Ex-Officials Urge White House to Accept More Syrian Refugees

Ex-Officials Urge White House to Accept More Syrian Refugees

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/18/world/middleeast/ex-officials-urge-white-house-to-accept-more-syrian-refugees.html

By MICHAEL R. GORDON,  SEPT. 17, 2015

WASHINGTON — More than 20 former senior officials, including some who served in prominent positions in the Obama administration, urged the White House on Thursday to accept 100,000 Syrian refugees, a tenfold increase over an American commitment made last week.

“We urge that you announce support for a refugees admissions goal of 100,000 Syrian refugees on an extraordinary basis, over and above the current worldwide refugee ceiling of 70,000,” they wrote in a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders.

The United States has accepted about 1,500 refugees from Syria since the start of the conflict there, and the White House announced last week that it would take in at least 10,000 more Syrian refugees over the next year. But the letter, which was signed by former officials from Democratic and Republican administrations, argued that much more should be done.

“With some four million Syrian refugees in neighboring countries and hundreds of thousands of Syrian asylum seekers in Europe, this would be a responsible exercise in burden sharing,” it says. “We urge you to take extraordinary measures, as were taken for refugees from Vietnam, northern Iraq and Kosovo.”

The letter also urges the White House to allocate up to $2 billion to pay for resettling Syrian refugees and to help support international refugee efforts. The United States has provided more than $4 billion in humanitarian assistance for Syrian refugees, but international organizations are struggling with funding shortfalls.

The former officials who signed the letter include some noteworthy veterans of the Obama administration: Michèle A. Flournoy, a former under secretary of defense; Derek Chollet, who served as an assistant defense secretary, Harold H. Koh, who served as the State Department’s legal adviser; and Eric P. Schwartz, who was a senior refugee official in the State Department.

Signatories who served in Republican administrations include Paul D. Wolfowitz, a deputy defense secretary in the George W. Bush administration, and Kori Schake and Richard Fontaine, who worked on the National Security Council under Mr. Bush.

Several former diplomats who served in the Middle East were also signatories, including Robert S. Ford, whom Mr. Obama named to serve as ambassador to Syria, and Ryan C. Crocker, who served as ambassador to Afghanistan under Mr. Obama and was previously ambassador to Syria and Iraq, among other countries.

Some conservative members of Congress have raised concerns that admitting large numbers of refugees could pose risks if militants infiltrated their ranks. And administration officials have cited constraints, including the 18 to 24 months that it takes the Department of Homeland Security to do background checks. But the letter asserts that these issues can be managed.

“We have demonstrated that it can be done in the case of the Kurds, the Kosovars and the Vietnamese,” said Mr. Schwartz, who coordinated refugee settlement efforts for such groups during the Bill Clinton administration and currently serves as the dean of the Humphrey School of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota. “What we need is high-level political leadership. Even with a responsible D.H.S. vetting process, we can have the capability to resettle large numbers. For one thing, we need to put more money and people against these requirements.”

The United States took in 111,000 Vietnamese refugees in 1979. The next year, that number grew to 207,000. Around the same time, the United States accepted more than 120,000 Cuban refugees during theMariel boatlift. But the number of refugees accepted by the United States dwindled after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The United States currently has an overall yearly cap on refugees of 70,000, and Secretary of State John Kerry told lawmakers last week that the cap should be increased to as many as 100,000.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2426925/letter-regarding-syrian-refugees.pdf

analysis of the merits of the referral of the Syria Situation to the ICC

http://opiniojuris.org/2013/01/14/fifty-seven-countries-call-for-referral-of-the-syria-situation-to-the-icc-analysis-of-the-merits-of-the-referral-and-concerns-as-to-its-implementation/

Fifty-Seven Countries Call for Referral of the Syria Situation to the ICC: analysis of the merits of the referral and concerns as to its implementation

by Jennifer Trahan      January 14th, 2013 

[Jennifer Trahan is associate clinical professor at the Center for Global Affairs at the NYU School of Continuing and Professional Studies (NYU-SCPS). She is also chair of the American Branch of the International Law Association International Criminal Court Committee and was a member of the American Bar Association’s 2010 International Criminal Court Task Force.]

Today, January 14, 57 U.N. Member States from Africa, Asia, Europe and Latin America, coordinated by Switzerland, sent a letter requesting the U.N. Security Council to refer the situation in Syria to the International Criminal Court for investigation and prosecution.

