Det danske Fredsakademi

Kronologi over fredssagen og international politik 4. September 2013 / Timeline September 4, 2013

Version 3.5

3. September 2013, 5. September 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* Fact sheets and white papers distributed (and sometimes later withdrawn) by the government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

The Syrian Problem -- and an International Solution
By Lawrence S. Wittner
Lawrence S. WittnerLet 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 ( 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).



Gå til Fredsakademiets forside
Tilbage til indholdsfortegnelsen for september 2013

Send kommentar, email eller søg i
Locations of visitors to this page