Following in the footsteps of the UK and the US France yesterday (2/9/13) released its own intelligence assessment of the chemical weapons attack in Syria on August 21st (21/8/13). It can be read here; http://www.elysee.fr/assets/pdf/SyrieSynthese-nationale-de-renseignement-declassifie02-09-2013.pdf However if like me you don't read French you will have to rely on a dodgy Internet translation.
Personally I don't think it's worth the effort because despite being the longest report at 9 pages the French assessment is probably the least informative. The majority of it is simply a history of the Syrian chemical weapons program since 1980 that the French collected as part of their non-proliferation efforts. This is all perfectly valid but as no-one is disputing that Syria has stockpiles of chemical weapons along with the missiles to deploy them this doesn't help to shed any light on events of August 21st. In fact I would go so far as to say that it has only been included in order to help pad the report out.
The other main area the assessment concentrates on are the videos and eyewitness statements that appeared on the Internet. The report concludes that it would not have been possible for the Saudi and Qatari Irregular Army (SQIA) to falsify all of these. That is probably true but all the videos demonstrate is that a chemical weapon - most probably Sarin - was released. They offer no clue as to who released that chemical weapon. The assessment attempts to place the blame on the Syrian government by claiming that the SQIA lack the capability to have used Sarin themselves. This conclusion of course contradicts the Syrian governments claims, the eyewitness testimony by local residents and SQIA fighters in the area that claim the SQIA in the area had been supplied with Sarin gas and the US' own intelligence assessment. As for the SQIA ability to deploy Sarin gas once you've got canisters of the stuff it is simply a matter of unscrewing the top of the canister and the gas will spread out.
Although the French assessment doesn't give credit it also relies on satellite images provided by the US to argue that the artillery bombardment prior to, during and after the release of the Sarin gas is consistent with the standard tactical procedure for the use of chemical weapons practised by the Syrian army. This is of course true but once again is hardly conclusive because this is an almost universal tactical procedure for the use of chemical weapons that is taught to military's the world over including ones that don't have access to chemical weapons. The SQIA are most certainly aware of this procedure because their ranks now include Adnan Silu the former head of the Syrian army's chemical weapons division who helped draw up the procedure in the first place. Therefore it would be all to easy for the SQIA to use a conventional weapons bombardment as an excuse to release their chemical weapons in order to make it look as though the Syrian army were following the standard tactical procedure.
Apart from being embarrassed about how reliant they are on US' military support I think the main reason why the French assessment failed to credit US satellite imagery as one of its main sources was to avoid drawing attention to serious questions that have been raised about that information. In the 14th paragraph of the US report that can be read here; http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/30/us-government-assessment-syria-use-chemical-weapons/ reference is made to the preparation of chemical weapons several days prior to August 21st. Over the weekend this prompted the obvious question of why if the US had prior knowledge that this attack was going to take place they didn't attempt to stop the attack or warn people. The only answer the US has been able to give so far is that at the time this activity didn't look any different from the routine movement of chemical weapon stocks that the Syrian army has been regularly undertaken over the last 12-15 months. Therefore I would be very interested to know how this routine movement suddenly became concrete evidence of attack preparations when it came to writing the US assessment.
Also the 15th paragraph of the US assessment talks about a 90 minute gap between the alleged attack and the first reports of people showing symptoms of exposure to Sarin gas. Although I appreciate that in the confusion it takes time for people to realise what is going on and seek help symptoms of Sarin gas exposure normally appear within 30 minutes. That means there is a big gap of at least 45 minutes between the Syrian army allegedly firing Sarin filled rockets and that Sarin starting to have an effect on people in the area. This is more than enough time for SQIA commanders to get on the radio and order the release of their stockpiles of Sarin.
On a related note Israel and the US this morning conducted a test of Israel's US made Arrow missile defence system. This involved an Israeli air force jet firing and inert target missile and the Arrow system seeing if it could shoot it down. The test was exactly what it says on the tin. Israel is well aware that a US attack on Syria will likely be a precursor for a SQIA/Syrian government attack on Israel. Therefore they want to make sure their defence systems are working. The fact that the US has yet to confirm the Israel announcement of the test indicates a degree of tension between the two allies meaning that it will be interesting to see if the test was successful.
16:50 on 3/9/13.
Tuesday, 3 September 2013
Monday, 2 September 2013
Egypt's Continuing Revolution: Month: 15, Week 2, Day 2.
Amid the international reaction to the chemical weapons attack in Syria on August 21st (21/8/13) events in Egypt have been very much pushed into the background. This actually makes me much more suspicious of the timing of that attack.
Saudi Arabia who are heavily backing the Saudi and Qatari Irregular Army (SQIA) were outraged when the Egyptian people overthrew Hosni Mubarak in January 2011 because they feared that if Egypt were to turn into a prosperous democracy people within Saudi Arabia would begin to question why they have to put up with a Monarchy almost entirely for the personal gain of the Royal Family. As such the Saudis supported the Muslim Brotherhood government of Mohamed Morsi in the hope that its incompetence would discredit the Brotherhood and deter a similar uprising in Saudi Arabia.
Although it has caused division across the world the chemical weapons attack and any possible response should be particularly polarising in Egypt. Part of the Morsi's main problem is that in government the Brotherhood got swept up in the Sunni V Shia holy war element of the conflict in Syria at the expense of running Egypt. As such the prospect of foreign military intervention is likely to invigorate the Brotherhood's protests because they see the SQIA as their ideological siblings. This connection between the Brotherhood and the SQIA means that by association the SQIA are not particularly popular in Egypt and the prospect on US military action in any Arab country is always going to be unpopular. For example the Tamarod movement that helped oust Morsi has called for the Suez Canal to be blocked to any warships attempting to use it to take up position in the Mediterranean for an attack on Syria. Testing the strength of Tamarod's support seems to be the main reason why the US yesterday (1/9/13) announced its intention to move the USS Nimitz from the Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean via the Suez Canak.
As for the security situation in Egypt it seems to be gradually improving with the government being able to incrementally move back the start of the nighttime curfew. In Cairo it now begins at 11pm which is getting close to being lifted completely. The Muslim Brotherhood through their front organisation The National Alliance to Support Legitimacy (NASL) are continuing to hold weekly protests such as last Friday's (30/8/13) "Friday of Determination" protest. However support for these protests is dwindling with Friday's said to total no more than 20,000 people nationally and in some parts of Cairo fewer then 100 people took part in the marches. There were though 6 deaths and 190 reported wounded on Friday but these appear to be the result of clashes between the protesters and local residents rather then the result of action by the security forces.
This dwindling support for the protests seems to have prompted something of a split within the Brotherhood with some factions calling for peaceful civil disobedience while other factions seem to be taking on the classical terrorism tactics seen in the Sinai. For example on Thursday (29/8/13) 1 police officer was killed and 3 wounded when gunmen on a motorbike opened fire on their checkpoint in Port Said. On Friday (30/8/13) gunmen in a car opened fire on a police station in the Heliopolis district of Cairo killing 1 police officer and wounding another. On Saturday (31/8/13) there was another drive-by shooting at a Church in Port Said which wounded 4 police officers. This was followed by a suspected RPG attack on a container ship in the Suez Canal which failed causing no damage or injuries. On Sunday (1/9/13) a rudimentary bomb was discovered and diffused in a bag at the central train station in Alexandria. Today 2 people were injured when a hand grenade/home made bomb was thrown at a police station in the Cairo suburb of Giza. So far all of these terror attacks have been crude and amateurish but they are something the security forces need to pay close attention to in order to prevent the terrorists becoming more professional. Based on what is going on in the Sinai Egypt's security forces seem to be able to cope with this emerging threat because there the number of arrests and deaths of terrorists is increasing while the number of attacks is decreasing.
As for Morsi himself on Sunday (1/9/13) he was formally charged and will face trial over the killing of 7 protesters who had assembled outside the Presidential Palace on December 4th 2012 (4/12/12) to protest one of Morsi's many diktats/decrees. Obviously I've not seen the case papers but if, as is being reported, prosecutors have corroborated testimony from police and Republican Guard commanders that Morsi ordered them to remove the protesters only for the order to be refused they have more than enough to go to trial and probably convict regardless of whether they can prove that Morsi ordered the Brotherhood thugs who attacked the protest to do so. The case against Morsi over the January 2011 prison break is still being prepared.
