Will the US Authorize a Syria Strike?

Published in The Beijing News
(China) on 29 August 2013
by Xu LiFan (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Kim Wang. Edited by Philip Lawler.
There are many obviously different views toward Syrian affairs and the United Nations Security Council, but regardless, the United States cannot legally launch a war. Moreover, the U.S. is facing obstacles with NATO and domestic public opinion.

American government officials and media continue to give the impression that war, and the possibility of war in Syria, seem infinitely close. On Aug. 28, White House spokesman Jay Carney denied speculations that the U.S. would strike Syria on the 29th, meaning that Obama is still considering his options; British Prime Minister David Cameron also issued a statement saying that he would propose a resolution to the U.N. Security Council requesting authorization for “necessary measures for protecting civilians.” These two nations considering a possible offensive has relieved the risk of a suddenly triggered war in Syria. However, the risk of war actually breaking out is far from being ruled out.

For now, the main factor preventing war in Syria from breaking out is a lack of legal authorization. First, the U.N. Security Council is the only source of legal approval for strikes; second, NATO has had its own authorization approach for the U.S. and its allies since 2011. Third, after the Vietnam War, the United States enacted the War Powers Resolution, allowing the president to use military force for 60 days without congressional authorization.

Of course, there are obvious differences in views regarding the U.N. Security Council and Syrian affairs; the United States cannot launch a war legally without their authorization. With regards to NATO, besides the United Kingdom., France, Turkey and other countries showing aggressive attitudes, coordination within NATO is incomplete, considering the fact that the general federal election in Germany will not be held until later in September. In contrast, Obama can declare war by presidential decree and can bypass many barriers, but he will still face public disapproval for the war from over half of the country, in addition to potentially threatening Congress into a dramatic political game.

In the near future, the U.S. Congress will be divided on three major issues as a bipartisan showdown unfolds. These three issues include raising the debt ceiling, the 2014 budget and appointing a new chairman for the Federal Reserve. The two parties are described as “irreconcilable,” especially on the issue of raising the debt ceiling. This critical period in the political showdown may force Obama into a governing predicament. Before announcing a war, U.S. presidents always give a televised speech. So far, Obama has no such plan, which sufficiently reflects his hesitation.

Of course, the United States can also play “war by proxy.” This was the first half of the intervention in Libya's war model. However, despite the UK and France's aggressive attitude, they are pinned down by the situation and therefore unable to start a war in the near future. The UK military must obtain authorization by Parliament, which could consider authorization by Friday (Beijing Time) at the earliest. France will hold an emergency Parliament meeting on Sept. 4.

Of course, war is still a potential option. Senior U.S. officials announced Tuesday that the purpose an attack would be to send a “strong signal” to Assad's regime rather than fighting their military. This means that any war would be limited and likely ineffective in significantly changing the state of the civil war in Syria, since it does not help the opposition. The sixth ship in the U.S. navy fleet has currently been stationed in the eastern Mediterranean as a precaution, which would be the main way a war would be initiated. This would be a non-suspenseful and non-confrontational action taken by the military.


由于联合国安理会对于叙利亚事务存在明显立场分歧,美国无法在此获得发动战争的法理性。而在北约和国内,也都存在障碍。
  在美国政府官员和媒体不断释放战争信号的氛围中,叙利亚战争似已无限接近。8月28日,白宫发言人卡尼否认了29日军事打击叙利亚的猜测,表示奥巴马仍检视各种选项;英国首相卡梅伦办公室也发表声明,称将向联合国安理会提出决议案,要求授权“采取必要措施保护平民。”两大可能进攻国的表态,让叙利亚战争解除了一触即发的警报。但是,战争的风险还远未排除。
  就目前而言,导致叙利亚战争不会立即爆发的主要因素,是授权制约。获得发动战争的授权,有三个途径。一是联合国安理会,这是唯一具备法理性的授权来源;二是北约,这是2011年以来美国及其盟友自创的授权途径;三是美国越战后颁布的《战争权力决议案》。该法案规定,美国总统有权绕过国会发动60天之内的战争。
  显然,由于安理会对于叙利亚事务存在明显立场分歧,美国无法在此获得发动战争的法理性。而在北约,尽管英国、法国、土耳其等国态度积极,但将于9月举行大选的德国态度谨慎,北约内部的协调还未完成。相较而言,奥巴马以总统令形式宣战,可以绕开诸多壁垒,但是,奥巴马将面临国内超过五成的反战民意压力,而且有可能在国会激发剧烈的政治博弈。
  而在近期,美国国会就将就三大事项展开两党对决。这三项政治对决是:提高债务上限、2014年财政预算和美联储主席人事任免。特别是提高债务上限,两党均视为“不能妥协的战斗”。在政治对决的关键时期陡生变数,有可能使奥巴马陷入执政困境当中。事实上,作为战争前奏,美国总统总要发表电视讲话,迄今为止,奥巴马无此计划,这已足以折射出奥巴马的犹豫。
  当然,美国也可以打“代理人战争。”这是利比亚战争前半段的干预模式。但是,态度最为积极的英法两国,因为形格势禁,短期内无法启动战争。英国出兵必须经国会授权,国会最早也只能在北京时间周五召开。而法国则在9月4日才召开紧急议会。
  当然,战争仍是可能选项。美国高级官员27日表示,打击“意在向叙利亚阿萨德政权传递信号而不是打击其军事能力。”这也就意味着将是有限战,也意味着不会明显改变目前叙利亚的内战态势,即并不能帮助反对派占据上风。目前游弋在地中海东部的美军第6舰队及盟军对可疑目标进行定点打击,将是主要战争方式——这将是无悬念甚至无对抗的军事行动。
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Turkey: Conflicting Messages to Syria: US Supports Integrity while Israel Attacks

Thailand: Donald Trump Buys Time with Weapons for Kyiv

Taiwan: Tariff Showdown Doesn’t Shake Confidence

Sri Lanka: As Albanese Stands Tall, Let’s Stand by Her

China: Blind Faith in US ‘Security Commitments’ Is Short-Sighted

Topics

Spain: The New American Realism

Mexico: Trump vs. Cuba: More of the Same

Ireland: US Tariffs Take Shine Off Summer Economic Statement

Israel: Epstein Conspiracy: When the Monster Has a Life of Its Own and Rises Up

Spain: Another Threat from Trump

Canada: Negotiating a Business Deal without Trust

Taiwan: Tariff Showdown Doesn’t Shake Confidence

Related Articles

Germany: Trump’s Tariffs: China Acts, Europe Reacts

Australia: As Trump Turns His Back on Renewables, China Is Building the Future

Indonesia: US-China: Tariff, Tension, and Truce

China: US Chip Restrictions Backfiring

Thailand: US-China Trade Truce Didn’t Solve Rare Earths Riddle