Det danske Fredsakademi
Kronologi over fredssagen og international politik 4. September 2013 / Timeline September 4, 2013
Version 3.53. September 2013, 5. September 2013
09/04/2013
The Snowden Affair
Web Resource Documents the Latest Firestorm over the National
Security Agency
National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 436
Edited by Jeffrey T. Richelson
Washington, D.C., September 4, 2013 -- Recent press disclosures
about National Security Agency (NSA) electronic surveillance
activities -- relying on documents provided by Edward Snowden --
have sparked one of the most significant controversies in the
history of the U.S. Intelligence Community. Today, the
nongovernmental National Security Archive at The George Washington
University posts a compilation of over 125 documents -- a Web
resource -- to provide context and specifics about the episode.
The Snowden leaks have generated broad public debate over issues of
security, privacy, and legality inherent in the NSA's surveillance
of communications by American citizens. Furthermore, news coverage
has explored the story on many levels, from the previously unknown
scope of the NSA's programs, to public and congressional reactions,
to Snowden's personal saga, including his attempts to evade U.S.
authorities and avoid extradition to the United States.
Today's posting covers the full range of these topics, featuring
documents from the White House, the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence (ODNI), and the NSA itself, among other
sources. The records include:
* White House and ODNI efforts to explain, justify, and defend the
programs
* Correspondence between outside critics and executive branch
officials
* Fact sheets and white papers distributed (and sometimes later
withdrawn) by the government
* Key laws and court decisions (both Supreme Court and Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court)
* Documents on the Total Information Awareness (later Terrorist
Information Awareness, or TIA) program, an earlier proposal for
massive data collection
* Manuals on how to exploit the Internet for intelligence
09/04/2013
The Syrian Problem -- and an International Solution
By Lawrence S.
Wittner
Let us consider the worst: that, in violation of the
1925 Geneva Protocol and the subsequent Chemical Weapons
Convention, the Syrian government has used chemical weapons to
massacre large numbers of people. If true, that is a real problem,
for it is not only a dastardly act, but a clear violation of
international law that, if left unopposed, will encourage further
use of these abhorrent weapons.
But will the U.S. government’s lobbing cruise missiles into
Syria provide a solution to the problem? That seems unlikely, for
that action will not topple the Syrian government, eliminate that
regime’s large chemical weapons stockpile, or hasten an end
to the brutal Syrian civil war which provided (and still provides)
the context for their use. Indeed, unilateral U.S. military action
seems likely to add to the bloodshed in Syria, worsen U.S.
relations with the Syrian regime’s major arms supplier and
defender (Russia), and further inflame the volatile Middle East.
Once again, the U.S. government will be acting like a Wild West
vigilante and will face very dangerous consequences.
In recent decades, many people around the world have grown
accustomed to seeing the United States behave like a trigger-happy
nation, intervening militarily whenever its officials feel U.S.
“national interests” are threatened. Rallying around
the flag, many Americans have come to perceive the United States as
a uniquely virtuous country -- the savior of the world or, at
least, the world’s policeman. At the same time, many other
people, often in foreign lands, have concluded that the United
States is the world’s bully.
But however one views the unilateral employment of U.S. military
power, it is unsustainable. No nation has sufficient worldwide
credibility or resources to rule the world. Despite the demagogic,
flag-waving ranting of many cynical U.S. politicians and pundits,
increasing numbers of Americans realize this and, consequently, are
willing to pass along global responsibility and burdens to a global
organization.
For better or worse, that global organization is the United
Nations, to which the nations of the world (including the United
States) have granted the formal authority for enforcing
international law. In response to the international anarchy and
vast destruction of World War II, the United Nations came out of
the war with the official goal of providing the world with some
degree of governance, especially in relation to matters of war and
peace. Thus, the United Nations is the organization that should be
calling the tune in Syria -- not only responding to the Syrian
government’s alleged use of chemical weapons, but
facilitating an end to Syria’s terrible civil war, which has
expanded into a regional conflict.
Yes, the United Nations is pathetically weak, largely because, in
the post-1945 era, the “great powers” have clung
greedily to their bloated national prerogatives on the world scene.
Crippled by this very limited support to it from the major
military-industrial powers, the United Nations has all too often
been unable to enforce international law or to carry out the many
other tasks of a world organization. But it does have worldwide
credibility and an internationally-recognized voice that individual
governments cannot entirely ignore. In addition, if the major
powers threw their support behind a strengthening of the United
Nations, that organization could become a very important force for
disarmament and peace.
In the Syrian situation, for example -- as one of the world’s
oldest peace organizations, the Women’s International League
for Peace and Freedom, has proposed -- U.N. inspectors could be
empowered to complete their investigation of whether chemical
weapons were used and, then, to determine who used them. Meanwhile,
a U.N. Security Council resolution could be sought to secure the
turnover to the United Nations of any chemical weapons in
possession of the warring parties. The Russian government, although
a strong supporter of the Syrian regime, might well agree to this,
as it has long supported prohibiting the use of chemical weapons.
Furthermore, the Security Council could refer the issue of chemical
weapons use to the International Criminal Court, which could
further investigate and indict the perpetrators. At the same time,
the United Nations could convene a peace conference that would
bring together representatives of all groups on the ground,
countries in the region, and the United States and Russia to
negotiate a ceasefire and a political resolution to the bloody
Syrian conflict.
Would this kind international approach work? Perhaps so; perhaps
not. But it seems at least as promising a route toward the
enforcement of international law and the implementation of a
peaceful settlement to the war in Syria as simply raining more
bombs upon that nation. And it would be considerably less
destructive. Finally, it is the kind of approach to which the
nations of the world have at least given lip service -- unlike a
military attack upon Syria without U.N. authorization, which would
itself be a violation of international law.
Of course, this sort of international approach would require that
nations, particularly the major powers, stop their military
meddling in other lands and turn over a bit of their precious
sovereignty to the United Nations, as they had promised to do when
creating it back in 1945. But a more peaceful, better-governed
world would be well worth that price, wouldn’t it?
Hard Little Machine
"For Better or for Worse" you say. Well I think we can agree it's
for worse but not for the kneejerk rationale you espouse. The
problem is that the UN has become the sandlot of dictators. Through
organizations like the OIC we see states like Iran, Yemen, Libya,
Saudi Arabia, Syria elevated to leadership status over such things
as human and civil rights, religious tolerance, gender equality,
freedom of speech other such things. We don't, after all see the
OIC or the UN squawking much at all when a thousand or 10 thousand
or a hundred thousand kill and eat one another. And while it may
comfort us in the west to flagellate our selves and tell each other
it's our fault that's simply not the case. Lawrence S. Wittner
(http://lawrenceswittner.com) is Professor of History emeritus at
SUNY/Albany. His latest book is a satirical novel about university
life, What’s Going On at UAardvark? (Solidarity Press).
 |
 |