[Peace-discuss] Fwd: [ufpj-activist] New Senate Resolution Might Undermine Opposition to Attack

Tue Sep 10 17:30:08 UTC 2013

FYI

Begin forwarded message:

> From: <jgainza at vtlink.net> 
> Date: September 10, 2013 12:20:31 PM CDT
> 
> Subject: [ufpj-activist] New Senate Resolution Might Undermine Opposition to	Attack
> 
> Friends, The article from The Hill below indicates that a new resolution will be placed before the Senate which authorizes an attack on Syria if that nation refuses to abandon its chemical weapons. Of course it is very desirable to have those weapons out of the hands of the Syrian government (out of everyone’s hands in fact) and destroyed. But my suspicious gene is working overtime. Until today it was looking pretty good that the Congress would vote against a resolution to attack. Now we have a more reasonable sounding resolution: the US attacks if Syria does not do what we want. My suspicion is that this is a back-handed way to get a resolution through which gives the US government a green light to attack. Whether Syria decides to turn over control of its chemical weapons to a third party is not the issue, the issue is whether the US has the right to attack another country when that country does not pose a threat and the UN has not sanctioned an attack. Those are the only ways one country can attack another. Additionally, there is the moral issue (I sound quaint bring up morality I suppose). When does killing innocent people become OK because a nation, the US in this case, decides to attack their country?
> We must not be lulled into a false sense of relief that the problem might be resolved if Syria gives up its chemical weapons. The principle of U.S. unilateral military action against a sovereign nation will be still unresolved; in fact it becomes more problematic as the threat of attack will be seen to have worked. U.S. imperial behavior, violent foreign policy and militaristic culture will be reinforced. We must not let this happen and must make it very clear to our representatives that under NO circumstances should the U.S. attack Syria.
> Please continue to contact your representatives in congress and make that point abundantly clear. Peace and Hope, Joseph
> PS For Vermonters : We will gather in front of the post office in Montpelier, tomorrow, Wed. at noon; our message is NO ATTACK ON SYRIA period.
>  
> Obama backs UN effort on Syria as new resolution prepared
> By Justin Sink and Alexander Bolton - 09/10/13 12:29 PM ET
> 
> President Obama will back a United Nations effort to secure Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles, the White House said Tuesday.
> Separately, a group of senators said they were working on a new use-of-force resolution that would only authorize military action if Syria refuses to relinquish its stockpile of chemical weapons to international control.
>  
> This development took place a day after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) canceled a procedural vote scheduled for Wednesday on authorizing a limited military strike on Syria.
> The outline under discussion by the nine lawmakers would require the United Nations to pass a resolution stating that Syrian President Bashar Assad gassed his own people. It would also call on the U.N. to remove all of Syria’s chemical weapons by a certain date.
> The resolution would authorize U.S. military action if those goals are not met, according to a source familiar with the negotiations.
> The group of senators, however, does not yet have legislative text and has yet to determine what if any limits would be placed on military action.
> A source familiar with the talks said the senators working on the new language include Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez (R-N.J.) and Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Bob Casey (D-Pa.).
> The developments likely end an effort to win House and Senate votes on a more immediate strike on Syria, though the administration continued Tuesday to call for lawmakers to support that effort.
> However, no votes in both the House and Senate to an immediate strike have been piling up, casting doubt on the administration's ability to win a vote.
> Obama is scheduled to address the nation Tuesday evening on Syria. He is set to meet with Senate Republicans and Democrats in separate Tuesday afternoon meetings.
> According to the White House, Obama spoke separately to French President Francois Hollande and British Prime Minister David Cameron on Tuesday morning on a Russian-brokered plan that would have Syria relinquish its chemical weapons to intentional control.
> "They agreed to work closely together, and in consultation with Russia and China, to explore seriously the viability of the Russian proposal to put all Syrian chemical weapons and related materials fully under international control in order to ensure their verifiable and enforceable destruction," the White House official said.
> "These efforts will begin today at the United Nations, and will include a discussion on elements of a potential U.N. Security Council resolution."
> Sergey Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, has said officials are working on a plan to transfer Syrian chemical weapons to international control. French officials are pushing a resolution to grant U.N. approval of the weapons transfer.
> But the Russians are reportedly reluctant to back a binding United Nations resolution, which may cast doubt on the seriousness of the offer.
> "As I understood, the Russians at this stage were not necessarily enthusiastic, and I'm using euphemism, to put all that into the framework of a U.N. binding resolution," French foreign minister Laurent Fabius said after speaking with Lavrov, according to Reuters.
> Reid on Tuesday endorsed the potential deal and said he would delay a Senate vote authorizing military intervention in Syria to give international negotiators more time.
> “If there is a realistic chance, and I certainly hope there is, to secure Syria’s chemical weapons that brought further atrocities of the Assad regime, we shouldn’t turn our backs on that chance,” he said.
> Reid emphasized, however, that international negotiators would have a limited window to reach agreement.
> “For such a solution to be plausible, the Assad regime must act quickly to prove their offer is real, not merely a ploy to delay military action or action of the United States Senate.”
> “As I said last night, it’s appropriate to allow other conversations to go on,” Reid said. “France, Russia and we understand Syria is involved in this.
> “This is aimed at avoiding military action. We’ll have to see if this works out,” he said.
> Separately from the bipartisan group, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) has already drafted legislative text for a measure that would require Syria to give up its weapons.
> Under Shaheen’s proposal, Obama would only have authorization to launch strikes if “Syria is not taking credible and concrete steps toward the removal and destruction of [its] chemical weapons stockpile," according to text provided by a Senate aide.
> --This report was posted at 10:51 a.m. and updated at 12:29 p.m.
> Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/321297-senators-crafting-new-syria-resolution-with-deadline-for-un-action-on-weapons#ixzz2eVfROfzf
> Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
>  
>  
> Joseph Gainza
> Vermont Action for Peace
> Producer & Host - Gathering Peace
> WGDR 91.1 FM WGDH 91.7 FM
> www.wgdr.org
> 802-522-2376
> jgainza at vtlink.net

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20130910/14039a22/attachment-0001.html>