According to the NYT, Samantha Powers will be key in the Syrian resolution

[karynnj]

Given that she has been for attacks long before chemical weapons were used, I hope she understands that the President is the one who defines policy. (This could also be the rather hawkish NYT giving a lot of print to someone they agree with.)



Nearly a year before the world woke up to images of Syrians dying in a large-scale chemical weapons attack, Samantha Power was quietly pushing President Obama for a military strike to stop what she calls the “grotesque tactics” of President Bashar al-Assad. For a fleeting moment this month, it seemed she had prevailed.

Now Ms. Power, a former senior aide on the National Security Council and a former war reporter who emigrated from Ireland, must negotiate for peace in a new public role as Mr. Obama’s ambassador to the United Nations. The president’s abrupt decision not to use force in Syria has thrust her into the middle of contentious talks to create a United Nations Security Council resolution mandating the elimination of Mr. Assad’s chemical arsenal by the middle of next year.

She will be on the spot on Monday, her diplomatic debut, as Mr. Obama arrives in New York for the United Nations General Assembly. A woman known for her closeness to the president and the soaring prose of her Pulitzer Prize-winning book on genocide, “A Problem From Hell,” Ms. Power is the lead American negotiator in the difficult, gritty business of arguing with the Russians, Syria’s patrons, who have already rejected the notion of using force if Mr. Assad does not comply.

Even her supporters wonder if the untested Ms. Power will be tough enough, a question with big implications. Secretary of State John Kerry will work with her on the resolution, but her role is so central that her performance — in her first weeks on the job — will help determine America’s future course in Syria.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/23/world/a-new-us-player-put-on-world-stage-by-syria.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

I hope the President makes it clear that he supports the Kerry/Lavrov agreement - and backs Kerry, not Powers on this.

[dkf]

1. She is the first one willing to put our men and women on the line to be the world's police.

People with this attitude should join the military themselves. Maybe that will change their minds.

Why would we expect her to be a good negotiator for peace when she has a history of wanting to bomb?

[leftstreet]

2. Mrs. Cass Sunstein, representing the Humanitarian Hawks

She has no business anywhere NEAR anything resembling a peace talk

[leveymg]

3. Power and her colleagues had a major role in creating this human rights atrocity

Last edited Tue Sep 24, 2013, 04:36 AM - Edit history (1)

Many Americans still cling to the notion that the United States came into the game of mass murder in Syria after the killing started, and that somehow "our hands are clean." Nothing could be further from the truth. In April 2011, just weeks after gun battles first broke out between the Syrian military and defecting units, the NYT and the Christian Science Monitor both ran articles detailing the role of the CIA and the State Department in cultivating the rebellion.

The stronger and more informative Monitor report stated that US State Dept cable released by Wikileaks revealed that the US had covertly been aiding and directing the Syrian opposition for at least five years before the same exile groups declared "Days of Rage" sparked the rebellion: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-security/2011/0418/Cables-reveal-covert-US-support-for-Syria-s-opposition

Newly released WikiLeaks cables reveal that the US State Department has been secretly financing Syrian opposition groups and other opposition projects for at least five years, The Washington Post reports.

That aid continued going into the hands of the Syrian government opposition even after the US began its reengagement policy with Syria under President Barack Obama in 2009, the Post reports. In January, the US posted its first ambassador to the country since the Bush administration withdrew the US ambassador in 2005 over concerns about Syria's involvement in the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri.

The Obama administration has been trying to draw Syria away from its key ally Iran and closer to the US and its regional allies. The effort seems to have been largely unsuccessful so far, and antigovernment protests sweeping the country have complicated the issue. The US is struggling to determine how to support Syria's democratic protesters while not alienating the Assad government, which has cracked down brutally on demonstrations and blamed them on "foreign saboteurs," as The Christian Science Monitor reported last week.

That is a dilemma that concerned the US government even before the protests began. The author of an April 2009 cable expressed concern that some of the projects being funded by the US, if discovered by the Syrian government, would be perceived as "an attempt to undermine the Asad [sic] regime, as opposed to encouraging behavior reform."

The Post reported that much of the money – as much as $6 million since 2006 – has been funneled through a group of Syrian exiles in London, known as the Movement for Justice and Development. The group is connected to a London-based satellite television station that is broadcast in Syria, known as Barada TV, which has recently expanded its coverage to include the mass protests.
Recent posts

Several other civil society initiatives in Syria received secret US funding, but by 2009, US officials were concerned that the Syrian government had discovered the US funding. The Post was unable to confirm whether programs are still being funded, but cables indicate the funding was planned at least through September 2010.

The WikiLeaks disclosure comes a week after US officials disclosed that Iran has been providing the Syrian government with assistance in putting down the protests and monitoring protesters' actions. Syria has become one of several proxy battlegrounds in the region between Iran and the US, the Monitor reported.

The rivals are constantly vying for the upper hand in Syria, which is the main conduit for weapons and funding flowing from Tehran to Hezbollah in Lebanon as well as the Palestinian group Hamas. While the US would like to end the friendly relationship between Assad and Iran, there is also great concern among US officials that, should Assad fall in the protests, the resulting power vacuum would given Iran an opportunity to broaden its influence in Syria.

< . . .>

[applegrove]

4. Apparently the Assad regime has been using chemical weapons often - 15 or so attacks.

It is just that they were not as concentrated as this last time so the incidents flew under the radar. I'm sure SP knew all along.

[KoKo]

5. Recommend.

[Bluenorthwest]

6. Power could not even make it through the 08 Primay without tripping on her own nasty words

She called Hillary Clinton 'a monster' to press overseas and had to step down. This invective hurling woman is now a 'diplomat'? Sick and twisted is this rewarding of failure and mediocrity.

[FSogol]

7. "Even her supporters wonder if the untested Ms. Power will be tough enough, a question with big

implications."

The big question is how rampant is misogyny at the NYT these days?

[karynnj]

8. Not really fair

I don't think it is because she is female, but because she is young - 43 (I think) and her experience is not in diplomacy. Note there is no list of diplomatic triumphs that she was key to. The article is extremely positive on her brilliance and her ability. In fact, my take was that the article is setting very high expectations for her based on their respect for her. (As a comparison, there was no similar build up of John Kerry when he was sent to Geneva and actually got an agreement. ) In fact, look at the third from the last paragraph that seem to suggest that if she gets a strong resolution and (as Kerry and Lavrov proposed) this leads into Geneva 2, SHE will have broken 2 1/2 years of deadlock.

Note that that is already giving her the credit - rather than Obama/Putin or Kerry/Larov - for getting a break through here. More troubling than any misogyny or sexism is the NYT is clearly pushing the Powers' regime change agenda.

I have read the NYT since 1972 - when I moved to NJ out of college. They have - if anything - pushed for "affirmative action" for women. That was needed especially at earlier times because qualified female nominee might not have the long resumes of men they are up against because the lower level jobs were not available to them due to sexism. That applies less now than 20 years ago.

At the highest level, you might consider that, not only did they endorse Hillary in the primary, the majority of their oped writers for years before 2008 were incredibly supportive of her. In fact, a possible Hillary Clinton Presidency was discussed in the NYT as early as 1993/1994.

[karynnj]

9. Not directly related, but what appears to be the controversy on the

way the resolution deals with non compliance. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/24/us-syria-crisis-chemical-idUSBRE98N0MG20130924