FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Effective Path To Controlling Chemical Weapons Is Not War

by KEVIN ZEESE

The most effective deterrent against the use of chemical weapons is not the mass bombing of Syria, an action that would be illegal under international law and counterproductive, but to use the international legal system that has been built since World War I and take legal action under the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Members of the Security Council should immediately pass a resolution referring the issue of the use of chemical weapons in Syria to the International Criminal Court.  This would be an approach working within the framework of the rule of law to enforce the ban on chemical weapons that all members of the Security Council would agree on and would strengthen the international regimen that bans chemical weapons, rather than weaken it.

In his August 31st Statement on Syria, President Obama warned about of the “costs of doing nothing,” in response to the use of chemical weapons.  The president asked:

“What’s the purpose of the international system that we’ve built if a prohibition on the use of chemical weapons that has been agreed to by the governments of 98 percent of the world’s people and approved overwhelmingly by the Congress of the United States is not enforced?”

Just as President Obama has complied with the constitution by seeking a resolution from Congress authorizing the use of the military in Syria, he should also respect the rule of international law by abiding by the requirements of the chemical weapons ban and referring the matter to the International Criminal Court for investigation and prosecution.

A legal framework is in place to handle the prohibited use of chemical weapons.  The Chemical Weapons Convention provides for investigation of alleged violations by specialist bodies constituted by the Convention, as well as collective measures by states parties in response to activities prohibited by the Convention, recourse to the UN General Assembly and Security Council in cases of particular gravity, and referral of disputes to the International Court of Justice. These procedures cover not only the 189, countries that are signatories to the Convention but also countries like Syria that are not. The procedures of the Convention allow for the Executive Council of the Chemical Weapons Convention or the Conference of States Parties to convene a special meeting to consider the situation in Syria and recommend appropriate responses by states parties and the United Nations.

To operate within the law, the United States should provide the UN Security Council with the evidence it has regarding the use of chemical weapons by the Assad government.  Other members of the Security Council should do the same and these materials should be provided to the International Criminal Court.   This will allow the gaps in intelligence, alleged manipulation of intelligence, different information on who used the weapons and inconsistency between nations to be investigated.  We urge Russia, China or other members of the Security Council to propose a resolution referring the case to the International Criminal Court if the United States fails to do so.

If the United States proceeds with its plans to attack Syria over the alleged use of chemical weapons the U.S. will be violating, rather than supporting, international law; it will be acting in violation of the rule of law, rather than using the rule of law to enforce the chemical weapons ban.  As the Western States Legal Foundation said in a September 2013 briefing paper:

“There is no provision of international law, however, that allows ad hoc coalitions of countries to determine for themselves who they believe the guilty parties to be, and to punish them by acts of war against the territory of a sovereign state. The United Nations Charter allows unilateral military action only where a country is under attack or imminent threat of attack.”

There is no question that under international law, the allegations of chemical weapons use by the Syrian government do not provide a legal basis for military action by the United States.  To put it directly: The United States will be violating international law if it attacks Syria.

The failure of the attorney general, White House counsel or  congressional committees to focus on the reality that a military attack on Syria is illegal shows the corruption of the rule of law in the United States.  The primary purpose of the UN is to “maintain international peace and security.” The UN makes it difficult to go to war as a country attacking another as the most serious crime a nation can commit. During the congressional hearings on the Syrian attack, not one senator or Member of Congress has asked Secretary Kerry, Secretary Hagel or General Dempsey how many civilians the United States is likely to kill in this illegal military attack.

The United States should become a signatory to the International Criminal Court, joining the 122 countries that have already signed the agreement. Perhaps U.S. leaders would consider the legality of their actions and the impact aerial bombing will have on the civilian population if they knew their actions would be reviewed by an independent tribunal and they would be held accountable.

To act within the rule of law to effectively deter the use of chemical weapons the following should occur:

1.   The U.S. should present its evidence regarding use of chemical weapons in Syria to the UN Security Council.

2.   The Security Council should condemn any use of chemical weapons and forbid further use of chemical weapons.

3.   It should expand the scope of the UN investigation to include the issue of responsibility for attacks, refer the Syrian situation to the International Criminal Court for further investigation and adjudication, and call for convening of a peace conference.

