Motley Moose – Archive

Since 2008 – Progress Through Politics

Off to the Races

The first round of activity has already been undertaken in the UN Security Council with the submission of a French resolution:


Russia, the main backer of Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad, opposed the French-drafted resolution and had been expected to propose a weaker Security Council statement, which are largely symbolic statements on the chemical arms crisis.

The main sticking point was that France wanted to invoke Chapter Seven of the UN Charter, making any resolution legally binding and enforceable by military action.

France was backed by the UK and the US in proposing the statement that Laurent Fabius, the French foreign minister, said would threaten “extremely serious” consequences if Syria failed to hand over its banned weapons.

The US administration has said it would not fall victim to stalling tactics, and France’s proposal reportedly outlined a rapid timetable for disarmament.

Divisions emerge over UN statement on Syria Al Jazeera 10 Sep 13

The distinction between a Chapter VI and Chapter VII resolution is vitally important and it is disingenuous of Russia to pretend that the lesser would satisfy under the circumstances. Vladimir Putin himself, dabbling in diplomacy, has further entrenched Russia behind this obstacle:


Russian President Vladimir Putin has said that a plan for Syria to turn over its chemical weapons stockpile will only work if the United States agrees not to use force.

Putin told reporters on Tuesday that the plan “can work, only in the event that we hear that the American side and those who support the USA, in this sense, reject the use of force.”

Syria plan will work if US rejects force: Vladimir Putin AP via NDTV 10 Sep 13

This seems an overreach on Putin’s part; perhaps revealing a weakness of strategy or personality. Whichever is the case it seems vital that Congress and the American public give the Obama administration the support they need to meet this important challenge and help reassert diplomacy as an effective, viable alternative to military conflict.

The distinction over the type of resolution is not trivial:


Earlier, UK Prime Minister David Cameron said the UN motion should ensure that Russia’s offer was “not a ruse”.

“We need a proper timetable, process and consequences if it’s not done,” he said.

Mr Kerry said a binding UN resolution was needed on the issue.

Our correspondent says there is also wrangling over whether the resolution should be Chapter 7 or Chapter 6.

Chapter 7 permits military action if other measures do not succeed. Chapter 6 stipulates peaceful methods of resolving disputes.

Syria conflict: Disputes flare over UN resolution BBC 10 Sep 13

It is not quite that simple, however. The Syrian use of lethal chemical weapons clearly falls under Chapter VII, Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression which contains the crucial Article 42:


Article 42: Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

Charter of the United Nations: Chapter VII UN

Anything less is just a sternly worded letter. It would seem clear that a binding Chapter VII resolution, at a minimum, would be what the US, France and now the UK would accept and agree too. That the Russians would now be prevaricating on this point seems to be an indication of bad faith and perhaps that the West may have inadvertently called what was only ever meant as a bluff. One would hope that the American public and Congress would help the administration drive this point firmly home.


Categories: Uncategorized.

/ 48 Comments

48 comments

  1. Shaun Appleby

    Emphasis added:


    It’s too early to tell whether this offer will succeed, and any agreement must verify that the Assad regime keeps its commitments, but this initiative has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force, particularly because Russia is one of Assad’s strongest allies.

    I have therefore asked the leaders of Congress to postpone a vote to authorize the use of force while we pursue this diplomatic path. I’m sending Secretary of State John Kerry to meet his Russian counterpart on Thursday, and I will continue my own discussions with President Putin.

    FULL TRANSCRIPT: President Obama’s Sept. 10 speech on Syria Washington Post 10 Sep 13

    Sounds like he’s talking about Chapter VII if you ask me. It beats me what Putin has up his sleeve at this point. And what about the Chinese? Who’s taking their pulse?

  2. Shaun Appleby

    Of recent diplomatic wrangling here and here. The one bright spot is the Syrians genuinely seem eager to get rid of their chemical stockpile; I wonder what the story is with that.

  3. JanF

    The president’s speech did one thing: by delaying the vote on the Authorization to Use Military Force, the threat of military action is still on the table. If Congress had voted, it is likely that the AUMF would have failed, or worse, been turned into a Christmas tree by McCain and his hawks to add regime change and support for one of the rebel groups in the civil war including boots on the ground.

    A “sternly worded letter” will not do. And Congress needs to come to grips with that and be prepared to give the president the cudgel he needs to force compliance.

    The last report I saw indicated that Syria would “sign the chemical weapons agreement and ‘declare’ its arsenal”. That sounds a whole lot different than the earlier reports that Assad would turn over his weapons to Russia.

  4. JanF

    From the White House: President Obama Addresses the Nation on Syria

    Just after 9:00 PM ET, President Obama delivered a national address from the East Room of the White House to discuss the situation in Syria. He explained why he has called for military strikes in response to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons, laid out his reasons for asking Congress to authorize the use of force, and described how the threat of U.S. action has created the potential for a diplomatic breakthrough.

    “Terrible things happen across the globe, and it is beyond our means to right every wrong,” the President said. “But when, with modest effort and risk, we can stop children from being gassed to death, and thereby make our own children safer over the long run, I believe we should act.”

    Full transcript.

  5. Its the Supreme Court Stupid

    objection is really about Chapter 7, and how much is about the ICC referral in the draft French resolution.  Sure, they do want to limit the authorization, but, I suspect that their real objection is to the ICC referral.  That is the chip which will have to be bargained away to secure a strong authorization.

  6. Shaun Appleby

    Up at the Post; an interview with David Bosco. A dissenting view:


    How important is it in practical terms for the resolution to invoke Chapter 7? Does it matter for the effectiveness of the disarmament regime?

    Chapter 7 has become a key question at the Security Council because, in legal terms, it does affect the weight of the resolution. But in practical terms, of course, the Security Council does things under Chapter 7 all the time that it doesn’t enforce or back up. There’s nothing magical about Chapter 7. So I could actually imagine the U.S. agreeing to something without Chapter 7 so long as the language was tough enough.

    Dylan Matthews – The man who wrote the book on the U.N. Security Council tells how it’s handling Syria Washington Post 11 Sep 13

    I wonder about that; this isn’t your everyday UNSC resolution and Obama is going to want to see Putin’s hand early. It shouldn’t be too hard to call Putin’s bluff at this point. Jeez, I wish I was confident that the rest of our government had his back.

Comments are closed.