UNSC Says What Now.

As I think we all know on November 13th (13/11/15) Paris, France came under a terrorist attack which at latest count killed 130 civilians.

This came exactly two weeks after a Russian airliner was brought down over Egypt on October 31st (31/10/15) killing all 224 civilians onboard.

It was immediately clear that if that airliner was brought down by a terrorist bomb - as was established on November 17th (17/11/15) - Russia would not be apologising to the terrorists. Instead it would be taking action to eliminate them.

That action risks placing them in direct military confrontation with at least one member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) military alliance.

Therefore the only rational response would be for NATO to immediately convene a leaders meeting to co-ordinate a response to these twin attacks.

Unfortunately even as the Paris attacks were continuing US President Barack Obama was putting pressure on French President Francois Hollande not to call that meeting.

In fact Obama has refused to meet with Hollande until November 24th (24/11/15) at the earliest - 11 days after the attacks.

Instead Obama has opted to meet with another group of World leaders.

Over the 15th and 16th of November (15&16/11/15) Obama met with Turkish President/Prime Minister/Emperor Recept Tayyip Erdogan who is considered the prime suspect in the Paris attacks.

Over those same two days Obama also met with Saudi Arabia's King Salman al-Saud who is considered the prime suspect in the airline bombing.

Following that meeting Obama travelled to Malaysia via the Philippines to meet with Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak.

Razak presides over a country which believes in a form of Islam so extreme it considers the keeping of pet dogs to be a Zionist conspiracy against Islam. This is an interpretation so extreme that when I tell non-Malaysian Muslims about it they stare at me in disbelief.

Razak is of course also considered the prime suspect in both the loss of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 at the cost of 339 civilian lives and the loss of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 at the cost of 298 civilian lives.

Curiously Razak seems to be a close, personal friend of Obama being invited to spend Christmas 2014 with the Obama family. I can only assume the two men spent the Christian holiday cursing the infidels.

Obviously Obama's decision to snub him placed great pressure on President Hollande to be seen to be doing something in response to the attack on his nation. So France has been pursuing a United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution on the matter.

In recent weeks the UK Prime Minister David Cameron, the leader of the opposition Labour Party Jeremy Corbyn and Alex Salmond - who think is best described as the spiritual leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP) - have all spoken of the need for a UNSC resolution before the UK can start bombing in Syria.

That should be a large clue that this is a discussion for morons only.

On August 15th 2014 (15/8/15) the UNSC passed resolution 2170 (2014) which can be read here; http://www.un.org/press/en/2014/sc11520.doc.htm

As you can see it is quite a comprehensive document. It authorises all means within international law - including military force.

It authorises the use of those means against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the Al Qaeda affiliated Al Nusra Front (ANF) along with all associated groups which in practical terms means the Army of Conquest/Jaish al-Fatah (JAF).

It also places no geographic limitation on the areas in which these groups can be targeted.

It also invokes Chapter 7 of the UN Charter meaning that all 12 Articles of contained within are in fully engaged;  http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-vii/index.html

It is resolution 2170 that has authorised all nations - including the UK - to use military force Iraq and in Syria.

Although it is not a well explored aspect of international law I certainly feel able to argue that because it is a member of the coalition - Combined Joint Task Force: Operation Inherent Resolve (CJTFOIR) - that is bombing in Syria the UK is already - legally speaking - bombing Syria.

The French text 2249 (2015) which was passed unanimously late last night (20/11/15) can be read here; http://www.franceonu.org/IMG/pdf/2015_11_20_terrorism_draft_res_blue_e_-final.pdf

As you can see it is a substantially weaker document. For example it does not invoke Chapter 7 nor does it treat ISIL, ANF and JAF equally instead giving priority to ISIL.

The biggest weakness of the text though is in the 5th paragraph which limits the obligation to fight terrorism only to nations "With the capacity to do so."

With France's upcoming hosting of the 21st Conference of Parties (COP21) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) seeming to be the main motivation behind the attack it seems that in their panic the French have confused the two UN conventions.

Within the UNFCCC process the issue of "capacity" comes up frequently. In fact in the draft of the agreement set to be signed at COP21 there is an entire section/chapter dedicated to "Capacity Building."

The central ethos of the climate change agreement is the principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibility (CBDR)."  This means that all nations have a common responsibility to take action. However what action they are obligated to take is dependent on their capacity to do so.

Within a durable agreement that is set to last for a minimum of 80-100 years it is best not to set too many specific rules about what level of capacity requires what level of action. After all the types of actions available and the capacities of respective nations are expected to change extensively during that period.

The clauses against "Backsliding" though make it quite clear that if a nation has displayed a certain capacity they are obligated to continue deploying that capacity.

However clearly under pressure France appears to have included that language within 2249 in order to clarify the situation at COP21.

The problem with this is that the two processes couldn't be more different. The UNFCCC is an inclusive and purely consensual process in which all opinions must be listened to and respected.

Chapter 7 of the UN Charter however is only invoked when the opinions and actions of a party become such a threat to the other parties that there is no option other then to use all means to completely silence them up to and including killing them.

That is why Articles 43 and 49 make clear that a nation's obligations under Chapter 7 are not in any way optional nor limited by their capacity.

As Chapter 7 of the Charter is the superior document to 2249 the contradiction with these articles renders 2249 null, void and in no way binding.

In order to change that Chapter 7 will have to be amended in accordance with the procedures laid out in Chapter 18 of the same document. Essentially this requires a 2/3rds majority vote at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). I cannot immediately recall any occasion on which that has occurred.

So it seems that France has tabled this motion to seek clarity within climate change negotiations.

It seems the US has voted for it because they mistakenly think it creates a loophole which allows Turkey to opt out of the fight against ISIL/ANF/JAF.

Russia appears to have voted for it to highlight all the other motions on Syria that have been tabled but are completely invalid because they contradict Chapter 1 of the Charter.

These include any documents that call for the overthrow of the Syrian government or establish a mechanism - such as the Geneva process - to facilitate the overthrow of the Syrian government.

Therefore 2249 is certainly a very interesting talking point but it is certainly not a grand break-through nor an authority to go to war.

Fortunately we've already got 2170 for that.

17:30 on 21/11/15 (UK date).

Edited at around 13:45 on 22/11/15 (UK date) to add;

In the UK there is now much talk about a Parliamentary vote on air-strikes in Syria within the next two weeks. This really highlights how counter-productive France's efforts at the UN have been.

If the UK motion makes reference to resolution 2249 rather then resolution 2170 it will be a wholly unlawful motion asking Britain to enter into an illegal war. As such MP's will have no option other then to reject.

I know this sounds like a petty argument but if David Cameron does not understand the difference between 2249 and 2170 then he does not understand the mission.

If the mission is not understood then it is doomed to failure.