Draft Syria resolution vows no foreign forces

[maddezmom]

CBS/AP) LONDON - A draft United Nations resolution on Syria calls for President Bashar Assad to hand power to his deputy and insists there will be no use of foreign forces in the country.

¬snip¬

The draft text, seen by The Associated Press, calls on Assad's regime to immediately put "an end to all human rights violations and attacks against those exercising their rights to freedom of expression."


It calls on Assad to delegate his "full authority to his deputy" to allow a national unity government to lead transition to a democratic system.


If Assad fails to comply within 15 days, the council would consider "further measures," a reference to a possible move to impose economic or other sanctions.

more:http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57368779/draft-syria-resolution-vows-no-foreign-forces/

[David__77]

1. The headline is worse than misleading.

It's absolutely untrue. The resolution states:

"Reaffirming its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Syria, emphasizing the need to resolve the current crisis in Syria peacefully, and stressing that nothing in this resolution compels States to resort to the use of force or the threat of force."

"Compels?!?" Nothing even in the Libya resolution "compelled" NATO to bomb Libya and act as the insurgents' air force. What this resolution needed to say was "...nothing in this resolution CONSTITUTES LEGAL JUSTIFICATION FOR States to resort to the use of force or the threat of force." But of course the West and the Arabian monarchies will not sign on to such a construction.

[Fool Count]

2. Even that would be insufficient. Syria is already full of Qatari and Emirati regulars masquerading

as "Syria Free Army". Any UN resolution should demand immediate withdrawal of all foreign military
personnel already in the country. Then they may have something.

[David__77]

3. Of course the resolution is terrible throughout.

There are many bases on which to oppose it. But the ham-handed way that the "use of force" section was constructed was laughable. They really think people are complete idiots.

[Fool Count]

4. Loughable is right. And among all that circus Emir of Qatar is a particularly ugly clown.

An unelected autocrat himself presiding over a two-bit dictatorship which is flagrantly violating every
principle of international law and UN Statutes and openly bragging about it. And that bozo presumes
to teach others about freedom and democracy with a straight face. How stupid do they think we are?

[joshcryer]

5. Resolution 1973 invoked R2P, unambigiously.

Here's the full draft resolution for Syria: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/31/un-security-council-draft-resolution-syria

The UN does not confer legality under International Law. That's where the Geneva Conventions come in. Syria already has broken International Law, but so too has the United States with regards to OWS. All the UN can do is call states to act in accordance with the upholding of International Law. It is not inconceivable that some foreign state could write up a UN resolution to call other states to protect OWS under the Geneva Conventions (the detention, torture, and harrassment of citizens would easily fall under that).

While you can say "does not constitute legal justification for states to resort to the useful of force or the threat of force" you still want "nothing in this resolution compels States to resort to the use of force or the threat of force." The legal justification exists if you can take a case to The Hague as a violation of the Geneva Conventions and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; practically no state is immune from such a prosecution potential, imo.