Obama insisted on a U.N. Security Council Resolution authorizing a no-fly zone in Libya. But the U.S. and NATO attacks on Libya have exceeded the U.N. mandate. What was hailed as a major diplomatic victory in fact laid the groundwork for future diplomatic failure.
On March 23, I predicted Long-Term Damage From Obama Exceeding U.N. Security Council No-Fly Resolution:
Seeking U.N. authorization, but then exceeding such authorization, has two negative results.
First, whatever purported legitimacy was conveyed by the U.N. Resolution has evaporated. We no longer are enforcing a no-fly zone or protecting civilians; we are engaging in regime change and taking sides in a civil war. We may like the result, but we should not delude ourselves into thinking such result was authorized by the U.N.
Second, we have damaged our ability to obtain U.N. Security Council resolutions in the future, when we actually might have vital national interests at stake. This makes helpful resolutions on Iran more difficult to obtain, as Russia and China will be hesitant to give us an inch in fear we will take a yard.
This whole scenario demonstrates the futility and false imagery of the Obama foreign policy.And sure enough my prediction has come true. As the U.S. and Europeans seek Security Council action regarding the Syrian nuclear weapons program and brutal crackdown on protests, the Russians are using the abuse of the Libya Resolution as a justification for preventing Security Council action:
Diplomats said Russia was using the situation in Libya as a pretext to oppose United Nations action in Syria, arguing that NATO’s intervention in Libya, under a United Nations mandate to protect civilians, had spiraled out of control.It may be that the bloodshed in Syria gets so bad that even the Russians do not stand in the way. But that will be no thanks to the Obama administration, which badly mishandled the situation by obtaining and then exceeding the U.N. Libya Resolution.
I saw it coming, why didn't Obama, Hillary and Susan Rice?
-------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
"I saw it coming, why didn't Obama, Hillary and Susan Rice?"
ReplyDeleteBecause professor, it's not a glitch ...'tis a feature.
Instability in Syria leads to an even weaker Iran. Can't have that either, obviously.
George H.W. Bush was criticized by many for not pushing on to Baghdad after ejecting Iraq from Kuwait. He stated at the time that that would exceed the U.N. mandate.
ReplyDeleteThe other consideration was that there was a power struggle in Moscow. The old guard would have pointed to that to reinforce their argument that the US couldn't be trusted.
I saw it coming, why didn't Obama, Hillary and Susan Rice?
ReplyDeleteThey did. However, Hillary wants to be able to blame Obama. Obama wants to strengthen Syria and weaken Israel. Susan Rice does not care about the Arabs at all as long as she can arrange to get Israel destroyed.
William I beg to differ on this one.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, the insistence on Libya came from Sarkozy and Cameron. Østupid had to be dragged to a decision, and has proved worthless since then.
Second, Russia and China abstained from voting over Libya but they have more or less come on board since then.
I also beg to differ that the mandate on the no-fly-zone has been exceeded. That kind of talk is coming from the regime in Libya. Even Russia has backed away from the comment.
This is very different from Syria. In Syria you had a much slower build-up to the crushing crack-down. Assad was getting away with the little crackdown, but now that he has gone all out on the border towns, it is a whole new ball-game.
Plus, Iran is involved in Syria. This is the bigger question. Also, Russia has been supplying arms to Syria, and I have no doubt that Russia has its eye on Syrian oil, and that is ditto for China.
This will be the same fight that took place over Libya with the same countries being against any UN resolution.