The other massive piece of news from Egypt recently is that yesterday the 50 members of the Assembly to rewrite the constitution was announced. Along with the 50 alternates all I have at the moment is a list of 100 names that I do not recognise. Therefore I will comment further when I've had time to familiarise myself. However the formation of the assembly does represent a huge step in the right direction in terms of returning Egypt to democracy and cementing the revolution.
20:35 on 2/9/13.
Saudi Arabia who are heavily backing the Saudi and Qatari Irregular Army (SQIA) were outraged when the Egyptian people overthrew Hosni Mubarak in January 2011 because they feared that if Egypt were to turn into a prosperous democracy people within Saudi Arabia would begin to question why they have to put up with a Monarchy almost entirely for the personal gain of the Royal Family. As such the Saudis supported the Muslim Brotherhood government of Mohamed Morsi in the hope that its incompetence would discredit the Brotherhood and deter a similar uprising in Saudi Arabia.
Although it has caused division across the world the chemical weapons attack and any possible response should be particularly polarising in Egypt. Part of the Morsi's main problem is that in government the Brotherhood got swept up in the Sunni V Shia holy war element of the conflict in Syria at the expense of running Egypt. As such the prospect of foreign military intervention is likely to invigorate the Brotherhood's protests because they see the SQIA as their ideological siblings. This connection between the Brotherhood and the SQIA means that by association the SQIA are not particularly popular in Egypt and the prospect on US military action in any Arab country is always going to be unpopular. For example the Tamarod movement that helped oust Morsi has called for the Suez Canal to be blocked to any warships attempting to use it to take up position in the Mediterranean for an attack on Syria. Testing the strength of Tamarod's support seems to be the main reason why the US yesterday (1/9/13) announced its intention to move the USS Nimitz from the Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean via the Suez Canak.
As for the security situation in Egypt it seems to be gradually improving with the government being able to incrementally move back the start of the nighttime curfew. In Cairo it now begins at 11pm which is getting close to being lifted completely. The Muslim Brotherhood through their front organisation The National Alliance to Support Legitimacy (NASL) are continuing to hold weekly protests such as last Friday's (30/8/13) "Friday of Determination" protest. However support for these protests is dwindling with Friday's said to total no more than 20,000 people nationally and in some parts of Cairo fewer then 100 people took part in the marches. There were though 6 deaths and 190 reported wounded on Friday but these appear to be the result of clashes between the protesters and local residents rather then the result of action by the security forces.
This dwindling support for the protests seems to have prompted something of a split within the Brotherhood with some factions calling for peaceful civil disobedience while other factions seem to be taking on the classical terrorism tactics seen in the Sinai. For example on Thursday (29/8/13) 1 police officer was killed and 3 wounded when gunmen on a motorbike opened fire on their checkpoint in Port Said. On Friday (30/8/13) gunmen in a car opened fire on a police station in the Heliopolis district of Cairo killing 1 police officer and wounding another. On Saturday (31/8/13) there was another drive-by shooting at a Church in Port Said which wounded 4 police officers. This was followed by a suspected RPG attack on a container ship in the Suez Canal which failed causing no damage or injuries. On Sunday (1/9/13) a rudimentary bomb was discovered and diffused in a bag at the central train station in Alexandria. Today 2 people were injured when a hand grenade/home made bomb was thrown at a police station in the Cairo suburb of Giza. So far all of these terror attacks have been crude and amateurish but they are something the security forces need to pay close attention to in order to prevent the terrorists becoming more professional. Based on what is going on in the Sinai Egypt's security forces seem to be able to cope with this emerging threat because there the number of arrests and deaths of terrorists is increasing while the number of attacks is decreasing.
As for Morsi himself on Sunday (1/9/13) he was formally charged and will face trial over the killing of 7 protesters who had assembled outside the Presidential Palace on December 4th 2012 (4/12/12) to protest one of Morsi's many diktats/decrees. Obviously I've not seen the case papers but if, as is being reported, prosecutors have corroborated testimony from police and Republican Guard commanders that Morsi ordered them to remove the protesters only for the order to be refused they have more than enough to go to trial and probably convict regardless of whether they can prove that Morsi ordered the Brotherhood thugs who attacked the protest to do so. The case against Morsi over the January 2011 prison break is still being prepared.
The other massive piece of news from Egypt recently is that yesterday the 50 members of the Assembly to rewrite the constitution was announced. Along with the 50 alternates all I have at the moment is a list of 100 names that I do not recognise. Therefore I will comment further when I've had time to familiarise myself. However the formation of the assembly does represent a huge step in the right direction in terms of returning Egypt to democracy and cementing the revolution.
20:35 on 2/9/13.
Sunday, 1 September 2013
US Congress to Decide on Syria.
Yesterday (31/8/13) US President Barack Obama announced that he will ask the US Congress (the Senate and the House of Representatives) for approval to take military action against Syria. If approval is granted the decision will not be taken until Congress reconvenes after its summer recess on September 9th (9/9/13). The decision to seek Congressional approval has clearly been taken for two main reasons.
Firstly while they've happily been criticising Obama for not taking military action the Republican Party has actually been looking forward to criticising Obama for taking military action without seeking Congressional approval. This clearly robs them of that opportunity. Secondly the G20 Summit takes place in Saint Petersburg, Russia on Thursday (5/9/13) and Friday (6/9/13). If the US were to attack Syria without United Nations approval and against the express wishes of Russia it would plunge the entire summit into crisis meaning that all the preparation work on issues such as global trade and global security would be lost. This would make the US deeply unpopular amongst the 19 other most powerful nations on earth.
The decision to go to Congress though is not with out its risks. Despite claims to the contrary the US does not have any authority under international law to attack Syria without a Chapter 7 resolution from the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). The UNSC will not be passing such as resolution because the criteria for doing so simply have not been met. There is nothing about the Syrian government's conduct during this three year conduct that indicates that it intends to violate the sovereignty of any other nation by attacking it. Nor does any aspect of the Syrian government's conduct constitute either a crime against humanity as defined by the 1998 Rome Statute or a war crime as defined by the Geneva Conventions and associated 1925 Geneva Protocol which would be needed for a resolution under the doctrine of "Responsibility to Protect (R2P)."
Also if military action were to be taken under R2P it would need to be both "proportionate and necessary." That means it would have to use only the force required to eliminate specified targets and the elimination of those targets would have to achieve a demonstrable reduction in the Syrian governments ability to use chemical weapons. The US President's own statements indicate that the military action the US is considering would a sort of 'shot across the bow' intended to send a message to the Syrian government. That sort of military action does not fulfil the criteria of "proportionate and necessary" and actually seems likely to provoke the Syrian government into increasing and escalating its use of chemical weapons.
Finally the Saudi and Qatari Irregular Army (SQIA) have indicated that they would use any foreign military action as an opportunity to gain an advantage on the battlefield. The SQIA are considered "unlawful combatants" under the Geneva Conventions so their mere presence represents a war crime. Any action in support of the SQIA would also constitute a war crime.
Although there is likely to be a large rebellion Democrats in Congress will be expected to vote in support of the Democrat President. Republicans in Congress seem likely to vote in favour of military action simply to put President Obama in the difficult position on either defying the wishes of Congress of committing war crime by ordering military action against Syria.
Another thing that will be making Obama's position particularly difficult is the role being played by the head of Saudi Arabia's intelligence services Prince Bandar bin Sultan. With the overthrow of the Syrian government now being considered Saudi Arabia's number one foreign policy objective Prince Bandar is said to be personally handling the setting up of secret operation centres in Jordan and Turkey in order to supply the SQIA with money, training and weapons including heavy weapons such as rocket launchers. Also according to the UK's Daily Telegraph newspaper which is very much part of the old, colonial British establishment Prince Bandar recently met with senior Russian officials. As part of that meeting Prince Bandar is said to have promised that if Russia dropped its support for the Syrian government Saudi Arabia would cut its oil output in order to keep the global oil price above the USD100p/b that Russia needs to fund its national budget. More alarmingly it is reported that at the same meeting Prince Bandar also strongly implied that if Russia continued to block a UNSC Chapter 7 resolution Saudi Arabia would instruct Chechen Islamists to carry out terrorist attacks against the 2014 Winter Olympic Games being held in Sochi, Russia.
