• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

UN approval for Syria miltary intervention and G20 Summit

Moot

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
40,459
Reaction score
15,371
Location
Utah
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yesterday, Obama gave a press conference stating that the world and congress set the red line, not him.....

“The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world’s population said the use of chemical weapons are abhorrent and passed a treaty preventing their use even when a country is engaged in war,” Obama said. “Congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty. Congress set a red line when it indicated that in a piece of legislation titled the Syria Accountability Act that some of the horrendous things that are happening on the ground there need to be answered for.”

“My credibility is not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line,” Obama said. “And America and Congress’s credibility is on the line because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important.”



I think Obama is right....186 countries signed and ratified a treaty to stop the use and proliferation of chemical weapons...

Chemical Weapons Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

..and the US Congress unanimously passed the Syria Accountability Act in 2003 that authorized the president to conduct military action against Syria if it used WMDs....

Syria Accountability Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Germany and Britain said they would only support military action on Syria if there is UN approval. Russia and China on the UN security council voted against military intervention in Syria. However, Russia, a supposed ally of Syria recently stopped all weapons shipments to Syria for lack of payment and Putin said if there is convincing evidence Assads military used chemical weapons they would reconsider...


The Russian president said it was "ludicrous'' that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, an ally of Russia, would use chemical weapons at a time when it was gaining ground against the rebels.

"If there is evidence that chemical weapons were used, and by the regular army... then this evidence must be presented to the UN Security Council. And it must be convincing," Mr Putin said in an interview on Wednesday.

But he added that Russia would "be ready to act in the most decisive and serious way" if there was clear proof of what weapons were used and who used them......read...

BBC News - Syria rifts loom large as G20 gathers in St Petersburg


Today is the first day of the G20 Summit. If Obama can convince Putin and other world leaders that Assads' military was responsible for using chemical weapons then it is possible he could get the UN approval. But if he doesn't.....then I seriously doubt Obama will attack Syria no matter how congress votes.


Really, how can Obama can't hold 186 countries accountable for not enforcing their agreement on chemical weapons and then go against a UN agreement himself and attack Syria without UN approval. Violating treaties, even a UN treaty is unconstitutional.....

Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and U.S. Treaties as "the supreme law of the land."

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
...
Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


So either international treaties are important or they aren't. If countries don't enforce and/or violate treaties, then why have treaties at all? I think Obama's speech was a precursor for the G20 summit to question the G20 countries that have all signed and ratified the chemical weapons convention and the UN agreement when they became members.


Again, if Obama doesn't get UN approval I really don't think he will attack Syria no matter what US congress votes. He won't be the one violating international treaties, but the world will be.
 
Last edited:

DDD

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 26, 2012
Messages
12,351
Reaction score
1,918
Location
Republic of Dardania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yes it is all up to the G20. But because everyone expects a resolution there they will not declare their agreements. They will claim that nothing was agreed upon instead.

But I think it is moving ahead from where it was. There may be a NATO intervention declared from the UN's Security Council for they enforce treaties, but Russia and China may abstain again. Even so Russia (since Assad is relying on Putin) has a piece of this cake. Just how much of the cake it will be and other details are to be negotiated in this G20 summit. Not to be shared with us sadly.
 

shagg

Wading Through Bull****
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 28, 2013
Messages
1,681
Reaction score
1,219
Location
Rhode Island
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Yesterday, Obama gave a press conference stating that the world and congress set the red line, not him.....

“The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world’s population said the use of chemical weapons are abhorrent and passed a treaty preventing their use even when a country is engaged in war,” Obama said. “Congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty. Congress set a red line when it indicated that in a piece of legislation titled the Syria Accountability Act that some of the horrendous things that are happening on the ground there need to be answered for.”

“My credibility is not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line,” Obama said. “And America and Congress’s credibility is on the line because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important.”



I think Obama is right....186 countries signed and ratified a treaty to stop the use and proliferation of chemical weapons...

Chemical Weapons Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

..and the US Congress unanimously passed the Syria Accountability Act in 2003 that authorized the president to conduct military action against Syria if it used WMDs....

Syria Accountability Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Germany and Britain said they would only support military action on Syria if there is UN approval. Russia and China on the UN security council voted against military intervention in Syria. However, Russia, a supposed ally of Syria recently stopped all weapons shipments to Syria for lack of payment and Putin said if there is convincing evidence Assads military used chemical weapons they would reconsider...


The Russian president said it was "ludicrous'' that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, an ally of Russia, would use chemical weapons at a time when it was gaining ground against the rebels.

"If there is evidence that chemical weapons were used, and by the regular army... then this evidence must be presented to the UN Security Council. And it must be convincing," Mr Putin said in an interview on Wednesday.

But he added that Russia would "be ready to act in the most decisive and serious way" if there was clear proof of what weapons were used and who used them......read...

BBC News - Syria rifts loom large as G20 gathers in St Petersburg


Today is the first day of the G20 Summit. If Obama can convince Putin and other world leaders that Assads' military was responsible for using chemical weapons then it is possible he could get the UN approval. But if he doesn't.....then I seriously doubt Obama will attack Syria no matter how congress votes.


Really, how can Obama can't hold 186 countries accountable for not enforcing their agreement on chemical weapons and then go against a UN agreement himself and attack Syria without UN approval. Violating treaties, even a UN treaty is unconstitutional.....

Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and U.S. Treaties as "the supreme law of the land."

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
...
Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


So either international treaties are important or they aren't. If countries don't enforce and/or violate treaties, then why have treaties at all? I think Obama's speech was a precursor for the G20 summit to question the G20 countries that have all signed and ratified the chemical weapons convention and the UN agreement when they became members.


Again, if Obama doesn't get UN approval I really don't think he will attack Syria no matter what US congress votes. He won't be the one violating international treaties, but the world will be.

By taking this stance, Obama goes from looking like a pugnacious warmonger, to the only one with the balls to stand up for what his country pledged to do, and indirectly calling 197 other countries cowards in the process.

My reservations about Syria have always been the apparent desire to rush in before the facts are known and the investigations concluded. He didn't mention that directly, but hes showing an interest in swaying the international community, and I'm assuming he realizes that until the facts are in and on his side, it won't happen. Putin saying he would support action if it were proven Assad used chems is reassuring, and possibly the best possible response we could expect from him.

I still don't support independent action by the US. But showing that the international community is treaty-bound to respond to this, if the facts are proven to be what the administration has high confidence they are, is a huge step in the correct direction. It sets the stage for finding and respecting the truth.
 

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
The Point was Obama did set a Red line.....no matter how he tries to spin it. His Hope and out is if Congress says no.

But now as far as the UN is Concerned. Ban Ki Moon has already sounded off. ;)

Syria attack illegal without Security Council approval, UN warns

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has warned that any military strikes against Syria for an alleged chemical weapons attack last week are legal only in self-defence under the UN charter or if approved by the UN Security Council.

Ban also cautioned nations such as the United States and France that may be considering such strikes that any "punitive" action taken against Syria could unleash more turmoil and bloodshed. U.S. President Barack Obama has been seeking to rally political support for a strike against Syria.

But Ban also said that if UN inspectors confirm the use of chemical weapons in Syria, the Security Council, which has long been deadlocked on the 2½-year Syrian civil war, should overcome its differences and take action.

"If confirmed, any use of chemical weapons by anyone under any circumstances will be a serious violation of international law and outrageous war crime," he told reporters Tuesday. "Any perpetrators must be brought to justice. There should be no impunity.".....snip~

Syria attack illegal without Security Council approval, UN warns - World - CBC News

Notice he say ANY.....not just Assad.
 
Top Bottom