By Dawn's Early Light

Syria Cornered

The US was moving towards open conflict with Syria recently, especially as US special forces engaged across the border in fighting Islamic militants fighting along the Iraqi border (see Bill Roggio posts regarding here and here).  However, Secretary Rice argued against taking military action against Syria in an October 1st principals meeting, according to Newsweek.

In light of the recently released UN Investigative report on the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri by German investigator prosecutor Detlev Mehlis that directly implicates several high ranking members of the Syrian government and the Assad family, Rice's decision appears to be the right one.  For a detailed analysis of the UN report, review Publius Pundit's post by Robert Mayer and this Washington Post article.

Secretary Rice's ability to delay military action against Syria (she has publicly stated the US will not rule out an attack on Syria) has created a opportunity for Europe and the Middle East to be united behind a condemnation of Syria.  Even Saudi Arabia and Egypt are likely to put further pressure on Damascus, according to this Arab News article.  The report is so detailed and implicating of Syrian involvement that Syria is in no position to step out of line over Iraq.

The added benefit of going the diplomatic route is putting France and the United States, along with the United Kingdom, firmly in the same camp over condemning Syria and taking strong action (see WaPo article).  This move will likely help go towards repairing the Atlantic alliance.

Syria Sets a Deadline for Pullout from Lebanon

This just came across the wire desk for the Washington Post.

"Syria plans to pull all its troops and intelligence agents from Lebanon by April 30, and a U.N. team could be dispatched to verify the withdrawal," a U.N. envoy said Sunday after meeting President Bashar Assad.

The full withdrawal will mark the end of Syria's 29-year military presence in Lebanon and will comply with the demands in a U.N. resolution, helping to relieve the international pressure on Damascus.

U.N. envoy Terje Roed-Larsen said Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk al-Sharaa had informed him "all Syrian troops, military assets and the intelligence apparatus will have been withdrawn fully and completely" by April 30, at the latest.

Roed-Larsen said the Syrian commitment implies all its security forces will be withdrawn in line with the 1989 Taif agreement, which paved the way for the end of the Lebanese civil war, and U.N. resolution 1559 that was passed by the Security Council in September. The resolution called for Syria to withdraw its troops and stop interference in Lebanon."

Keep checking PubliusPundit for the latest news and analysis.  Syria has lowered its troops in Lebanon from 14,000 to 8,000 in the eastern portion of the country.  This seems to be good news indeed.   How long until real democracy emerges in Lebanon? Will this reduce the bombings in Christian areas of the country or intesify them?

China Moving to Block Japan from Security Council Seat

Joseph Kahn in the April 1st New York Times has an interesting article about China's public diplomatic maneuverings to thwart UN Security Council reform that would promote Japan to a permanent seat. 

China has allowed a grass roots effort to collect signatures of 22 million Chinese expressing their opposition to Japan receiving a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.  Dawn's Early Light has previously discussed the UN reforms that are being discussed here, here and here.

"If China were to prevent Japan's elevation, it would be the most direct confrontation between Asia's leading powers since they re-established diplomatic ties in 1972.

Relations between the countries have sharply deteriorated in recent weeks, strained by competition for energy resources, disputes over the way history textbooks assess Japan's role in World War II, Japan's pledge to aid the United States in defending Taiwan and the recent incursion of a Chinese submarine into Japanese waters.

By allowing millions of people to sign their names to a petition against Japan, Beijing's new leadership seems determined to show that recent Japanese actions have so inflamed popular sentiment that China has no choice but to adopt a tougher diplomatic line."

If I was to quibble with the story, it would be with Mr. Kahn's assertion that centrally controlled China "has no choice but to adopt a tougher diplomatic line." Mr. Kahn does a better job of arguing that the Chinese could well be using this "public" protest as a leveraging tool to receive strategic concessions from Japan or to lay the groundwork for an outright veto of any reform.

While the petition is interesting, it may be a Pandora's box for the Chinese.  Allowing this much public organization and demonstration of public opinion could backfire in the future when the topic is domestic instead of international in scope.

"'There has never before been a petition campaign of this magnitude in China,' he said [Mr. Tong, an organizer of the anti-Japan petition]. 'It will be much harder for the government to suppress in the future.'"

Nevertheless, it is an interesting development in Sino-Japanese relations.

Sec. Rice Will Endorse Permanent UN Security Seat for Japan

Sec. Rice will give a speech today, according to the Washington Post, promoting a permanent UN Security Council seat for Japan:

"While the United States has previously supported Japan as a permanent member of the Security Council, this is 'the first time it's been put in a comprehensive policy statement by an American secretary of state,' one official said.

Before Bush became president, Rice wrote an article in Foreign Affairs in which she asserted that China would like to alter Asia's strategic balance in its favor. Since then China has used its economic power to spread its influence through Asia.

'We have no problems with a strong, confident, economically powerful China,' Rice told reporters as she flew to Tokyo. She said she wrote that article at a time when China's rise was 'a new factor in international politics.' She said 'the prospects are there that we could see this development be positive, not negative. But I don't want to underestimate the challenges in doing so.'"