4.      If the Security Council remains unable to act, the General Assembly should assume responsibility under the Uniting for Peace procedure.

An attack by the United States on Syria would almost certainly result in many civilian casualties with great potential of a wider war and unpredictable consequences.  Aerial bombardment is a diffuse tool not narrowly targeted on stopping the alleged use of chemical weapons, but a blunt act of war that will cause widespread harm.  The United States government should not pursue this risky and illegal attack. Instead, it must pursue the legal, secure means of investigation and prosecution under the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Kevin Zeese serves as Attorney General in the Green Shadow Cabinet, and is a member of the Steering Committee of the Bradley Manning Support Network and an organizer of Popular Resistance.

Kevin Zeese is an organizer at Popular Resistance.

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

Weekend Edition
January 20, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Divide and Rule: Class, Hate, and the 2016 Election
Andrew Levine
When Was America Great?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: This Ain’t a Dream No More, It’s the Real Thing
Yoav Litvin
Making Israel Greater Again: Justice for Palestinians in the Age of Trump
Linda Pentz Gunter
Nuclear Fiddling While the Planet Burns
Ruth Fowler
Standing With Standing Rock: Of Pipelines and Protests
David Green
Why Trump Won: the 50 Percenters Have Spoken
Dave Lindorff
Imagining a Sanders Presidency Beginning on Jan. 20
Pete Dolack
Eight People Own as Much as Half the World
Roger Harris
Too Many People in the World: Names Named
Steve Horn
Under Tillerson, Exxon Maintained Ties with Saudi Arabia, Despite Dismal Human Rights Record
John Berger
The Nature of Mass Demonstrations
Stephen Zielinski
It’s the End of the World as We Know It
David Swanson
Six Things We Should Do Better As Everything Gets Worse
Alci Rengifo
Trump Rex: Ancient Rome’s Shadow Over the Oval Office
Brian Cloughley
What Money Can Buy: the Quiet British-Israeli Scandal
Mel Gurtov
Donald Trump’s Lies And Team Trump’s Headaches
Kent Paterson
Mexico’s Great Winter of Discontent
Norman Solomon
Trump, the Democrats and the Logan Act
David Macaray
Attention, Feminists
Yves Engler
Demanding More From Our Media
James A Haught
Religious Madness in Ulster
Dean Baker
The Economics of the Affordable Care Act
Patrick Bond
Tripping Up Trumpism Through Global Boycott Divestment Sanctions
Robert Fisk
How a Trump Presidency Could Have Been Avoided
Robert Fantina
Trump: What Changes and What Remains the Same
David Rosen
Globalization vs. Empire: Can Trump Contain the Growing Split?
Elliot Sperber
Dystopia
Dan Bacher
New CA Carbon Trading Legislation Answers Big Oil’s Call to Continue Business As Usual
Wayne Clark
A Reset Button for Political America
Chris Welzenbach
“The Death Ship:” An Allegory for Today’s World
Uri Avnery
Being There
Peter Lee
The Deep State and the Sex Tape: Martin Luther King, J. Edgar Hoover, and Thurgood Marshall
Patrick Hiller
Guns Against Grizzlies at Schools or Peace Education as Resistance?
Randy Shields
The Devil’s Real Estate Dictionary
Ron Jacobs
Singing the Body Electric Across Time
Ann Garrison
Fifty-five Years After Lumumba’s Assassination, Congolese See No Relief
Christopher Brauchli
Swing Low Alabama
Dr. Juan Gómez-Quiñones
La Realidad: the Realities of Anti-Mexicanism
Jon Hochschartner
The Five Least Animal-Friendly Senate Democrats
Pauline Murphy
Fighting Fascism: the Irish at the Battle of Cordoba
Susan Block
#GoBonobos in 2017: Happy Year of the Cock!
Louis Proyect
Is Our Future That of “Sense8” or “Mr. Robot”?
Charles R. Larson
Review: Robert Coover’s “Huck out West”
David Yearsley
Manchester-by-the-Sea and the Present Catastrophe
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail