Please join Women in Black tomorrow for another vigil to say NO to a War on Syria - from 12:30-1:30PM in front of Elting Memorial Library in New Paltz. We have some signs, or bring your own.
Unlike Afghanistan and Iraq- the American people are with us on this one. Left and right are rising up to say no to military strike that could ignite the entire Middle East. Our representative Chris Gibson is against an attack, but he is asking constituents if they agree- Give him a call and tell him to stay strong saying no to war - 845 514-2322.
"Any attack on Syria would burn down Israel," said Iran's military chief of staff . Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Tuesday that Israel would "respond with great force" to any such attack. This is a recipe for WWIII.
Kerry says the opposition is growing in moderation, but intelligent analysts say that the al Qaeda Nusra Front is better organized, armed and trained and growing in influence. And then there is the fact that members of the Nusra Front were captured in Turkey with 4.5 pounds of sarin gas in their apartments.
There will inevitably be a political solution in Syria with all sides sitting down to talk. Why not start there, instead of killing more innocents in a display of military might and fomenting more anti-American hatred in the Muslim world? Women in Black has always stood for the force of law- not the law of force. Alternatives to killing below.
Syria: Six Alternatives to Military Strikes
Many of the legal and diplomatic processes that led to peace
in other times of conflict haven't even been tried yet in Syria.
posted Sep 05, 2013
-
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee's approval of military force
in Syria makes military strikes against that country more likely. But
key questions remain unanswered. Will military strikes help ordinary
Syrians or harm them? Will more violence deter the use of chemical
weapons and other war crimes in Syria and elsewhere, or exacerbate
the problem? Have all other possibilities been exhausted, or are there
peaceful solutions that haven't been tried?
A quick review of the options suggests there are at least six
strategies that could hold wrongdoers to account, deter war crimes of
all sorts, and build peace.
These strategies are based on an idea little discussed but deeply
practical for our war-weary country and world. Instead of launching an
assault on Syria, the United States could lead a "coalition of the
willing" in rebuilding the tattered foundation of international law.
This would lay the groundwork for peace, not only in Syria, but in
all the lawless regions of the world. And it could do so without adding
to civilian casualties, further destabilizing the Middle East,
breaking the budget of the United States, and requiring yet more
sacrifices by those who serve in the armed forces.
For several reasons, this is the right time to turn to the rule of
law. Why? First, this conflict does not lend itself to the cheap story
used to whip up pro-war sentiment: the notion that military strikes
will help the "good guys" in the opposition defeat the "bad guys" in the
regime. The armed opposition in Syria includes many we don't want
to support—especially those associated with Al Qaeda and other extremist
groups. And the United States, too, has things to answer for—among
other things its faulty claims about weapons of mass destruction in the
lead-up to war in Iraq, the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and
Guantanamo, and civilian casualties of U.S. drone attacks in countries
including Pakistan and Yemen.
So building a case for war based on U.S. heroics in support of
valiant upstarts against an evil despot just doesn't work. Our real
choice is this: contribute to lawless violence or turn to the rule
of law and civility.
What would we do if we were to choose peace and the rule of law? Here
are six approaches that would help build justice and peace in Syria and
elsewhere.
1. Bring those guilty of atrocities to justice. With the
backing of the U.N. Security Council, those responsible for the chemical
weapons attacks and other war crimes should be brought to the
International Criminal Court (ICC) for justice, whether they are part of
the Syrian regime or members of opposition forces. "The use of chemical
weapons by anyone is a war crime, and international law requires
international enforcement," policy analyst Phyllis Bennis wrote in an
email. "No one country, not even the most powerful, has the right to
act as unilateral cop."
The United States should strengthen the ability of the ICC to hold
war criminals accountable by signing on and ratifying the statute that
created the court in 1998.
Even before bringing Assad and his allies to the ICC, Frank Jannuzi
of Amnesty International told YES!, it's possible to punish these
individuals with travel restrictions and targeted economic
sanctions.
2. Call for a United Nations embargo on arms, military supplies, and logistical support for both Damascus and opposition forces.
Stopping the flow of weapons from around the world into Syria is
another important step toward peace. But it will involve complex
diplomacy that has not yet been attempted. As Bennis writes, "Russia
must stop and must push Iran to stop arming and funding the Syrian
regime."
But Russia and Iran are not the only culprits. Bennis continues: "The
U.S. must stop and must push Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Jordan and
others to stop arming and funding the opposition, including the
extremist elements." How can we exert pressure on those regimes? "That
won't be easy," says Bennis.
