The UN, The US, And Syria

                                                                               

I expressed my concern recentlyⁱ over the American response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria. I was apprehensive about our standing in the world following the hesitation to act when Syria crossed what President Obama had declared from his bully pulpit to be a “red line,” when his Administration declared that we had proof that they used poison gas on their own citizens. I was sure that the President's decision to let Congress debate the use of force was an error and that the delay in action would be seen as weakness and a lack of resolution. It would send the wrong message both to our friends and to those who oppose our policies. And with an increasing isolationist sentiment among the voters, there was no certainty that Congress would support the President's stated goal of responding to such provocations.

Not surprisingly, both Congress and the President blinked. We have yielded to the United Nations. Although that body has determined that chemical weapons have been used fourteen times, and only the government has stockpiles, the organization cannot decide who is responsible for the use of the weapons.ⁱⁱ But Russia and Syria have come up with a plan whose purported purpose is to inspect and remove control of those toxins from the Syrian government to other nations, and to destroy them. And they have until some time in 2014 to do so. I suspect that Syrian President Bashar Assad is quaking in his boots.

This, however, was the path we chose to follow. To diffuse responsibility, President Obama declared that the “red line” was not his, but the world's, and it was up to the world to respond. And while he was inclined to pressure Syria to comply with international treaties which ban the use of chemical weapons, he would wait for the United Nations determination rather than act unilaterally. Consequently he backed off on his demand that Congress support him in his efforts. He was probably relieved that he didn't have to risk a congressional vote which he would probably have lost, and Congress was relieved that it did not have to go on the record. Russian President Vladimir Putin has gained status and President Assad will probably receive a new anti-aircraft system from the Russians. So, it seems, everyone gained something by the agreement.

More accurately, some gained, and others lost less than they might have. Our government now has time to regroup and prepare alternative messages for the time when there are further developments concerning the sarin and other chemical agents. There are likely to be delays at all stages of the procedure which will be blamed on the ongoing hostilities in the country, and our Administration will “grudgingly” delay any action based on that problem. And even if there is not compliance with the agreement, Syria will be protected in the UN by its good friend Russia, a member of the Security Council with veto power, who will probably claim that the Syrians are doing as much as is possible under the circumstances.

How did we get here? Did we go wrong, and if so, what happened? And what are the implications of our actions – or lack of actions?

In his campaign for the Presidency, Barack Obama promised “transparency.” He assured us that government with him at the helm would respect the public's right to know what was going on. But the only look at what's going on seems to be coming from Bradleyⁱⁱⁱ Manning, Julian Assange, and Edward Snowden.^iv According to an article in yesterday's Wall Street Journal,^v the President ignored his advisers' recommendations to act immediately, choosing to delay any action while he built public support. That decision, however, was not revealed by him.^vi Publicly involving voters in the process was probably seen as the most sensible choice politically, whether or not it was beneficial to the country, and it would provide reassurance that he was on the right track. He was unable to get the desired support, however, and American foreign policy is now in limbo. His performance and his public lectures were viewed as bluster and blunder, rather than confidence and resolve.

It's frightening to consider how we make decisions and how our stance will be viewed by other nations. Iran has already seen that we and the United Nations are unwilling to do more than lecture, and impose sanctions that hurt only their citizens – not their nuclear and military programs. They, and other nations, have seen that delay and deception are acceptable responses to threats that will not be carried out. And this is another example. That is not to say that we should attack every country that does not do our bidding, but that we should carefully consider our public statements and threats before we make them. As matters stand now, we are emboldening our enemies and creating a situation in which those who would like to be our friends must think at least twice about whether to accept “guarantees” from us.

My concerns have increased.

i       Full Of Sound And Fury, September 2, 2013.

ii       Since only the government has the stockpiles, it is difficult not to consider the government as the one that used them, and, after fourteen attacks, the President should have known about the attacks. Surely he has the responsibility for what happened.

iii      Now Chelsea.

iv      However accurate the reports of their revelations are, as I stated in a previous essay (The Big Picture, June 18, 2013), I am completely opposed to the actions they took. They were not “whistle blowers” but traitors who could have raised the questions they did without putting the lives of others at risk and without endangering American foreign policy.

v     Inside White House, a Head-Spinning Reversal on Chemical Weapons, September 16, 2013.

vi      So much for transparency.