The UN Security Council should make the referral; in fact, it should have done so already months ago.  Because Syria is not a party to the ICC’s Rome Statute, the Court would not have jurisdiction over the crimes in Syria absent the referral.

Mass crimes

With an estimated 60,000 fatalities, and reason to suspect both war crimes and crimes against humanity have occurred, referral is clearly warranted.  Underlying crimes according to the UN’s independent international Commission of Inquiry on Syria include “patterns of summary execution, arbitrary arrest, enforced disappearance, torture, including sexual violence, as well as violations of children’s rights…”

The UN Security Council, which may refer “situations” to the ICC pursuant to Rome Statute article 13(b), has previously referred both the situations in Darfur (SC res. 1593) and Libya (SC res. 1970) to the ICC for investigation and prosecution.  The latter referral was made after far fewer fatalities had occurred than have occurred in Syria.  Security Council action is needed if the Council is to retain institutional legitimacy and consistency in its relationship with the ICC and to show its resolve in addressing large-scale crimes.

Impunity at the national level

The Syrian judiciary is not addressing the crimes that are occurring, and there is no reason to suspect that, under the current government, there would be national court trials.

If there were to be a future change of government, the ICC referral still makes sense.  If a future government were to contain vestiges of the past regime, national court trials could be impeded by efforts to “shield” perpetrators from justice.  If a future government were to consist of an entirely new regime, national trials could become vengeful affairs— overzealous prosecutions lacking due process—such as Saddam Hussein’s trial before the Iraqi High Tribunal.

If there actually were to be future credible national trials, the referral would have done no harm (it would not supplant good faith national investigations and prosecutions under the “complementarity” provisions of Rome Statute article 17), and in fact could provide incentive for holding national trials.

As in all referrals, the referral would be of the “situation” in Syria , so would not be limited to crimes by the Assad government and military, but would encompass opposing Syrian forces as well.

Whether to exclude nationals from non-States Parties from the referral

The Swiss letter states that the referral should be made “without exceptions.”  This is a reference to the fact that past referrals by the UNSC excluded jurisdiction over nationals of non-States Parties (for instance, should they become part of a troop deployments in the countries at issue).  This raises a complex question, but suffice is to say that such automatic exclusion of nationals of non-States Parties appears to engender resentment in the international community.  To begin with, three permanent members of the UN Security Council are non-States Parties to the ICC (Russia, China and the U.S.), so there already exists the imbalance that these countries have the power to vote for or veto ICC referrals, yet crimes committed on their territories are not subject to ICC jurisdiction (and they have the power to veto referrals involving their own nationals).  A further level of insulation of troops from non-States Parties as part of a referral increases such imbalance, but also seems unnecessary in a situation such as the present one, where no such troops are deployed.  (Were there future deployments of troops from non-States Parties, this issue would no doubt resurface and could then be addressed.)

Whether UN funding should accompany the referral

The Swiss letter also asks that if the referral occur that the Security Council “commit the necessary resources.”  Past referrals of the Darfur and Libya situations came with no funding.  Given the ICC’s tight budget and ever-expanding docket and expectations placed on it, such lack of funding is indeed problematic for the Court.  Investigating and prosecuting crimes requires significant financial expenditures.  A strong case can be made that the UN Security Council should not preclude UN funding.  While current U.S. legislation precludes the US from directly funding the ICC, it is unclear that this necessarily precludes use of UN dues.

The need for Security Council follow-up

Finally, the Swiss letter asks that if the Security Council makes the referral, that it facilitate “execution of potential arrest warrants.”  This is significant.  The past Darfur and Libya referrals were made without any commitment by the Security Council to follow-up efforts to ensure that ICC trials actually occur.  (Thus, for example, none of the Darfur arrest warrants have ever been executed).  It is high time to ensure that when the Security Council makes a referral that it undertakes some obligation to conduct follow-up, including in the areas of arrests.

If the crimes and violence occurring in Syria are going to be deterred to any extent, that will not occur without a credible threat of prosecutions.  Right now, the only way to make that threat serious is through a UN Security Council referral.  The ICC would provide a reliable, fair and neutral forum for prosecuting high level perpetrators.

