New news: Senate bill would give Syria 45 days to sign chemical weapons ban
Senate bill would give Syria 45 days to sign chemical weapons ban
9/5/13 9:31 PM EDT
The United States would give Syria 45 days to sign an international chemical weapons ban or face the wrath of American military might, under a draft resolution being circulated by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.).
The alternative to a use-of-force resolution could forestall an immediate American strike and create an incentive for Assad not to use chemical weapons against his own people again. It may also provide a rallying point for lawmakers who are reluctant to either approve strikes or reject the use of force outright.
“The failure by the government of Bashar al-Assad to sign and comply with the [Chemical Weapons] Convention clearly demonstrates a disregard of international norms on the use of chemical weapons,” reads a draft of the resolution obtained by POLITICO. “If the Government of Syria does not sign the Convention within 45 after the date of the enactment of this resolution, all elements of national power will be considered by the United States government.”
The resolution would require the president to use the 45-day period to submit a Syria strategy to Congress. In the interim, he would be expected to use all diplomatic tools to build an international coalition for stopping the use and proliferation of chemical weapons in Syria.
-snip-
Full article here: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/senate-bill-syria-weapons-ban-96353.html?hp=l2
= new reply since forum marked as read
Alternative = something different 
Sorry, my bad!! Sounds good, I like this.. Now, can the full Congress get behind this in the next few days and will the Pres. support such a move? I hope so, this seems to be more reasoned!
It's coercion... do as I say or else. That's illegal and certainly against any 'norms'.
It's not a different approach to the use of force - it's simply a deferred use of force.
If this were deemed legal then the precedent could be used to coerce nations to sign any treaty and probably trade agreements they oppose as well if the treaties and agreements were recognized as being 'the international norm'. A very lucrative prospect, but I digress.
Even if it might work it's still illegal. It's really sad that no-one even seems to consider acting within international anymore while upholding 'international norms'. Anyway, if it could stop the impending disaster and nobody is going to respect international law anyway I'm all for it. But one should keep in mind that going down this route will produce fallout in the future by setting a precedent for state-sanctioned blackmail. As long as you keep that in mind and work real hard to reduce the unintended consequences... 