NYT Syria Editiorial:
Last edited Thu Aug 29, 2013, 07:59 AM - Edit history (1)
Despite the pumped-up threats and quickening military preparations, President Obama has yet to make a convincing legal or strategic case for military action against Syria. While there should be some kind of international response to the chemical weapons attack that killed hundreds of civilians last week, Mr. Obama has yet to spell out how that response would effectively deter further use of chemical weapons.
<snip>
Before Britain proposed a resolution at the United Nations Security Council on Wednesday, the White House seemed ready to ignore the U. N. because Russia and China had repeatedly thwarted efforts to hold Mr. Assad to account. Despite diplomatic frustrations, the Security Council, on which Russia and China sit and have veto power, should be the first venue for dealing with this matter since chemical weapons use is a war crime and banned under international treaties.
Ideally, once presented with evidence, the council would condemn Mr. Assad, impose a ban on arms shipments to Syria (including materials used to make chemical weapons, which the regime is trying to buy on the open market) and send Mr. Assad’s name to the International Criminal Court for prosecution. That is what should happen; Mr. Assad’s Russia and Chinese enablers are the ones most able to stop his brutality.
<snip>
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/29/opinion/more-answers-needed-on-syria.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
