Well this is rich …:::… Britain to seek UN approval for strikes on Syria
Chuck Hagel made that clear yesterday:
The United States does not need the permission of the United Nations or any other international body for a military strike against Syria to retaliate for its use of chemical weapons against civilians, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said Tuesday.
“No nation, no group of nations is bound by only one dimension of whether they’d make a decision to respond to any self-defense or any other violation of the kind of humanitarian violations that we saw in Syria,” he told the BBC.
The reason for eschewing the UN Security Council is obvious enough. Neither Russia nor China will allow a resolution authorizing force against Syria, just as both nations have blocked any real action against Iran for secretly and then openly pursuing nuclear weapons, in violation of UN and IAEA treaties.
The UN envoy to Syria says that’s just too bad. Only UN approval will give the US authority to respond to Syria’s use of WMDs:
“I think international law is clear on this. International law says that military action must be taken after a decision by the Security Council. That is what international law says,” [special UN envoy to Syria Lakhdar Brahimi] told a press conference in Geneva.
“I must say that I do know that President Obama and the American administration are not known to be trigger-happy. What they will decide I don’t know. But certainly international law is very clear.”
If the Obama administration won’t go to the UN, our ally will do so in our place, apparently.
NPR’s Mark Memmott reports that UK Prime Minister David Cameron has drafted a resolution to authorize military action, and will propose it to the five veto-wielding members of the UNSC today:
Britain “has drafted a resolution condemning the chemical weapons attack by Assad & authorising necessary measures to protect civilians,” Prime Minister David Cameron’s office announced on its official Twitter page early Wednesday.
That resolution, Cameron’s office added, “will be put forward at a meeting of the five permanent members of the Security Council later today in New York.”
Now, as NPR’s Philip Reeves tells our Newscast Desk, attention will:
“Focus on what the options encompassed by the words ‘necessary measures.’ Cameron is trying to convince a skeptical parliament and public to support plans to join the U.S. in a military strike against President Assad’s regime. This faces resolute opposition from Russia and China — both permanent member of the Security Council. But by putting forward the resolution, Cameron can argue that he at least tried to get U.N. Security Council backing.”
In other words, Cameron needs the political cover, where Obama probably doesn’t. Our media will take care of the messy details. …. crickets.
Hey lamestream media, 500,000 people have been hacked to death by Islamic extremists in Rwanda … Anyone care? Are you as gone as it looks like you are. Just Obama propagandists?
And just like no addressing black on black murder and black on white murder will effect the murder rate. Or the discussion about race.