Saudi Arabia's apparently very sinister role in the Syria conflict was further called into question by an article published last Thursday (29/8/13) on the not exactly mainstream Mintpress News that can be read here; http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-saudis-supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/ Based on interviews with local residents and SQIA fighters in the Damascus suburb the article claims that Prince Bandar had, for a period of months, been supplying the SQIA with Sarin gas that they were storing in underground tunnels. During the bombardment by the Syrian government some of these canisters of Sarin gas were accidentally opened by poorly trained SQIA fighters leading to the deaths on August 21st (21/8/13).
This article has been written by Yahya Ababneh a journalism student and amateur reporter. Ababneh's inexperience has clearly caused them to wildly extrapolate their conclusion from the source evidence. For example it is highly unlikely that a low-level SQIA fighter would know the exact source of a weapons shipment. Also while it is possible that the same accident occurred at several locations in and around Damascus at the same time it is highly unlikely. However the accounts of local residents and SQIA fighters corroborate the Syrian governments claims that it seized canisters of Sarin gas from the SQIA who were storing them in underground tunnels. This places serious doubt on the UK and US' claim that the Sarin gas arrived in the area in rockets fired by the Syrian government rather than the government bombardment prompting SQIA commanders to unleash their Sarin gas from canisters on the ground in order to smear the Syrian government.
Also if it can be demonstrated that Saudi Arabia supplied let alone produced Sarin gas it would represent a clear violation of the 1992 UN Chemical Weapons Convention which Saudi Arabia has signed up to but Syria has not. That is the type of violation of international law that should be referred to the UNSC for consideration of a possible Chapter 7 resolution.
16:30 on 1/9/13.
Firstly while they've happily been criticising Obama for not taking military action the Republican Party has actually been looking forward to criticising Obama for taking military action without seeking Congressional approval. This clearly robs them of that opportunity. Secondly the G20 Summit takes place in Saint Petersburg, Russia on Thursday (5/9/13) and Friday (6/9/13). If the US were to attack Syria without United Nations approval and against the express wishes of Russia it would plunge the entire summit into crisis meaning that all the preparation work on issues such as global trade and global security would be lost. This would make the US deeply unpopular amongst the 19 other most powerful nations on earth.
The decision to go to Congress though is not with out its risks. Despite claims to the contrary the US does not have any authority under international law to attack Syria without a Chapter 7 resolution from the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). The UNSC will not be passing such as resolution because the criteria for doing so simply have not been met. There is nothing about the Syrian government's conduct during this three year conduct that indicates that it intends to violate the sovereignty of any other nation by attacking it. Nor does any aspect of the Syrian government's conduct constitute either a crime against humanity as defined by the 1998 Rome Statute or a war crime as defined by the Geneva Conventions and associated 1925 Geneva Protocol which would be needed for a resolution under the doctrine of "Responsibility to Protect (R2P)."
Also if military action were to be taken under R2P it would need to be both "proportionate and necessary." That means it would have to use only the force required to eliminate specified targets and the elimination of those targets would have to achieve a demonstrable reduction in the Syrian governments ability to use chemical weapons. The US President's own statements indicate that the military action the US is considering would a sort of 'shot across the bow' intended to send a message to the Syrian government. That sort of military action does not fulfil the criteria of "proportionate and necessary" and actually seems likely to provoke the Syrian government into increasing and escalating its use of chemical weapons.
Finally the Saudi and Qatari Irregular Army (SQIA) have indicated that they would use any foreign military action as an opportunity to gain an advantage on the battlefield. The SQIA are considered "unlawful combatants" under the Geneva Conventions so their mere presence represents a war crime. Any action in support of the SQIA would also constitute a war crime.
Although there is likely to be a large rebellion Democrats in Congress will be expected to vote in support of the Democrat President. Republicans in Congress seem likely to vote in favour of military action simply to put President Obama in the difficult position on either defying the wishes of Congress of committing war crime by ordering military action against Syria.
Another thing that will be making Obama's position particularly difficult is the role being played by the head of Saudi Arabia's intelligence services Prince Bandar bin Sultan. With the overthrow of the Syrian government now being considered Saudi Arabia's number one foreign policy objective Prince Bandar is said to be personally handling the setting up of secret operation centres in Jordan and Turkey in order to supply the SQIA with money, training and weapons including heavy weapons such as rocket launchers. Also according to the UK's Daily Telegraph newspaper which is very much part of the old, colonial British establishment Prince Bandar recently met with senior Russian officials. As part of that meeting Prince Bandar is said to have promised that if Russia dropped its support for the Syrian government Saudi Arabia would cut its oil output in order to keep the global oil price above the USD100p/b that Russia needs to fund its national budget. More alarmingly it is reported that at the same meeting Prince Bandar also strongly implied that if Russia continued to block a UNSC Chapter 7 resolution Saudi Arabia would instruct Chechen Islamists to carry out terrorist attacks against the 2014 Winter Olympic Games being held in Sochi, Russia.
Saudi Arabia's apparently very sinister role in the Syria conflict was further called into question by an article published last Thursday (29/8/13) on the not exactly mainstream Mintpress News that can be read here; http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-saudis-supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/ Based on interviews with local residents and SQIA fighters in the Damascus suburb the article claims that Prince Bandar had, for a period of months, been supplying the SQIA with Sarin gas that they were storing in underground tunnels. During the bombardment by the Syrian government some of these canisters of Sarin gas were accidentally opened by poorly trained SQIA fighters leading to the deaths on August 21st (21/8/13).
This article has been written by Yahya Ababneh a journalism student and amateur reporter. Ababneh's inexperience has clearly caused them to wildly extrapolate their conclusion from the source evidence. For example it is highly unlikely that a low-level SQIA fighter would know the exact source of a weapons shipment. Also while it is possible that the same accident occurred at several locations in and around Damascus at the same time it is highly unlikely. However the accounts of local residents and SQIA fighters corroborate the Syrian governments claims that it seized canisters of Sarin gas from the SQIA who were storing them in underground tunnels. This places serious doubt on the UK and US' claim that the Sarin gas arrived in the area in rockets fired by the Syrian government rather than the government bombardment prompting SQIA commanders to unleash their Sarin gas from canisters on the ground in order to smear the Syrian government.
Also if it can be demonstrated that Saudi Arabia supplied let alone produced Sarin gas it would represent a clear violation of the 1992 UN Chemical Weapons Convention which Saudi Arabia has signed up to but Syria has not. That is the type of violation of international law that should be referred to the UNSC for consideration of a possible Chapter 7 resolution.
16:30 on 1/9/13.
Friday, 30 August 2013
The US Intelligence Assessment on Syria.
Today the United States published its intelligence assessment on the events of August 21st (21/8/13) in Syria which can be read here; http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2013/08/world/syria-documents/index.html or in a more useful format here; http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/30/us-government-assessment-syria-use-chemical-weapons/
I should probably start by apologising to the reports authors for my earlier Twitter comments because this is clearly a much more carefully constructed document than my initial skim read revealed. It does though fall far short of an intelligence assessment. An intelligence assessment would not only reveal the sources of the intelligence but also include some discussion of the credibility of those sources. I fully appreciate that the US intelligence community would not want to publish that sort of information in the public domain for very obvious reasons. However I hope that the version of report that has been sent to members of the US Congress contains a far greater level of detail as would befit their security clearance.
My main concern about this four page summary is that it appears to have taken thousands if not millions of separate pieces of information and then cherry-picked the pieces that best fit the pre-determined narrative that the Syrian government was responsible for any chemical weapons attack. Take for example the 7th paragraph which states that members of Syria's chemical weapons program are carefully vetted to ensure security and loyalty. Although it is undoubtedly a fact that members of the program are carefully vetted this detail seems to have been included specifically to tie any chemical weapons activity directly to the Syrian President by giving the impression that there is no possibility that rogue elements within the military could have been responsible. This is simply not the case because in July 2012 the head of Syria's chemical weapons program Adnan Silu defected to the Saudi and Qatari Irregular Army (SQIA) where he now holds the rank of General. If the Syrian's vetting program has failed to secure the loyalty of the head of the chemical weapons program it is clearly far from foolproof.
Then there is the 12th paragraph which talks about the Syrian government attacking the affected suburbs with conventional weapons for days prior to August 21st but becoming frustrated and resorting to chemical weapons. The obvious alternative conclusion to that evidence is that the Syrian government had been attacking with conventional weapons to the point that the SQIA were close to defeat prompting them to launch a false flag chemical weapons attack in order to relieve the pressure on them. I would like to know on what grounds that alternative scenario has been discarded.
The 4th paragraph is equally problematic because it puts the death toll at 1,429 and takes special care to point out that 426 of them were children. The most credible assessment puts the death toll at just 355 while the least credible SQIA estimate puts the death toll at 1,300. Therefore US intelligence appears to have made 129 extra bodies appear out of thin air. This could be a simple case of over/double-counting while collating information from various sources. However it could also be someone simply making up a very large number in order to inflame public outrage in order to fuel support for military action. It goes without saying that immediately after the release of the summary the hashtag #1429Syrians leaped straight to the top of the worldwide Twitter trends. US intelligence also have a strong motivation to inflate the death toll because it prompts discussions at the United Nations about at what point an incident becomes "widespread" as required to be described as a "Crime Against Humanity" as defined by the 1998 Rome Statutes which would justify military intervention under a Chapter 7 UN Security Council (UNSC). This is never an easy discussion to have because for example was the horror of Srebrenica that some 8000 people were killed or that the Serbs spent 7 consecutive days systematically killing people?
This theory of the intelligence being chosen to fit the conclusion appears to be supported by the tone of yesterday's debate in the UK House of Commons. Throughout that debate MP's from the governing Conservative Party spoke not of the UK taking military action against Syria by the UK joining in with US military action against Syria that was definitely going to take place. To me that sounds like Conservative MP's being informed by members of the cabinet that MI6 had been assured by their US counterparts that they had prepared an intelligence dossier that would make it impossible for the US President to avoid military action.
There are two things in the report that give me some confidence there is at least a hint of objectivity going into the US assessment of events. The first is that in the 5th paragraph and 9th paragraph it talks about it being unlikely that the SQIA carried out the attack or used chemical weapons. This differs from the UK's Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) report which states that the SQIA lacks the capability to mount a chemical weapons attack. This is simply untrue because back in May 2013 the Turkish authorities who are virulent opponents of the Syrian government arrested two members of the SQIA in the Turkish city of Adna in possession of 2kg of Sarin. Similarly the Syrian government recently captured Sarin gas from the SQIA in a tunnel network in the Damascus suburbs. Obviously the Syrian government have great incentive to lie about the SQIA having stockpiles of Sarin gas but it is not enough to simply dismiss the claim out of hand for no other reason then it is the Syrian government making the claim.
The second thing that hints at at least some objectivity is the 19th paragraph which talking about the social media reports of the incidents states that the SQIA does not have the capability to fabricate all of the videos. The implication is that a number of the videos and photographs most certainly were faked for propaganda purposes. A specific example would be the video of a pubescent girl with her burgeoning breasts exposed demanding that a doctor tells her she's alive. Apart from being an emotive attempt to convey the horror of the situation this was deliberately staged in order to play into the global discussion about at what age it becomes acceptable to marry/have sex with girls that is particularly prevalent in the Middle-East at the moment.
As for the intelligence itself apart from the stuff on the Internet it seems to have come from three main sources; Satellite imagery, communications intercepts (phone taps basically) and human intelligence sources who are Syrians on the ground who the CIA have recruited.
The satellite imagery should be easiest to declassify because provided the images are smudged up prior to release they are unlikely to reveal much about the US' intelligence gathering capabilities. There should be a lot of pressure on the US to release at least part of this satellite imagery because it makes up the bulk of the intelligence that this assessment is based on. For example all the stuff in the 10th to 15th paragraphs which talk about the attack itself and what the authors term the "preparation" has clearly come from spy satellites. The problem is that as far as I know the US has yet to develop a satellite that can detect the presence of Sarin gas in a fast moving object thousands of miles away. Therefore all the references to a conventional artillery and rocket attack is far from conclusive proof of a chemical weapons attack because the use of artillery and grad style rockets is an accepted and widely used lawful military tactic. The 13th and 14th paragraphs talk about satellite information showing Syrian troops preparing chemical weapons. I actually heard rumours of these images much earlier in the week. However the rumour I heard was that they merely showed Syrian troops moving and transporting chemical weapons. This is something that Syrian troops have been doing almost constantly for the last 12-15 months primarily to stop the SQIA get their hands on them, to deter foreign attempts to seize the weapons and just to annoy the US spy satellites. Therefore I would be very interested to know how the interpretation of these satellite images has changed from mere transportation to active preparation.
The communications intercept information is even more problematic. In the 20th paragraph reference is made to information the US itself has itself intercepted but goes on to refer to information that has been provided to them by a third party. What I've heard is that the US has little or no capability to intercept Syrian communications beyond satellite phones. As a result they are relying on Israel for the majority of their communication intercepts. Due mainly to the situation in Syria and to a lesser extent the Rihanna operation I would say that the relationship between the US and Israel has deteriorated to the point that Israel would provide the US with false intelligence in order to screw with them. The reports refusal to confirm what information has come from the US and what information has come from Israel seems to me to be a US attempt to question the quality of the information being provided by Israel. This is continued by the reports repeated reference to a "High Confidence" which could be a reference to the confidence the US has in its conclusion on Syria or a reference to the confidence (or lack thereof) it has in its Rihanna operation. After all if there's one thing we know about Rihanna it's that she likes to get 'high.'
The human intelligence is of course the most sensitive of all the intelligence because if some satellite pictures get released the worst that can happen is that China will confirm something it already knows about the US satellite capability. However if the identity of an agent on the ground in Syria is released they will be killed. If they're lucky. As a result this assessment makes very limited reference to human intelligence which also reflects the fact that the US' network of agents in Syria is limited at best. However the important thing to remember about human sources in this type of situation is that they were most likely recruited on the promise that the CIA will help them achieve their ideological goal of overthrowing the Syrian government. Therefore any assessment of their credibility will have to give serious consideration as to whether they are simply telling the CIA what it needs to hear in order to allow the US to take military action to overthrow the Syrian government.
22:10 on 30/8/13.
I should probably start by apologising to the reports authors for my earlier Twitter comments because this is clearly a much more carefully constructed document than my initial skim read revealed. It does though fall far short of an intelligence assessment. An intelligence assessment would not only reveal the sources of the intelligence but also include some discussion of the credibility of those sources. I fully appreciate that the US intelligence community would not want to publish that sort of information in the public domain for very obvious reasons. However I hope that the version of report that has been sent to members of the US Congress contains a far greater level of detail as would befit their security clearance.
My main concern about this four page summary is that it appears to have taken thousands if not millions of separate pieces of information and then cherry-picked the pieces that best fit the pre-determined narrative that the Syrian government was responsible for any chemical weapons attack. Take for example the 7th paragraph which states that members of Syria's chemical weapons program are carefully vetted to ensure security and loyalty. Although it is undoubtedly a fact that members of the program are carefully vetted this detail seems to have been included specifically to tie any chemical weapons activity directly to the Syrian President by giving the impression that there is no possibility that rogue elements within the military could have been responsible. This is simply not the case because in July 2012 the head of Syria's chemical weapons program Adnan Silu defected to the Saudi and Qatari Irregular Army (SQIA) where he now holds the rank of General. If the Syrian's vetting program has failed to secure the loyalty of the head of the chemical weapons program it is clearly far from foolproof.
Then there is the 12th paragraph which talks about the Syrian government attacking the affected suburbs with conventional weapons for days prior to August 21st but becoming frustrated and resorting to chemical weapons. The obvious alternative conclusion to that evidence is that the Syrian government had been attacking with conventional weapons to the point that the SQIA were close to defeat prompting them to launch a false flag chemical weapons attack in order to relieve the pressure on them. I would like to know on what grounds that alternative scenario has been discarded.
The 4th paragraph is equally problematic because it puts the death toll at 1,429 and takes special care to point out that 426 of them were children. The most credible assessment puts the death toll at just 355 while the least credible SQIA estimate puts the death toll at 1,300. Therefore US intelligence appears to have made 129 extra bodies appear out of thin air. This could be a simple case of over/double-counting while collating information from various sources. However it could also be someone simply making up a very large number in order to inflame public outrage in order to fuel support for military action. It goes without saying that immediately after the release of the summary the hashtag #1429Syrians leaped straight to the top of the worldwide Twitter trends. US intelligence also have a strong motivation to inflate the death toll because it prompts discussions at the United Nations about at what point an incident becomes "widespread" as required to be described as a "Crime Against Humanity" as defined by the 1998 Rome Statutes which would justify military intervention under a Chapter 7 UN Security Council (UNSC). This is never an easy discussion to have because for example was the horror of Srebrenica that some 8000 people were killed or that the Serbs spent 7 consecutive days systematically killing people?
This theory of the intelligence being chosen to fit the conclusion appears to be supported by the tone of yesterday's debate in the UK House of Commons. Throughout that debate MP's from the governing Conservative Party spoke not of the UK taking military action against Syria by the UK joining in with US military action against Syria that was definitely going to take place. To me that sounds like Conservative MP's being informed by members of the cabinet that MI6 had been assured by their US counterparts that they had prepared an intelligence dossier that would make it impossible for the US President to avoid military action.
There are two things in the report that give me some confidence there is at least a hint of objectivity going into the US assessment of events. The first is that in the 5th paragraph and 9th paragraph it talks about it being unlikely that the SQIA carried out the attack or used chemical weapons. This differs from the UK's Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) report which states that the SQIA lacks the capability to mount a chemical weapons attack. This is simply untrue because back in May 2013 the Turkish authorities who are virulent opponents of the Syrian government arrested two members of the SQIA in the Turkish city of Adna in possession of 2kg of Sarin. Similarly the Syrian government recently captured Sarin gas from the SQIA in a tunnel network in the Damascus suburbs. Obviously the Syrian government have great incentive to lie about the SQIA having stockpiles of Sarin gas but it is not enough to simply dismiss the claim out of hand for no other reason then it is the Syrian government making the claim.
The second thing that hints at at least some objectivity is the 19th paragraph which talking about the social media reports of the incidents states that the SQIA does not have the capability to fabricate all of the videos. The implication is that a number of the videos and photographs most certainly were faked for propaganda purposes. A specific example would be the video of a pubescent girl with her burgeoning breasts exposed demanding that a doctor tells her she's alive. Apart from being an emotive attempt to convey the horror of the situation this was deliberately staged in order to play into the global discussion about at what age it becomes acceptable to marry/have sex with girls that is particularly prevalent in the Middle-East at the moment.
As for the intelligence itself apart from the stuff on the Internet it seems to have come from three main sources; Satellite imagery, communications intercepts (phone taps basically) and human intelligence sources who are Syrians on the ground who the CIA have recruited.
The satellite imagery should be easiest to declassify because provided the images are smudged up prior to release they are unlikely to reveal much about the US' intelligence gathering capabilities. There should be a lot of pressure on the US to release at least part of this satellite imagery because it makes up the bulk of the intelligence that this assessment is based on. For example all the stuff in the 10th to 15th paragraphs which talk about the attack itself and what the authors term the "preparation" has clearly come from spy satellites. The problem is that as far as I know the US has yet to develop a satellite that can detect the presence of Sarin gas in a fast moving object thousands of miles away. Therefore all the references to a conventional artillery and rocket attack is far from conclusive proof of a chemical weapons attack because the use of artillery and grad style rockets is an accepted and widely used lawful military tactic. The 13th and 14th paragraphs talk about satellite information showing Syrian troops preparing chemical weapons. I actually heard rumours of these images much earlier in the week. However the rumour I heard was that they merely showed Syrian troops moving and transporting chemical weapons. This is something that Syrian troops have been doing almost constantly for the last 12-15 months primarily to stop the SQIA get their hands on them, to deter foreign attempts to seize the weapons and just to annoy the US spy satellites. Therefore I would be very interested to know how the interpretation of these satellite images has changed from mere transportation to active preparation.
The communications intercept information is even more problematic. In the 20th paragraph reference is made to information the US itself has itself intercepted but goes on to refer to information that has been provided to them by a third party. What I've heard is that the US has little or no capability to intercept Syrian communications beyond satellite phones. As a result they are relying on Israel for the majority of their communication intercepts. Due mainly to the situation in Syria and to a lesser extent the Rihanna operation I would say that the relationship between the US and Israel has deteriorated to the point that Israel would provide the US with false intelligence in order to screw with them. The reports refusal to confirm what information has come from the US and what information has come from Israel seems to me to be a US attempt to question the quality of the information being provided by Israel. This is continued by the reports repeated reference to a "High Confidence" which could be a reference to the confidence the US has in its conclusion on Syria or a reference to the confidence (or lack thereof) it has in its Rihanna operation. After all if there's one thing we know about Rihanna it's that she likes to get 'high.'
The human intelligence is of course the most sensitive of all the intelligence because if some satellite pictures get released the worst that can happen is that China will confirm something it already knows about the US satellite capability. However if the identity of an agent on the ground in Syria is released they will be killed. If they're lucky. As a result this assessment makes very limited reference to human intelligence which also reflects the fact that the US' network of agents in Syria is limited at best. However the important thing to remember about human sources in this type of situation is that they were most likely recruited on the promise that the CIA will help them achieve their ideological goal of overthrowing the Syrian government. Therefore any assessment of their credibility will have to give serious consideration as to whether they are simply telling the CIA what it needs to hear in order to allow the US to take military action to overthrow the Syrian government.
22:10 on 30/8/13.
Thursday, 29 August 2013
UK Commons Motion on Syria Defeated.
In the last hour or so the UK government's motion on military action against Syria that can be read here; http://www.itv.com/news/2013-08-28/the-full-text-of-the-governments-motion-on-syria/ has been defeated by a margin of 13 votes with 272 votes in favour and 285 votes against. There were 93 abstentions apparently including two Conservative Party who accidentally missed the vote because they were called away to meetings.
In response to what has been an embarrassing defeat the UK Prime Minister David Cameron has said that the result shows that; "The British Parliament reflecting the will of the British people do not wish to see British military action." However this is not the same as saying that there will be no military action against Syria. Firstly under the UK's unwritten constitution the military remains the property of the Monarch rather than the people. As a result the Monarch has the prerogative to send the military to war without the consent of the people. However if the Monarch were to attempt to exercise that prerogative the UK would be looking at its most serious constitutional crisis in some 300 years and possibly another civil war. Secondly and perhaps more relevantly the UK Parliament has not voted against military action against Syria it has merely rejected this particular motion calling for military. There is nothing to stop the government on recalling Parliament to vote on another motion tomorrow.
What is interesting is that just before rejecting the government's motion the House of Commons also rejected the Labour Party's amendment by a margin of 112 votes with 220 votes in favour, 332 against and 98 abstentions. This amendment would have of course required the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to vote on the UN inspectors report before the UK Parliament voted on another motion on military action against Syria. So while there were clearly Members of Parliament (MP's) who voted with their consciences and principles I detect the distinct whiff of the Conservative Party whips purposefully sinking this motion in order to clear the way for another motion as quickly as possible. Parliament reconvenes in normal session at the start of next week.
What appears to have changed is that during the 8 hour debate the UN inspection team have indicated that their preliminary report will be available for discussion by the UNSC on Saturday (31/8/13). The rumour is that this report will detail the discovery of Grad-style rocket parts which test positive for Sarin gas and have serial numbers linking them to the Syrian military. Although the UN inspection team is not mandated to draw any conclusion as to who was responsible for the August 21st (21/8/13) Sarin gas attack in Jobar supporters of the Saudi and Qatari Irregular Army (SQIA) will immediately hold these up as conclusive proof that the Syrian government is responsible. They of course will be hoping that we all gloss over tiny little details like Sarin gas coats most things it comes into contact with and the former head of the Syrian army's chemical weapons division is I believe now a General in the SQIA.
In preparation for these fresh calls for military action against Syria Rwanda has today accused the government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) of shelling its territory. The government of the DRC has responded by accusing Rwanda of shelling the DRC and its own territory in order to discredit the DRC. This issue will reach the UNSC firstly because Rwanda is currently a member of the UNSC. Secondly in order to protect the people of the DRC from the M23 rebels who are widely believed to be supported by Rwanda the UN is currently engaged in a peacekeeping mission in the DRC. This peacekeeping mission (MONUSCO) is controversial because it is the first time that a UN peacekeeping mission has been mandated to take offensive military action against designated groups rather then just acting to keep warring parties apart. Therefore the intention seems to be to raise pressure on the UN to allow the UK to take unilateral military action against Syria by comparing MONUSCO's mandate with the UN doctrine of "Responsibility to Protect (R2P)" that the UK is trying to invoke to justify military action against Syria without a UNSC mandate. See previous post here; http://watchitdie.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/the-uks-legal-position-on-syria.html for lots of tedious detail on R2P.
Although there are vast differences between the MONUSCO mission and what the UK is trying to attempt in Syria any comparison will fail for two main reasons. Firstly M23 and other groups routinely use rape as a weapon of war against civilians in the DRC. Rape is one of the offences listed in the 1998 Rome Statute as a possible crime against humanity. As for how widespread this activity is in the DRC the last report I read on the subject estimated it as occurring four times every minute meaning that it is far from an isolated or sporadic event. Secondly MONUSCO has a mandate from the UNSC. I believe the UK raised reservations.
23:20 on 29/8/13.
In response to what has been an embarrassing defeat the UK Prime Minister David Cameron has said that the result shows that; "The British Parliament reflecting the will of the British people do not wish to see British military action." However this is not the same as saying that there will be no military action against Syria. Firstly under the UK's unwritten constitution the military remains the property of the Monarch rather than the people. As a result the Monarch has the prerogative to send the military to war without the consent of the people. However if the Monarch were to attempt to exercise that prerogative the UK would be looking at its most serious constitutional crisis in some 300 years and possibly another civil war. Secondly and perhaps more relevantly the UK Parliament has not voted against military action against Syria it has merely rejected this particular motion calling for military. There is nothing to stop the government on recalling Parliament to vote on another motion tomorrow.
What is interesting is that just before rejecting the government's motion the House of Commons also rejected the Labour Party's amendment by a margin of 112 votes with 220 votes in favour, 332 against and 98 abstentions. This amendment would have of course required the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to vote on the UN inspectors report before the UK Parliament voted on another motion on military action against Syria. So while there were clearly Members of Parliament (MP's) who voted with their consciences and principles I detect the distinct whiff of the Conservative Party whips purposefully sinking this motion in order to clear the way for another motion as quickly as possible. Parliament reconvenes in normal session at the start of next week.
What appears to have changed is that during the 8 hour debate the UN inspection team have indicated that their preliminary report will be available for discussion by the UNSC on Saturday (31/8/13). The rumour is that this report will detail the discovery of Grad-style rocket parts which test positive for Sarin gas and have serial numbers linking them to the Syrian military. Although the UN inspection team is not mandated to draw any conclusion as to who was responsible for the August 21st (21/8/13) Sarin gas attack in Jobar supporters of the Saudi and Qatari Irregular Army (SQIA) will immediately hold these up as conclusive proof that the Syrian government is responsible. They of course will be hoping that we all gloss over tiny little details like Sarin gas coats most things it comes into contact with and the former head of the Syrian army's chemical weapons division is I believe now a General in the SQIA.
In preparation for these fresh calls for military action against Syria Rwanda has today accused the government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) of shelling its territory. The government of the DRC has responded by accusing Rwanda of shelling the DRC and its own territory in order to discredit the DRC. This issue will reach the UNSC firstly because Rwanda is currently a member of the UNSC. Secondly in order to protect the people of the DRC from the M23 rebels who are widely believed to be supported by Rwanda the UN is currently engaged in a peacekeeping mission in the DRC. This peacekeeping mission (MONUSCO) is controversial because it is the first time that a UN peacekeeping mission has been mandated to take offensive military action against designated groups rather then just acting to keep warring parties apart. Therefore the intention seems to be to raise pressure on the UN to allow the UK to take unilateral military action against Syria by comparing MONUSCO's mandate with the UN doctrine of "Responsibility to Protect (R2P)" that the UK is trying to invoke to justify military action against Syria without a UNSC mandate. See previous post here; http://watchitdie.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/the-uks-legal-position-on-syria.html for lots of tedious detail on R2P.
Although there are vast differences between the MONUSCO mission and what the UK is trying to attempt in Syria any comparison will fail for two main reasons. Firstly M23 and other groups routinely use rape as a weapon of war against civilians in the DRC. Rape is one of the offences listed in the 1998 Rome Statute as a possible crime against humanity. As for how widespread this activity is in the DRC the last report I read on the subject estimated it as occurring four times every minute meaning that it is far from an isolated or sporadic event. Secondly MONUSCO has a mandate from the UNSC. I believe the UK raised reservations.
23:20 on 29/8/13.
The UK's Legal Position on Syria.
Both houses of the UK Parliament are currently debating the use of chemical weapons in Syria with a House of Commons vote expected at around 21:00. With the motion that can be read here; http://www.itv.com/news/2013-08-28/the-full-text-of-the-governments-motion-on-syria/ now containing a guarantee that there will have to be a second vote before UK military action is taking this debate has turned into something of a damp squib.
However there is some talk that Conservative Party MP's will push for Parliament to be recalled over the weekend for that vote to take place. Bizarrely though this seems like an attempt to get this current motion passed because it features the Labour Party amendment that can be read here; http://www.itv.com/news/2013-08-28/full-text-of-labours-amendment-on-syria/ that requires that the United Nations (UN) inspectors are allowed to complete their inspection and make a report to the Security Council before a UK vote on military action can take place. The UN inspectors are likely to be in Syria until Saturday (31/8/13) so there is little chance of them completing their report by Sunday (1/9/13). Therefore passing the amended motion would head off a weekend vote although there is little guarantee that things will get that far.
Ahead of the debate though the UK's Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) published a summary of its findings that can be read here; https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/235094/Jp_115_JD_PM_Syria_Reported_Chemical_Weapon_Use_with_annex.pdf However even in the heavily redacted world of espionage this so brief as to be useless. The main evidence it cites in support of its finding that the Syrian government used chemical weapons is that previous JIC reports have concluded that the Syrian government have used chemical weapons. It does though concede that it can find no political or military reason why the Syrian government would have used chemical weapons.
The UK Attorney General has also published a summary of the governments legal position regarding a chemical weapons attack by the Syrian government that can be read here; http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2013/images/08/29/chemical-weapon-use-by-syrian-regime-uk-government-legal-position.pdf Again this is very brief but from what has been written it is easy to tell that it is deeply flawed. The 2nd paragraph describes the use of chemical weapons by the "Syrian regime" as "a breach of international law prohibition on use of chemical weapons (sic)and amounts to a war crime and a crime against humanity." Peculiarly for a legal briefing though it offers no basis for the laws on which the opinion is based forcing us all to guess.
However by "Crime Against Humanity" I assume that it is referring to the 1998 Rome Statute as this is the only accepted document offering a definition of a crime against humanity. It lists Crimes Against Humanity as murder, extermination, torture, rape, political, religious and ethnic persecution none of which apply to the events in Jobar on August 21st (21/8/13). Although people were killed with only 355 dead there doesn't appear to have been any attempt at a mass extermination and the killings occurred as part of an armed confrontation between at least two armed groups. Killings that take place under those circumstances are not normally considered murder. At a massive stretch I suppose that the use of chemical weapons could be described as an "inhumane or degrading act." However crimes against humanity do not refer to "isolated or sporadic events." Lawyers can argue about the specific definitions of "isolated or sporadic" forever and a day however I think that most reasonable people would agree that a one off incident fits the definition of isolated or sporadic meaning that no crime against humanity has occurred.