  There has been increased talk of reforming the Security Council with a high level international panel that provided recommendations to Mr. Annan earlier this year. (see DEL January 3rd, 2005 post regarding and an excellent Economist article here).  The subject also came up during Sec. Rice's recent visit to India (see Remarks with Indian Foreign Minister Natwar Singh here).

The US and Japan are definitely displaying closer cooperation militarily and diplomatically in recent years.  This, I believe, is a result of a nuclear North Korea and a China that appears to be increasingly flexing its muscles. 

Dawn's Early Light will report back on this story, after the full text is out, and its implications with respect to containing China.

The UN at a Crossroads or a Cliff (Part II)

The UN lacks moral authority.  It is no more moral than the member states that make up the organization.  It is a failure.  Ask the Hutus and Tutsis of Rwanda.  Ask the Bosnians.  Ask the people of Iraq what they thought of the UN during Saddam's reign.

The European position and many on the American left hold the view that only the UN has "moral authority".  Herein lies the argument over what is moral.  I would submit that when people speak of the UN having moral authority, they are referring to it being an institution of laws.  Laws may constitute authority, but "moral" is a separate term and does not automatically follow having laws.  The Taliban had quite a few laws in Afghanistan, most of them repressive, especially to women.  Nazi Germany was defined by law but was an immoral government of the highest order.  The Soviet Union had many laws, but there was no freedom of speech, action, religion or the right to own property.

The UN has squandered its legitimacy by allowing countries like Syria to be on the UN Human Rights Commission when the United States is voted off.  The Oil-for-Food Scandal, the corruption that is rife within the organization and its focus on discussion without action is the existing legacy of the UN.

The United States, over time, should divest itself of the UN and its dominant role in paying for the UN's budget.  In its place, the US should support the creation of a different collective security body with the right to join based on having a representative government with fair and free elections.

Only by freedom being the ticket to admission can a collective body have moral authority.  The United States should, in all cases, pursue promoting freedom.  Creating a coalition of the free is a good way of designing a new institution to do what the UN has proved incapable of doing, which is promoting security and human rights throughout the world.

The UN at a Crossroads or Cliff? (Part I)

The UN, after 60 years in existence, is going through an identity crisis.  How the US and world react to the UN will make an important difference in international relations.  If the UN, specifically the 5 permanent members, fails to reform itself, its remaining relevance will continue to erode.  After the $20 + billion Oil-for-Food Scandal that involved Iraq, France, Russia, China and even Mr. Annan's son, and after the Secretary General's own work to discredit the Bush administration during the election, the UN institution is in jeopardy.  Is the UN salvageable?  And second, if it is, is it worth saving?

There are several interesting developments that have been playing out over the past year.  Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General, initiated a 16 member High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change.  Its report on UN reform has a number of reform objectives for the Security Council.  Mr. Annan, in The Economist, laid out the key points of the report:

1. up to 24 permanent security council members (an increase of 9 from the current 15, but with no expansion of the current 5-member veto power)
2. a strengthened UN secretariat
3. “overhaul the Economic and Social Council to strengthen its role in social development and in improving knowledge about the economic and social dimensions of security threats.”

The first response is, are any of the above in the US interest?  Taking the first recommendation, an enlarged Security Council would increase the countries at the decision making table.  The existing permanent Security Council members (US, UK, France, Russia & China) reflect the status of power at the end of the Second World War.  They additionally represent two nations in Europe, two in Asia, one in North America and none in Africa, South America and Australia.  The current permanent Security Council does not reflect 2005 geopolitical realities.

Japan, the UN's second largest donor and a democratic country with over 130 million people, along with Germany, the third largest donor, have no permanent clout in security functions in the council.  Additionally, both countries are a part of the two most dominantly represented continents.  India and Brazil both have legitimate desires to sit at the Security Council table.  But opening up the Security Council by additional permanent members would further deadlock the UN and increase its irrelevance. 

To prove the point of the UN's lackluster 60-year history, The Economist states:

The UN was set up to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war”.  It has not been very successful.  Countries have repeatedly taken up arms against one another with impunity (as many as 680 times between 1945 and 1989, according to one count).  Hundreds more conflicts have taken place within states."

All five permanent members have engaged in armed conflict without international approval:  the US in Vietnam, the British and French in the Suez (to name one), China in Tibet, and Russia in Afghanistan.  Current liberal international thought pays homage to international law as the new gospel (though ironically not rooted in religious beliefs).  To believe that a moral act can only come through legitimacy from a body that has a good deal of totalitarian members seems perverse.  Liberal thought gives credence to international bodies because of the boundaries of individual states but then pretends the state's sovereignty derives from the collective body.  It also cares not for how the member state is governed.  China by no means is a democracy, and Russia raises many eyebrows as well concerning personal freedoms, yet both nations can veto the proposals of UN member democratic states.

If the UN is to be saved and transformed, reforming the Security Council makes sense; however, any change should not erode US veto power.  Additionally, a stronger emphasis on representation of democratic nations is necessary.

In a follow-up post I will address the High Level Panel's recommendations 2 and 3 above and sum up my thoughts on what the US should pursue vis-a-vis international collective security arrangements.