You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Syria-Lebanon-Iran
U.N. Security Council OKs Syria Resolution
2005-11-01
The U.N. Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution Monday demanding Syria's full cooperation with a U.N. investigation into the assassination of Lebanon's former prime minister and warning of possible "further action" if it doesn't.
"What kind of action?"
"Further action."
The United States, France and Britain pressed for the resolution following last week's tough report by the U.N. investigating commission, which implicated top Syrian and Lebanese security officials in the Feb. 14 bombing that killed Rafik Hariri and 20 others. The report also accused Syria of not cooperating fully with the inquiry. The three co-sponsors agreed to drop a direct threat of sanctions against Syria in order to get support from Russia and China, which opposed sanctions while the investigation is still under way. Nonetheless, the resolution was adopted under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, which is militarily enforceable.
And you know how trigger-happy we are...
The resolution requires Syria to detain anyone the U.N. investigators consider a suspect and let investigators determine the location and conditions under which the individual would be questioned. It also would freeze assets and impose a travel ban on anyone identified as a suspect by the commission. Those provisions could pose a problem for Syrian President Bashar Assad, as well as his brother, Maher Assad, and his brother-in-law, Assef Shawkat, the chief of military intelligence. The Syrian leader has refused a request from the chief U.N. investigator to be interviewed. Investigators also want to question his brother and brother-in-law.
Posted by:Fred

#6  I think TGA was greatly distressed/disgusted with the election results.
Posted by: Shipman   2005-11-01 12:45  

#5  Yes, I've missed him as well. Good luck in whatever you're doing, TGA.
Posted by: Seafarious   2005-11-01 10:11  

#4  Speaking of the Germans, has anyone heard from our friend TGA since the formation of the new government? Some how I suspect his participation in it has muzzled him. Well, better to have him on the inside making history than outside watching. Good luck, TGA.
Posted by: Snavimble Gloluns6928   2005-11-01 09:56  

#3  "Would the U.N. actually have the stones to ask Asad to arrest his brother?"

The UN does not exist for the purpose of this question. All that matters is whether the US, UK, France, Russia and China have the stones.

The US and UK clearly do.

Russia and China clearly dont want it to happen - but they would likely be antsie about casting vetoes against the western 3, and the (likely) majority of the rest of the Council, and in defense of a Syria that keeps embarrassing them. They also dislike violations of soveriegnty - which they see as precedents for intervention by outsiders in Chechbya, Tibet, Taiwan, etc. But which is a bigger violation of sovereignty - UN sanctions on Syria, or Syria knocking off Hariri in Lebanon?

The swing country is, as usual France. France's motives are mixed. On the one hand a strong traditional interest in Lebanon, and personal ties to Hariri. On the other the usual dislike of US influence in the region - somewhat softened in recent months, as everyone on both sides of the pond figures out that US-Euro clashes only help our real adversaries (no coincidenece that this reevaluation has happened since Dr. Rice took over at State) On the other hand France probabably still wants to keep the France-German-Russian axis, as a balance to dependence on the "anglo-saxons". On the other hand, Putin has been a very difficult partner, and German politics has shifted, albeit subtly.

Net-net - it could go either way. ;)
Posted by: Liberalhawk   2005-11-01 09:52  

#2  Pretty generous, John. :)

The ROI still sucks, though, lol. I believe you could achieve the same effect, or better, in far less time and with far lower frustration levels by unleashing the US Military to respond to provocation and applying PlainSpeak©. Too much playing nice, mouthing DiploBabble©, leads them to believe we are much like the others in the UN, neutered and actually uninterested, if properly "handled". I'd prefer they felt handling us was the same as poking a polar bear in the eye. I would prefer to spend all that UN money on our troops - yielding a far better return in both the short and long terms, methinks.

Even under the most favorable light, I still equate the UN with a decomposing dead rat on the kitchen floor.
Posted by: .com   2005-11-01 02:44  

#1  Would the U.N. actually have the stones to ask Asad to arrest his brother? Chance of compliance is near zero but it would be fun to see them squirm. This Mehlis report has restored some of my faith in the U.N. I now concede that it can be tolerated if it plays certain limited roles, such as this one and a few of their less corrupt humanitarian projects. Whereas before I wanted it "wiped off the map."
Posted by: John in Tokyo   2005-11-01 00:41  

00:00