The customary law on the prohibition of chemical weapons seems to refer to the 1925 Geneva Protocol on chemical weapons. Although this is not technically part of the Geneva Conventions is relies of the Geneva Conventions' definitions of "warfare" and "combatant." The Geneva Conventions are of course the documents that define "war crimes." It is here that the UK government's position runs into serious trouble because the 4th article of the 3rd Geneva Convention lays out a distinction between a lawful combatant and an unlawful combatant. Warfare as defined by the Geneva Conventions and the 1925 protocol can only be waged against lawful combatants and therefore war crimes cannot be committed against unlawful combatants. The Saudi and Qatari Irregular Army (SQIA) are quite clearly unlawful combatants meaning that no course of action including the use of chemical weapons is prohibited against them. I understand that from a humanitarian perspective this can be particularly hard to stomach but the most important part of the distinction is that a lawful combatant must obey all the other laws of war. That means they cannot massacre, hide amongst civilian populations, rape, murder, pillage or eat their dead. If we get into a position where we start defending people's right to act as unlawful combatants we are condoning war crimes and the laws of war which are hardly the membership rules of the local women institutes knitting circle fall apart creating a free for all as we are currently witnessing in Syria and have seen in places such as the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.
The 2nd paragraph goes onto assert that the legal basis for any UK military would be humanitarian intervention. Here I am at an utter loss as to what aspect of international law this opinion is based on. However from the talk of deterring or disrupting the future use of chemical weapons this appears to be a reference to the 2005 UN doctrine of "Responsibility to Protect (R2P)." To use the correct legal parlance this is Cr*p for the simple reason that R2P is not part of international law. Instead it is a set of internal UN guidelines detailing the circumstances under which the UN Security Council (UNSC) can issue a Chapter 7 resolution authorising the use of military force. It considers the UNSC to be the sole body that can authorise the use of military force and most certainly does not permit nations to take military action without a UNSC resolution. In fact R2P was largely introduced to prevent a repeat of NATO's little adventure into Serbia in 1999. Although it has no application in these circumstances I will consider the UK's discussion of the criteria laid out in R2P but only to explain why there will be no UNSC resolution on Syria under the current circumstances;
The first requirement is that there is compelling evidence accepted by the international community (UNSC) that there is humanitarian distress on a large scale. This condition has clearly not been met. Although the JIC summary is scant on detail I gather that the UK's evidence rests of three pillars because the US the and Israel are not sharing their intercept evidence with the UK. Those pillars are video evidence, witness statements and social media reports. I am considering witness statements and social media reports to be the same thing for obvious reasons.
Although I'm not disputing the video evidence the assertion that it could not be faked is simply incorrect because there are a host of drugs that can induce seizure like symptoms and irritation to the eyes and frothing at the mouth can be induced by simple household soap. The witness statements severely lack credibility because the attack took place at around 03:00 (local). Due to the fighting in Syria there is no street lighting or electricity grid to speak of so the attack took place in pitch darkness. It also took place amid an artillery bombardment which are so traumatic and disorientating it is well documented they can drive people insane. Finally Sarin gas is both odourless and colourless so even during perfect daylight a person could no more tell you were it had come from than the air they breath daily. So will I appreciate that in these circumstances it is unreasonable to apply the same burden of proof as you would apply in a civilian criminal trial if a witness who has great incentive to lie is claiming to have seen something that it is physically impossible for them to have seen we really have to ask if they're telling the truth.
If the available evidence were to some how magically strengthen to the point it at least indicates the Syrian government rather than the SQIA were responsible the events in Jobar of August 21st (21/8/13) still represent a isolated or sporadic incident meaning that the 1998 Rome Statute covering Crimes Against Humanity and R2P cannot and do not apply.
The second requirement is that it has to be objectively clear that there is no alternative to the use of military force. This is simply not the case in Syria because alternatively the UNSC could pass a resolution prohibiting the supply of weapons and other equipment to the unlawful combatants of the SQIA or requiring that the SQIA stop hiding in civilian areas. It could also begin to supply the Syrian government with weapons and tactical advice making it better able to defeat the SQIA while minimising civilian casualties.
The third requirement is that any military force is proportional and strictly limited to relieving the humanitarian need (the use of chemical weapons). Obviously this is quite difficult to asses without it being declared exactly what military action is being considered. However even the nations that are proposing military action have made clear that they would not be able to target chemical weapon stores without spreading them across a wide area making the humanitarian need much worse. The UK's plan use Cruise missiles to knock out Syria's air defences including its air-fields is definitely out. Destroying air defences will have no impact on the Syrian governments ability to use chemical weapons and seems to be a precursor to regime change which R2P does not authorise. Similarly attacking air-fields or any other military hardware such as artillery positions seems to be a precursor to regime change and is actually likely to increase the Syrian governments need to use chemical weapons by reducing their ability to use conventional weapons.
As such the criteria of R2P have not been met so the UNSC will not be passing a Chapter 7 resolution. I strongly recommend that the UK Parliament respects the UN a votes down today's flawed and unlawful motion.
17:45 on 29/8/13.
However there is some talk that Conservative Party MP's will push for Parliament to be recalled over the weekend for that vote to take place. Bizarrely though this seems like an attempt to get this current motion passed because it features the Labour Party amendment that can be read here; http://www.itv.com/news/2013-08-28/full-text-of-labours-amendment-on-syria/ that requires that the United Nations (UN) inspectors are allowed to complete their inspection and make a report to the Security Council before a UK vote on military action can take place. The UN inspectors are likely to be in Syria until Saturday (31/8/13) so there is little chance of them completing their report by Sunday (1/9/13). Therefore passing the amended motion would head off a weekend vote although there is little guarantee that things will get that far.
Ahead of the debate though the UK's Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) published a summary of its findings that can be read here; https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/235094/Jp_115_JD_PM_Syria_Reported_Chemical_Weapon_Use_with_annex.pdf However even in the heavily redacted world of espionage this so brief as to be useless. The main evidence it cites in support of its finding that the Syrian government used chemical weapons is that previous JIC reports have concluded that the Syrian government have used chemical weapons. It does though concede that it can find no political or military reason why the Syrian government would have used chemical weapons.
The UK Attorney General has also published a summary of the governments legal position regarding a chemical weapons attack by the Syrian government that can be read here; http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2013/images/08/29/chemical-weapon-use-by-syrian-regime-uk-government-legal-position.pdf Again this is very brief but from what has been written it is easy to tell that it is deeply flawed. The 2nd paragraph describes the use of chemical weapons by the "Syrian regime" as "a breach of international law prohibition on use of chemical weapons (sic)and amounts to a war crime and a crime against humanity." Peculiarly for a legal briefing though it offers no basis for the laws on which the opinion is based forcing us all to guess.
However by "Crime Against Humanity" I assume that it is referring to the 1998 Rome Statute as this is the only accepted document offering a definition of a crime against humanity. It lists Crimes Against Humanity as murder, extermination, torture, rape, political, religious and ethnic persecution none of which apply to the events in Jobar on August 21st (21/8/13). Although people were killed with only 355 dead there doesn't appear to have been any attempt at a mass extermination and the killings occurred as part of an armed confrontation between at least two armed groups. Killings that take place under those circumstances are not normally considered murder. At a massive stretch I suppose that the use of chemical weapons could be described as an "inhumane or degrading act." However crimes against humanity do not refer to "isolated or sporadic events." Lawyers can argue about the specific definitions of "isolated or sporadic" forever and a day however I think that most reasonable people would agree that a one off incident fits the definition of isolated or sporadic meaning that no crime against humanity has occurred.
