Western officials are reportedly considering an effort to transfer responsibility over chemical weapons allegations in Syria away from UN Security Council to the General Assembly. This would allow Western resolutions to bypass Russian vetoes.
After the alleged April 7 incident in Douma, Western nations pushed a UN Security Council resolution blaming Syria. Russia vetoed this, arguing that there should be an investigation first. Western nations rejected Russia’s alternate proposal. On April 13, the US, Britain, and France attacked Syria, despite the lack of investigation into the incident.
Those nations are still looking for a UN measure assigning blame to Syria, however. The plan is to use a “uniting for peace” tactic, as used in 1950 at the start of the Korean War. In that case, nations declared the Security Council unable to “act as required,” and referred the matter to the UN General Assembly. In that case, it established a UN force sent to South Korea, dramatically escalating the war.
In the current case, it’s not clear exactly what would be proposed beyond blaming Syria without investigation and doing something to them. The UN General Assembly resolution would require two-thirds majority.
Though some UN officials cite the disastrous 1950 example as a “mechanism” for overriding Security Council vetoes, it has not been used since.
More power politics….. I’m sure this “switch UN authorities” tactic would bave been used in Iraq for example, if it was so easy to do… More bad bets by bankrupt “empire”…. Wake up its lost.. These proxy forces are no match for Russia,Turkey & Assad….. Not to mention even trying it could cause new & worse problems. Quit while you are behind in the mess to avoid being forced under it..
Now they’re getting a taste of how people like the U.S. vetoes regarding any criticism of Israel. Like the recent violence in Gaza, for instance.
Although Russia vetoing a resolution blaming Syria without an investigation is appropriate. Whereas vetoing any investigation into why unarmed people were shot in the back in Gaza is sickening. It pays to be exceptional and chosen.
If the US starts that process, it could easily run out of control. In particular, it could condemn Israel, support Palestinians, and condemn US wars in the middle east starting with Iraq. They can write the resolution, and re-write it, and once it is started on the Middle East for Syria it could consider all of the middle east issues connected.
Like the calling of a Constitutional Convention, once started it can run off on its own.
Too much money under the table for that to happen. With Trillions missing from the pentagon, vast black ops budgets, pallets of cash that went missing in Iraq and Afghanistan……..
“In particular, [the US] could condemn Israel, support Palestinians”
Why should the US express any opinion on that conflict at all? None of the US’s business is none of the US business, not none of the US’s business but we’re still going to talk sh_t about it.
Perhaps I was unclear. I meant that once the US launches into the General Assembly with a Uniting for Peace resolution to bypass the Security Council, then it might well lose control of the process of considering and amending that resolution. The resolution would take on a life of its own in the General Assembly, just like a Constitutional Convention once launched can go off in unexpected directions.
The General Assembly starting with a resolution on Syria could consider peace in the middle east to be the real subject, and address more than just those particular interests in Syria which the US desires to focus upon.
The General Assembly has done things like this rather often, quite hostile to the interests that the US defends with constant use of its veto power. Once again should be an expected development, not a surprise.
Actually, I would welcome that, but it is in practice a reason why the US would not dare start the Uniting for Peace process on a middle east resolution.
When decisions are made by the UNGA, mostly they do tend to support the “good guys”, not the USA . Every year nearly every nation votes to remove the blockade of Cuba. Of course the General Assembly is ignored.
Fascinating. However, the UNSC has to request a GA recommendation and the wording of the request would determine the scope of the GA recommendation.
If Russia doesn’t like the wording they can still veto making the request; the last time the Soviet Union just voted against it. A GA recommendation is then still non-binding on the UNSC.
Russia, it seems to me, is very reluctant to start WWIII even tho the recent Nato bombing of Syria is a clear casus belli.
And that is ok by me; for what Nato has done against Russia so far, does not make it an existential matter for most Russians.
So if they do and are successfull, watch how this manoeuver will also be used to get around a US veto concerning Israel in the SC. It works both ways. Something the US has not considered.
An excellent development… the US won’t be able to get anywhere near a 2/3 majority in the General Assembly.
They will if Haley starts “taking names”.
Well, we all see the great success of the last time such a tactic was used.
The Lannister’s always pay their dead…