But we and the Russians do have leverage. For example, she says,
Washington could tell the Saudis and Qataris that we will cancel all
existing weapons contracts with them if they don't stop arming the
opposition.
3. The U.N. Security Council should hold an international peace conference
involving not only the Syrian government and opposition parties, but
their backers from outside the country and those affected by the flow of
refugees and arms.
Non-state actors with an influence on the conflict should also be included, says a
statement
by the Friends Committee on National Legislation, a Quaker group.
This should include Hezbollah, the Arab League, and the Organization of
Islamic Cooperation, they say.
Negotiators should aim for an immediate ceasefire, for the access
needed to get humanitarian aid where it's needed, and for an end to the
conflict. This is a tried-and-true solution that resolved the wars in
Southeast Asia through the
Paris Conference on Cambodia, and in the Balkans through the
Dayton Peace Agreement.
4. Offer aid and support to the nonviolent movements within Syria,
or, at least, don't undermine them. A resurgence in Syria's broad-based
nonviolent movement for change that started in March 2011 is still a
source of hope, according to Stephen Zunes, chair of Middle Eastern
studies at the University of San Francisco.
The opposition's turn from nonviolence to armed struggle
resulted in higher civilian casualties,
reduced defections from the Assad's forces, and contributed to the
rise of anti-democratic elements within the opposition, Zunes says.
He goes on to explain that nonviolent movements have a much better chance of building an inclusive democratic government.
"Military intervention would demoralize and disempower those
remaining in the nonviolent resistance who are daily risking their lives
for their freedom," Zunes says, "while encouraging armed elements
who—with their vanguard mentality, martial values, and strict military
hierarchy—are far less interested in freedom and justice."
5. Provide the humanitarian aid desperately needed by the millions of displaced people.
Humanitarian organizations are currently able to provide services
within Syria only with great difficulty; the United Nations Security
Council should insist that Damascus allow them access.
And the international community, not just the countries housing the
refugees, should cover the costs of caring for the displaced inside and
outside the country. Yes, it's expensive. But a military strike
would cost much more, as would the long-term costs society would incur
from neglecting traumatized refugees.
6. Force the hand of Russia and China in the Security Council.
Many people believe that Russia and China have vetoed efforts in the
United Nations to condemn the Syrian regime or to impose sanctions on
it. But all these governments have done, so far, is threaten to
veto.
Jannuzi says that the other 11 members of the Security Council should
take the issue to a vote and force Russia and China to actually
exercise their veto power.
"That would at least give the rest of the international community the
opportunity to say 'If that's your position, then what are you for?'"
Jannuzi says. This would at least help to clarify the positions of
these countries, an important step toward peace.
Why the rule of law?
By applying the rule of law through existing international
institutions, we can work to isolate the wrongdoers on all sides of the
conflict in Syria from their bases of support around the world. We
can support those in Syria working for peaceful change and offer
humanitarian assistance. And we will move beyond the limitations of
responding to lawbreaking with violence.
There's another benefit, too, of relying on the rule of law. Doing so
would strengthen the institutions, like the United Nations and the
International Criminal Court, designed to settle conflict without
violence. That would mean we'd have more effective options available
when future despots threaten to commit war crimes and crimes against
humanity.
To follow this path with credibility, though, the United States must
itself live within the rule of law. That means, at the very least,
refraining from launching into a war that violates international
law. Only when a country is attacked, or when it has the support of a
Security Council resolution, is a military assault on another
country permitted.
It might seem naïve to press for peace in a world where there is so
much violence. But the belief that a few bombing missions and a quick
exit could make a positive difference is in fact the naïve view. And
Americans—traumatized, exhausted, and impoverished by war—have no
stomach for the protracted military conflict with uncertain aims
that is the more likely outcome.
International law—fairly applied, patiently negotiated, with tough
sanctions, and help for refugees—is in fact the most practical way to
peace and justice for the people of Syria and beyond.
Sarah van Gelder wrote this article for
YES! Magazine, a national, nonprofit media organization that fuses powerful ideas and practice actions. Sarah is executive editor of YES!
James Trimarco contributed reporting for this article.
Michael Walker, an economist with
the right-wing Fraser Institute in Canada, as saying, "A trade agreement
simply limits the extent to which the U.S. or other signatory
governments may respond to pressure from their citizens.”
To put this in perspective, let’s
say a TPP nation wants to drill an oil well in a residential
neighborhood that has laws that don’t allow oil drilling. Under TPP, the
company can drill there anyway because not drilling in that particular
spot, represents a loss of expected profits.
.jpg)