The customary law on the prohibition of chemical weapons seems to refer to the 1925 Geneva Protocol on chemical weapons. Although this is not technically part of the Geneva Conventions is relies of the Geneva Conventions' definitions of "warfare" and "combatant." The Geneva Conventions are of course the documents that define "war crimes." It is here that the UK government's position runs into serious trouble because the 4th article of the 3rd Geneva Convention lays out a distinction between a lawful combatant and an unlawful combatant. Warfare as defined by the Geneva Conventions and the 1925 protocol can only be waged against lawful combatants and therefore war crimes cannot be committed against unlawful combatants. The Saudi and Qatari Irregular Army (SQIA) are quite clearly unlawful combatants meaning that no course of action including the use of chemical weapons is prohibited against them. I understand that from a humanitarian perspective this can be particularly hard to stomach but the most important part of the distinction is that a lawful combatant must obey all the other laws of war. That means they cannot massacre, hide amongst civilian populations, rape, murder, pillage or eat their dead. If we get into a position where we start defending people's right to act as unlawful combatants we are condoning war crimes and the laws of war which are hardly the membership rules of the local women institutes knitting circle fall apart creating a free for all as we are currently witnessing in Syria and have seen in places such as the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.
The 2nd paragraph goes onto assert that the legal basis for any UK military would be humanitarian intervention. Here I am at an utter loss as to what aspect of international law this opinion is based on. However from the talk of deterring or disrupting the future use of chemical weapons this appears to be a reference to the 2005 UN doctrine of "Responsibility to Protect (R2P)." To use the correct legal parlance this is Cr*p for the simple reason that R2P is not part of international law. Instead it is a set of internal UN guidelines detailing the circumstances under which the UN Security Council (UNSC) can issue a Chapter 7 resolution authorising the use of military force. It considers the UNSC to be the sole body that can authorise the use of military force and most certainly does not permit nations to take military action without a UNSC resolution. In fact R2P was largely introduced to prevent a repeat of NATO's little adventure into Serbia in 1999. Although it has no application in these circumstances I will consider the UK's discussion of the criteria laid out in R2P but only to explain why there will be no UNSC resolution on Syria under the current circumstances;
The first requirement is that there is compelling evidence accepted by the international community (UNSC) that there is humanitarian distress on a large scale. This condition has clearly not been met. Although the JIC summary is scant on detail I gather that the UK's evidence rests of three pillars because the US the and Israel are not sharing their intercept evidence with the UK. Those pillars are video evidence, witness statements and social media reports. I am considering witness statements and social media reports to be the same thing for obvious reasons.
Although I'm not disputing the video evidence the assertion that it could not be faked is simply incorrect because there are a host of drugs that can induce seizure like symptoms and irritation to the eyes and frothing at the mouth can be induced by simple household soap. The witness statements severely lack credibility because the attack took place at around 03:00 (local). Due to the fighting in Syria there is no street lighting or electricity grid to speak of so the attack took place in pitch darkness. It also took place amid an artillery bombardment which are so traumatic and disorientating it is well documented they can drive people insane. Finally Sarin gas is both odourless and colourless so even during perfect daylight a person could no more tell you were it had come from than the air they breath daily. So will I appreciate that in these circumstances it is unreasonable to apply the same burden of proof as you would apply in a civilian criminal trial if a witness who has great incentive to lie is claiming to have seen something that it is physically impossible for them to have seen we really have to ask if they're telling the truth.
If the available evidence were to some how magically strengthen to the point it at least indicates the Syrian government rather than the SQIA were responsible the events in Jobar of August 21st (21/8/13) still represent a isolated or sporadic incident meaning that the 1998 Rome Statute covering Crimes Against Humanity and R2P cannot and do not apply.
The second requirement is that it has to be objectively clear that there is no alternative to the use of military force. This is simply not the case in Syria because alternatively the UNSC could pass a resolution prohibiting the supply of weapons and other equipment to the unlawful combatants of the SQIA or requiring that the SQIA stop hiding in civilian areas. It could also begin to supply the Syrian government with weapons and tactical advice making it better able to defeat the SQIA while minimising civilian casualties.
The third requirement is that any military force is proportional and strictly limited to relieving the humanitarian need (the use of chemical weapons). Obviously this is quite difficult to asses without it being declared exactly what military action is being considered. However even the nations that are proposing military action have made clear that they would not be able to target chemical weapon stores without spreading them across a wide area making the humanitarian need much worse. The UK's plan use Cruise missiles to knock out Syria's air defences including its air-fields is definitely out. Destroying air defences will have no impact on the Syrian governments ability to use chemical weapons and seems to be a precursor to regime change which R2P does not authorise. Similarly attacking air-fields or any other military hardware such as artillery positions seems to be a precursor to regime change and is actually likely to increase the Syrian governments need to use chemical weapons by reducing their ability to use conventional weapons.
As such the criteria of R2P have not been met so the UNSC will not be passing a Chapter 7 resolution. I strongly recommend that the UK Parliament respects the UN a votes down today's flawed and unlawful motion.
17:45 on 29/8/13.
Operation Misery: Month 6, Week 4, Day 2.
OK technically a day late. However yesterday Rihanna returned to Los Angeles, California for the final preperations for the next leg of her Diamonds World Tour. Although Rihanna will mostly be spending this time in planning meetings, at rehearsals and making sure her pets are going to be taken care of the CIA handlers were hoping for lots of speculation about whether Rihanna will be meeting up with Chris Brown or any other of her alleged suitors. However given the timing I think they've only succeeded in highlighting how stupid this final part of Rihanna's tour is going to be.
That's because it looks like the least stressful date of the tour is going to be the week Rihanna spends in Israel. The Israeli government is currently in the process of handing gas masks to its citizens in case the Saudi and Qatari Irregular Army (SQIA) use a western military strike against Syria as an excuse to launch a chemical weapons attack against Israel in order to provide a pretext for a larger military intervention against the Syrian government. Therefore you have to ask with the security plan now featuring the phrase; "It'll be fine, the poison gas won't reach as far as Tel Aviv" are there any circumstances in which Rihanna's handlers will consider cancelling the tour.
On a related note more details of the US' dossier of evidence about the August 21st (21/8/13) chemical weapons attack are begining to leak out. Apart from the hundreds of eyewitnesses who swear blind they know exactly where the colourless and odourless Sarin gas orginated from the bulk of this evidence appears to be an intercepted telephone conversation featuring a Syrian government official who was demanding to know why everyone was reporting that a chemical weapons attack had taken place in Jobar and a military commander on the ground. The military commander's response is not known. Crucially this telephone intercept has not come from the US' PRISM survellience program but from an Israeli listening station. That means for the last week or so the Israelis have been forcing the Americans to demand that the intercept evidence is released. Considering the parrallels with my case that's the sort of play that should send a shiver down the spines of UK MP's as they debate this House of Commons motion on Syria.
10:40 on 29/8/13.
That's because it looks like the least stressful date of the tour is going to be the week Rihanna spends in Israel. The Israeli government is currently in the process of handing gas masks to its citizens in case the Saudi and Qatari Irregular Army (SQIA) use a western military strike against Syria as an excuse to launch a chemical weapons attack against Israel in order to provide a pretext for a larger military intervention against the Syrian government. Therefore you have to ask with the security plan now featuring the phrase; "It'll be fine, the poison gas won't reach as far as Tel Aviv" are there any circumstances in which Rihanna's handlers will consider cancelling the tour.
On a related note more details of the US' dossier of evidence about the August 21st (21/8/13) chemical weapons attack are begining to leak out. Apart from the hundreds of eyewitnesses who swear blind they know exactly where the colourless and odourless Sarin gas orginated from the bulk of this evidence appears to be an intercepted telephone conversation featuring a Syrian government official who was demanding to know why everyone was reporting that a chemical weapons attack had taken place in Jobar and a military commander on the ground. The military commander's response is not known. Crucially this telephone intercept has not come from the US' PRISM survellience program but from an Israeli listening station. That means for the last week or so the Israelis have been forcing the Americans to demand that the intercept evidence is released. Considering the parrallels with my case that's the sort of play that should send a shiver down the spines of UK MP's as they debate this House of Commons motion on Syria.
10:40 on 29/8/13.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
