'Diplomatic Vitality' Needed to Bring Peace to Syria
While the US public awaits President Barack Obama's speech on Sept. 10, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has publicly criticized a US military attack against Syria, lobbying to continue negotiations during Geneva II.
It is now a proven fact that chemical weapons were used in Syria. As a result, nearly 1,450 people died, one-third of them children. The Obama administration asserts that the Bashar al-Assad regime is the culprit, which undertook these clear violations of international humanitarian law and the treaty that bans the chemical weapons use. It will be far more legitimate if a military strike will take place as a resolution under Chapter 7 of the UN Security Council. The reason that the United States is reluctant to undertake such an initiative is because it anticipates a Russian veto.
Seeking authorization from US Congress appears to be difficult in view of the reluctance at this time of a significant number of members of the House of Representatives to endorse authorization. Public opinion in many parts of the United States in turn is overwhelmingly lobbying their representatives in Congress not to endorse any such military act.
While a significant — perhaps a majority of US citizens — want to prioritize their immediate economic, financial, social and medical needs as well as support educational institutions, there is a chance, however, that the intensive campaign that the White House is undertaking to persuade Congress and influence the public opinion to support an immediate strike, might endorse the president’s decision but not until a majority is reached. Before making a judgment, Americans are waiting for the president's speech on Tuesday, Sept. 10.
In the meantime, according to The New York Times in its Sunday issue [Sept. 8], the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) plans to “blanket Capitol Hill with 250 advocates, having already contacted dozens of lawmakers, to urge them to support a strike.”
