U.S. President fielded questions from media regarding Syria; Clement Payne Movement Angered – Calls on Barbadians to Denounce American Lawlessness!

Many people have questions on how President Obama came to his decision on Syria. Here are some of his comments made today, September 4, during a joint press conference with Sweden’s Prime Minister Reinfeldt:

{FILE IMAGE} "I respect - and I've said this to the prime minister - the U.N. process. Obviously, the U.N. investigation team has done heroic work under very difficult circumstances. But we believe very strongly, with high confidence, that in fact, chemical weapons were used and that Mr. Assad was the source. And we want to join with the international community in an effective response that deters such use in the future. In the face of such barbarism, the international community cannot be silent and that failing to respond to this attack would only increase the risk of more attacks and that - possibility that other countries would use these weapons as well.

{FILE IMAGE} “I respect and I’ve said this to the prime minister the U.N. process. Obviously, the U.N. investigation team has done heroic work under very difficult circumstances. But we believe very strongly, with high confidence, that in fact, chemical weapons were used and that Mr. Assad was the source. And we want to join with the international community in an effective response that deters such use in the future. In the face of such barbarism, the international community cannot be silent and that failing to respond to this attack would only increase the risk of more attacks and that – possibility that other countries would use these weapons as well.

We have to act because if we don’t, we are effectively saying that even though we may condemn it and issue resolutions and so forth and so on, somebody who is not shamed by resolutions can continue to act with impunity. “As much as we [the United States] are criticized, when bad stuff happens around the world, the first question is what is the United States going to do about it? That’s true on every – every issue. It’s true in Libya. It’s true in Rwanda. It’s true in Sierra Leone. It’s now true in Syria. That’s part of the deal.”

While Bashar Al-Assad is no sweetbread, at the same time, it is the rebels and not his Government forces guilty of chemical assaults – even former NSA expert Zbigniew Brzezinski has admitted that Social Media has made it difficult for the USA to advance its aggression against Damascus… Nevertheless, there’s a growing call for Obama‘s Nobel PEACE Prize to be revoked… In Barbados, one group is vehemently outraged at the move;-

As a law student at the Cave Hill campus of the University of the West Indies, I made a study of Public International Law. And I am not aware of ANY principle of International Law that would confer upon the United States of America the right to inflict a punitive missile attack on the nation of Syria in the currently prevailing circumstances.

My understanding of International Law tells me that if it is being alleged that the Government of Syria carried out a chemical weapons attack against any group of human beings – civilian or military – the institution that is invested with the power and responsibility to determine whether the allegation is true and to decide upon punitive measures is the United Nations Security Council.

I would therefore like to publicly challenge the current US Ambassador to Barbados - His Excellency Larry Palmer - to bring to the attention of the Barbadian people any International Law principles that would confer on the Government of the USA the right to unilaterally supplant the United Nations Security Council on this issue. I am absolutely certain that no such principle of law exists!

I would therefore like to publicly challenge the current US Ambassador to Barbados – His Excellency Larry Palmer – to bring to the attention of the Barbadian people any International Law principles that would confer on the Government of the USA the right to unilaterally supplant the United Nations Security Council on this issue. I am absolutely certain that no such principle of law exists!

The USA is a member-state of the United Nations, and is one of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. Thus, the USA is bound by the principles and stipulations of the United Nations Charter.

And this is what the U N Charter specifies in relation to a matter of this nature:-

  • Article 2

4. All members shall refrain in their international relations from
the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of any
state…… or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of
the United Nations.

  • Article 39

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to
the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make
recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance
with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain of restore international peace
and security.

  • Article 41

The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of
armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions….

  • Article 42

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in
Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may
take such action by air ,sea or land forces as may be necessary to
maintain or restore international peace and security…..

  • Article 51

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of
individual or collective self- defence if an armed attack occurs
against a Member of the united Nations, until the Security Council has
taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and
security…”

It is clear from the foregoing that the only circumstance in which the Government of the USA would possess the right to make a unilateral decision to launch a military attack on Syria is if Syria had engaged in an “armed attack” on the USA, and the USA was responding in self-defence. Clearly, there has been no such armed attack on the USA, and the responsibility for dealing with this matter rests solely with the United Nations Security Council.

It is therefore extremely regrettable that in the midst of an on-going investigation into the chemical attack in Syria by Security Council experts, the Government of the USA should be guilty of deliberately “jumping the gun” and publicly declaring that the Syrian Government is the guilty party.

It is even more regrettable that, to date, the Government of the USA has brazenly refused to share its alleged evidence with the United Nations Security Council, in spite of the fact that it has been requested to do so.

Based on the foregoing, the only logical conclusion that we Barbadians can come to is that the Government of the USA is determined to attack the nation of Syria, and is equally determined to establish a pretext or justification for doing so, even if such a course of action causes them to act illegally and in breach of some of the most fundamental principles of International Law.

It is “Iraq 2002” all over again – only this time it is qualitatively worse! On that occasion, the Government of the USA brazenly lied to the entire world when they asserted that President Saddam Hussein possessed “weapons of mass destruction“. Back then, they used that lie to gain the support of the United Nations Security Council. Now, however, their contempt for International Law is so extreme that they are not even bothering to seek the cover of Security Council support!

Truly, we have returned to the era of the Law of the Jungle!

DAVID COMISSIONG -  President, Clement Payne Movement &  People's Empowerment Party

DAVID COMISSIONG
President,
Clement Payne Movement &
People’s Empowerment Party

On behalf of the officers and members of the Clement Payne Movement and the People’s Empowerment Party, I hereby call upon the Governments of Barbados and the Caribbean Community to speak up now and to register their collective disapproval of this lawless behaviour on the part of the Government of the USA.

One Response

Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. In addition, this senseless interference can harm the Tourism product of Barbados already on shaky ground! When the Gulf War of 1991 ensued and the subsequent 9/11 a decade later, visitors to Barbados from most places plummeted – can we take such another hit once more?

Comments

add a comment

Some HTML is OK

or, reply to this post via trackback.