UN chief accuses Syria of breaking promises

UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called for international action against Syria on Thursday, saying President Bashar Assad has repeatedly broken promises to reform.

Using unusually strong language, Ban accused Assad of "escalating violence and repression" and ignoring appeals to stop, most recently by the Arab League.

"It's been almost six months. I have been speaking with him several times, and he made all these promises, but these promises have become now broken promises," Ban told a news conference.

If Assad's promises haven't been kept, the secretary-general said, "then enough is enough - then (the) international community should really take some coherent measures and speak in one voice."

Bashar al-Assad acquired and retains power through bloody electioneering characterized by crafting superior alliances of human cunning and animal brutality. For him dazzling spectacle and mercurial oratory belie a principled commitment to a continuum where politics is war without bloodshed, and war is politics with bloodshed. When al-Assad’s actions beleaguer the feebleness of U.N. oratory, he is simply reacting to those he sees as similar to the opponents he trampled in rising to power. Why should he abandon the intricacies and chicanery of this unorthodox diplomacy when it so successfully befuddles the U.N?

Effective diplomacy against emerging opponents like him would be methodical, covert, multi-faceted, and predictably lethal. Talks, conferences and economic measures serve as war without bloodshed; war serves as diplomacy with bloodshed. Intelligence, propaganda, and espionage invigorate all options. The result would be to frustrate plans, break alliances, isolate governments, and sow dissention among government branches.

Unless offered compelling enticements, or confronting unanswerable force, al-Assad’s best strategy remains endless mendacity and violence, while the international community debates interests into ever-narrower parameters.

When war and diplomacy remain mutually exclusive, then war becomes the bewildering, tragic, accidental consequence of failed diplomacy descending into appeasement. If force must disarm an opponent, deliberate battle must first be prepared by measures consistently cultivating the opponent’s internal and international isolation.

We cannot expect the current administration to lead in that direction. Into this contentious environment, Obama brings his newly minted Nobel Peace Prize. He and the nominating committee consider al-Assad received a crushing blow as Obama lead Western countries in saying al-Assad must go to benefit the Syrian people. However, al-Assad shares the perception of Greg Lewis in American Thinker, who portrayed Obama as displaying classic beta male behavior.

The alpha male dog approaches directly, while the beta male displays acquiescent gestures signaling uncompromising submission. Lewis saw submissiveness in offering conciliatory gestures to Sudanese leader Omar Hassan al-Bashir, in sending John Kerry to meet Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad, in bowing to King Abdullah, in airy discussions with Hugo Chavez and David Ortega, and in generally ridiculing the U.S. whenever he appears on an international stage.

These actions appear constructive within the worldview vetted by the European elites Obama cherishes. For them the highest expressions of diplomacy and politics reside within modern game theory for which John Nash and others received their Nobel prizes. Clearly, al-Assad should realize the brilliance of Western conflict resolution and entertain peaceful, meaningful dialogue. However, it does appear he is going to stay with the strategies that have always worked before.

What you say certainly makes sense to me. It bring to mind the following post I made to a Eugene Register Guard editorial and also sent to Congress.

In general presidents have considered the War Powers Act unconstitutional. It was passed originally over Nixon’s veto. However, there should be no perplexity about censure for Obama’s failing to seek approval from Congress concerning Libya.

The first criteria for going to war involves national security, which Alexander Hamilton covers in the Federalist Papers by saying, “Because it is impossible to foresee or define the extent and variety of national exigencies….no constitutional shackles can be wisely imposed on the power to which the care of it is committed. Since Libya poses no national exigency (emergency) Obama cannot espouse that statement for war.

Next as criteria for war comes from natural rights where Thomas Jefferson writes, “all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. Eleanor Roosevelt defined our international commitment to the collective security of all people through the U.N. by preparing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that says the equal and inalienable rights for the human family encompass rights to life, liberty and security of person. When the country signed and ratified the founding document of the U.N., we probably ended up committed to universal human rights. John Kennedy reinforced this international commitment saying, “We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” Finally, Ronald Reagan said we cannot escape destiny as the last best hope of afflicted mankind. He brought reality to the concept of natural rights by picking a fight with the Soviet empire.

Barack Obama claims action “to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe” emerging from natural rights as a criteria for Libyan action. The claim proves irrational because he considered preventing genocide inconsistent reasoning for maintaining troops in Iraq. He pointed out our un-involvement in the Congo and Darfur. He cannot now claim to be in favor of both universal and selective human rights.

This leaves John Kerry’s international test making the U.S. subservient to worldwide conscience, where assent by the U.N. and the Arab League is essential, but approval by Congress is irrelevant. Under that criteria Libya becomes more equal (read Animal Farm) than the Congo, Sudan, Rwanda, and Uganda. Uninterrupted European access to oil and natural gas seems the paramount reasoning, with humanitarian protection purely random.
Such reasoning required that Congressional debate and affirmation accompany Obama’s leisurely deliberations with the U.N and N.A.T.O. Is recognition of selective humanitarian concerns really in keeping with our heritage? (More than one President should answer that question.) Why has not Obama asserted the overarching sovereignty of this country with respect to the wishes of the U.N. and N.A.T.O., and supported the Constitution by seeking Congressional approval?

Some in Congress like my representative DeFazio are confronting him through the War Powers Act. However, I think the case can be made directly from the Constitution, which does not allow for the restriction of our sovereignty to a foreign power or international body except by approval of a treaty by the Senate. The manifest tenor of this provision offers clear evidence that participating in military action with an international coalition must proceed from legislative approval. For the Iraq War, Public Law 102-1 confirmed U.N. resolution 678 for use of military force in Kuwait and Iraq, and the Joint Congressional Resolution on Iraq of October 11, 2002 confirmed U.N. resolutions 687 and 1441 requiring Saddam Hussein’s regime be removed for violating its international obligations.

Notwithstanding the War Powers Act, the Congress can demand on a case by case basis that enough time has passed or that the conflict has intensified to the point the President must obtain the consent of Congress, because of its authority under Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. In this case Obama claims support includes “aircraft that have assisted in the suppression and destruction of air defenses in support of the no fly zone”. In fact A-10’s and helicopters are used exclusively for direct support of ground troops, and point to a significant intensification beyond an undefined “kinetic activity”. Congress, and not the President, must make this call and should immediately introduce a bill of censure to be passed by both houses.

If Obama still fails to comply, then the House should introduce a bill of impeachment. I think he should be forcefully reminded of this country’s sovereignty and the legislative branch authority to declare war.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.