According
to CNN and Fox News, Syrian President Bashar Assad
agreed to allow U.N. teams to access chemical weapons sites. The civilian
attack near Damascus on August 21 prompted the urgency for the investigation,
and since then, tensions have increased across the U.S. concerning our prospective role in the conflict. President Obama has
sought authorization from Congress to initiate international military action in
the name of foreign policy.
As I
follow media reports regarding the Syrian conflict and U.S. intervention, I
continuously read posts from commenters asking: “Does the President need to
gain Congress approval to launch an international attack?” In response, the
public is divided. Some American citizens believe that President Obama must
have Congress approval, while other disagree but feel that Congress approval
will be helpful.
The
media has perpetuated the idea that President Obama does not have the authority, nor the backing by government officials, to involve U.S. troops in conflicts abroad. For example, headliners across reporting agencies include CBC News: Syria
attack illegal without Security Council approval, UN warns; MSNBC: UN
suggests American attack on Syria would be illegal; and Aljazeera: Striking Syria: Illegal, Immoral, and dangerous contradict other headliners such as RT: Obama asserts right
to strike Syria without congressional approval; New American: Ex-Defense
Chiefs Say Obama Can Strike Syria Without OK from Congress; and Fox News: Like
it or not, Constitution allows Obama to strike Syria without Congressional
approval.
Such
reporting platforms have misled the public by demonstrating varying
understandings of U.S. regulations pertaining to international threat and
potential war. The purpose of this week's blog is to clarify facts from
misconceptions of foreign affairs and the President's authority to call for U.S. intervention in
Syria. Although the President needs Congress approval to declare war, history
has also shown that the government can misuse the term “war” to fulfill an
agenda.
Facts:
Clinton, himself, initiated
a strike December 1998 along with Great Britain, against Saddam Hussein in
response to chemical weapons stockpiles. He did not go to Congress for
authorization or approval to commence Operation Desert Fox. Clinton further
elaborates in the video that there has been an international pact (Geneva Protocol) against chemical weapons dating back from World War
I, nearly a hundred years ago. Therefore, President Obama is not required to
gain Congress approval, although their authorization for intervention would
serve as support for the President.
Geneva Protocol Brief Overview:
- Prohibits the use of chemical weapons in warfare
- Prohibits the development, production or stockpiling of chemical weapons
- Provides for the elimination of an entire category of weapons of mass destruction under universally applied international control
- Ensures a credible, transparent regime to verify the destruction of chemical weapons; to prevent their re-emergence in any member State; to provide protection and assistance against chemical weapons; to encourage international cooperation in the peaceful uses of chemistry
- Calls for cooperation between the United Nations and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and is regulated by the relationship agreement between both organizations adopted by the General Assembly in September 2001
Related Readings
Articles of Interest
CNN – The CNN/ORC International poll released on Monday shows that even though eight in 10
Americans believe that Bashar al-Assad's regime gassed its own people, a strong
majority doesn't want Congress to pass a resolution authorizing a military
strike against it.
Very well rounded post! I appreciate all the extra resources you provided. It is interesting to include President Clintons perspective, as he has experienced a similar situation before. This story has been in the news cycle for a while. There is just more and to unpack. Good job!
ReplyDelete