continuing to sponsor an insurgency that will achieve nothing but undermine their own interests in a future Syria will cease to make sense.
As for Syria’s future, the strength of any democratic Government will depend on public support. Public opinion can only be denied for so long. It could very well choose to back old alliances.
And what about Al Qaeda in Syria? They are not going to go home once Assad leaves. They have their own ambitions. So I expect to see an Iraqi type scenario repeated. With a central transitional ‘Government’ trying to restore peace, violent and indiscriminate attacks directed by AQ against Syrian civilians will eventually isolate the group in areas they have acquired support. Like Iraq, former Sunni militants (rebels/FSA/whatever) that previously fought alongside the group will start to work with the remaining Syrian Arab Army forces. Perhaps those opposition fighters that the US is currently training in Jordan will serve this purpose – initiating conflict between Al Nusrah and those opposition fighters willing to listen and obey.
If Syria isn’t going to completely disintegrate, with Turkey syphoning off oil from an autonomous Kurdish area in the North, an Alawite state along the coast, and the Brotherhood left with a deformed, resource-poor failed state to manage in the middle, Syrians on both sides will eventually have to work together, but it starts the day after Assad…and it remains to be seen how his supporters will react without him.
Posted by: Pat Bateman | Mar 31 2013 14:02 utc | 19
|
