Hans Blix: if Assad Used Chemical Weapons, The West Has No Mandate to Act as a Global Policeman

[G_j]

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/08/29-1

By ordering air strikes against Syria without UN security council support, Obama will be doing the same as Bush in 2003

by Hans Blix


George Bush, the then US president, waves to US navy personnel at Mayport Naval Station, in Jacksonville, Florida, 13 February 2003, after urging the United Nations to uphold its relevance by enforcing demands that the Iraqi president, Saddam Hussein, disarm.

It is true that the UN security council is not a reliable global policeman. It may be slow to take action, or paralysed because of disagreement between members. But do we want the US or Nato or "alliances of willing states" as global policemen either? Unlike George Bush in 2003, the Obama administration is not trigger-happy and contemptuous of the United Nations and the rules of its charter, which allow the use of armed force only in self-defence or with an authorisation from the security council. Yet Obama, like Bush and Blair, seems ready to ignore the council and order armed strikes on Syria with political support from only the UK, France and some others.

Such action could not be "in self-defence" or "retaliation", as the US, the UK and France have not been attacked. To punish the Assad government for using chemical weapons would be the action of self-appointed global policemen – action that, in my view, would be very unwise.

While much evidence points to the guilt of the Assad regime, would not due process require that judgment and consideration of action take place in the UN security council and await the report of the inspectors that the UN has sent to Syria – at the demand of the UK and many other UN members?

We may agree with John Kerry, the US secretary of state, that the use of gas is a "moral obscenity", but would we not feel that "a measured and proportionate punishment", like striking at some missile sites or helicopter bases, is like telling the regime that "you can go on with your war but do stay away from the chemical weapons"? And what is the moral weight of the condemnation by nuclear weapons states of the use of gas as a serious war crime when they themselves will not accept a norm that would criminalise any first use of their own nuclear weapons.

..more..

[G_j]

1. Kick for Hans

[Segami]

2. Kick.

[malaise]

3. +1,000,000

That simple