A rebel official and the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights monitoring group said government forces pressed an offensive against insurgents in Latakia province at the Turkish border on Wednesday. Fadi Ahmad, spokesman for the First Coastal Division, an FSA group, said government forces had brought in reinforcements for the battle and that fighting was as intense as anything preceding the cessation of hostilities. The area being fought over in Latakia overlooks the rebel-held town of Jisr al-Shughour in neighboring Idlib province, and the Ghab Plain, where rebel advances last year were seen as a growing threat to Assad.
There is bombardment and battles. Fighting also flared anew in Aleppo between insurgents and an alliance including the Kurdish YPG militia, the Observatory said. A report by the Institute for the Study of War showed Russian strikes in support of government forces and their allies had hit a number of areas in Aleppo, Idlib, Homs and Hama provinces since the truce deal took effect. For years Obama has been trying to shift the nation's attention away from the Middle East to Asia.
He wants to keep America's military role in the world to a minimum. It's: 'Look, Syria is your issue, and we have a lot on our plate'," said Tyler Thompson, of the non-profit United for a Free Syria, describing his meetings with administration officials. Obama is impatient with moral arguments. According to people who've discussed policy with him, he swats those notions away and asks: Will it work? Speaking recently about the train-and-equip programme, Obama said he'd pressed for details about its viability and heard "a bunch of mumbo jumbo".
He also thought it could pull the US into a long struggle in Syria. As he talked, I looked at my notebook. I'd written down things people had told me about why the US should send weapons to the Syrian opposition. When I brought these points up, he looked at me as if to say: How can you be so dumb? The objective of the train-and-equip programme, a "fool's errand", he described it, was to make people feel better about themselves while they watch Syria disintegrate. He said he was unhappy when Obama acquiesced last year and asked Congress for money to fund the programme.
He still couldn't believe he'd lost the argument since, as he said: "The big boss agreed with me. Within months the majority of Americans supported the notion of providing support and even sending US troops to Syria to fight the militant group.
Last month Capt Chris Connolly, a spokesman for the coalition task force training the rebels, said some may "feel the training may take too long. It's possible to sympathise with people on all sides of the debate at the White House - those who wanted to help the rebels, those who didn't, those in between - and still say Obama made the wrong choice.
At the institute Ford sat in a chair for photographs. He'd taken off his glasses. The lights were bright, and the room was hot. He talked about Syria and the disastrous results of inaction. He said he didn't want more pictures - then agreed to stay for a moment. He looked angry and defeated, a man caught in circumstances beyond his control. Syria's unwinnable war. Guide to the Syrian rebels. The cost of inaction The Economist.
Struggling to Help Syria-Daily Beast. Robert Ford, the former US ambassador to Syria, became upset when talking about his efforts in Washington to convince officials to provide more support for the Syrian opposition. Image source, AFP. It is arguable that, in principle there is less reason to be concerned about intervention in internal affairs or force used against territorial integrity because in most of those cases colonial and alien domination the matter was not considered to be purely internal.
However, one has to admit that this point of principle does not sit easily with the South African or Rhodesian experience, which were internal matters. In conclusion , it is conceivable to consider the Syrian conflict as an example of peoples fighting to exercise their right of self determination.
Recognition of the NCS as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people might be regarded as recognition that a self-determination framework is applicable to Syria. Furthermore, one may even go so far as to say that international law permits foreign States to aid national liberation movements recognised as the legitimate representatives of people fighting for self-determination and that this aid may include military aid.
However, there are good reasons to restrict this last principle to cases of self-determination in the case of peoples fighting against colonial domination, alien occupation or racist regimes. Alternatively, it might that support ought only to be given to those groups that are collectively recognised by the international community as legitimate representatives of peoples fighting for self-determination. Such recognition should ideally be done by the UN General Assembly.
See the first portion of my article on Constitutionality of U. I have a short essay on possible use of force in Syria that will be in print in January in the U.
Int'l L. With outside military assistance, surely self-determnation assistance involving the use of armed force in Syria would constitute and armed conflict of an international character. As always an interesting and insightful post. I wonder whether you consider that the examples he mentions there, although relating to assistance rendered to recognised governments also fall to be considered here?
Or do you think that the self determination element takes the Syrian case outside of the scope of his argument? You put your finger on a crucial and unresolved issue: on what basis is a group to be considered the legitimate representatives of a people? In the case of national liberation movements, the view was taken by the GA that the groups so recognised had widespread support among the people concerned. In the case of Guinea Bissau, the GA sent a fact finding mission.
However, in other cases it did not do this. Now in practice, the GA was actually right. The national liberation movements did have extensive support and proved it by winning post independence elections. But the question remains, how are we to judge whether a group is actually a legitimate representative of a people? Without clear standards, the possibilities of abuse abound, especially if one takes the view that military assistance to such a group is permissible as an exception to the prohibition of the use of force.
Do you have a response to the question raised by Aldo and by me above. If you are right that self-determination assistance is permissible, how are we to determine who is entitled to this assistance? Rick, Thanks for your conference comments. I am unfamiliar with the article you mention. Dapo - thank you for raising this question of self-determination. This topic is very interesting to me and as you recall, I wrote a dissertation on it.
I completely agree with you that the Assad regime is not representative of its own population, and therefore it denied the right to the internal aspect of self determination to its own population.
I believe that all factors are met in Syria to state that the Assad regime lost its legitimacy over its population. Landmines killed 7, in , says UN institute. US senator slams countries normalizing ties with Syria's Assad. Emirati foreign minister arrives in Damascus on working visit. We use cookies in a limited and restricted manner for specific purposes. For more details, you can see "our data policy". Your opinions matter to us times;.
0コメント