Public International Law and Policy Group: The Legal Basis for Humanitarian Intervention in Syria

http://www.internationallawbureau.com/blog/?p=5661

August 8th, 2012 by Kirsty Sutherland

The Public International Law & Policy Group (“PILPG”) has released a legal memorandum setting forth the legal basis for humanitarian intervention in Syria.  The memorandum argues that under the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect (“R2P”), there is a sufficient legal basis to use military force against the Syrian regime for the limited purpose of stopping the ongoing and dramatically escalating atrocity crimes.

The Syria crisis continues, and the violence is escalating. Tens of thousands of refugees have fled to neighbouring countries.  Diplomatic measures and sanctions have proven ineffective, and, with Russia and China having vetoed three Security Council resolutions aimed at stopping the violence, the Security Council is paralyzed.

The memorandum analyses the Syria crisis through the lens of R2P.  PILPG argues that because there are ongoing atrocity crimes in Syria, peaceful measures have been exhausted, and the Security Council is deadlocked, there is a sufficient legal basis for the international community to use force for the limited purpose of stopping atrocity crimes and protecting civilians.  Military intervention in Syria would be legal, even without prior Security Council approval, as long as it satisfied R2P’s procedural and operational safeguards.

============

DO- one question: How does the distinction b/w IAC and NIAC make a difference in terms of R2P? The author implies that it does make a difference, citing Rwanda case. 

Syria is NIAC or IAC? some would argue it is a proxy war. ICRC is of the opinion that it is NIAC. 

al-Qaida in Syria

http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-05-11/friday-news-roundup-international/transcript  

The Diane Rehm Show , May 11, 2012

MS. DIANE REHM

Thanks for joining us. I'm Diane Rehm. Twin suicide bombings in Syria kill at least 55 and injure hundreds. Voters in France and Greece oust incumbent leaders and Russia clamps down on protests of Vladimir Putin's return to the presidency. Joining me to talk about the week's top international stories on the Friday News Roundup, David Sanger of The New York Times, Susan Glass of Foreign Policy magazine and Matt Frei of the UK's Channel 4 News

GLASSER

You have an al-Qaida affiliate in Yemen, you have the al-Qaida affiliate now in Somalia where the homegrown terrorist group, al Shabaab, .. becoming part of the broader al-Qaida franchise.  

Look at what happened yesterday in Syria with the largest bombing to date so far in that long running brewing civil war against the Assad regime.  There's real questions about who exactly carried it out, but there's real concern that al-Qaida-like or possibly even al-Qaida affiliated fighters have joined the broad-based fight against Assad.

SANGER

.. who it is who's fighting Assad and it's the reason that the United States has not come in to go arm the rebels in Syria. You're never quite sure who it is you're arming and if you do arm them, how long will those arms stay around? ..

the defining experience was arming the mujahidin against the Soviets in the 1980s and then discovering that those anti-aircraft weapons were being used, and other weapons were being used against the United States after the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.

American officials who I've talked to in the past few days about Syria tell me that it is precisely this problem that is likely to keep the U.S. from either directly intervening or directly arming.

However, there's always the possibility that Gutter or the Saudis or somebody is going to end up arming the opposition here.

FREI

I was speaking to senior British officials a few months ago and they made it quite clear that while there was no policy to arm the rebels from the UK or France or from the United States, there is a clear policy to allow the Saudis and the Qatars to send money, if not turn a blind eye to weapons.

We're going to see more and more of this using Saudi Arabia as a conduit for basically doing, conducting in our policy in that part of the world.

.. this is the reason why the U.S. policy towards arming the Syrian rebels has stopped short. But at the same time, this is a very split opposition. The legitimate, popular opposition, you know guys, “if you're not going to send us any help we're going to have to turn to people like al-Qaida. We're going to increasingly flirt with those extremist elements because for us this is an extensional battle and if we don't get help from more legitimate quarters, we're going to have to go less legitimate ones.”

GLASSER

the sort of policy dilemma that the United States and its Western allies find itself in because in the end what's happening right now without major support from the West is that both sides are being pulled towards their extremes. And if the U.S. doesn't find a way to support the sort of popular middle of this uprising, then increasingly it may be taken over by the kind of extremists who remember drove events in next door Iraq for many years.

REHM

What happened to the cease-fire back on April 12th?

SANGER

The Kofi Anon mission, nobody thought that Kofi Anon was going to be able to go pull this off.  No one really expected this to go very smoothly.

The problem is that Assad knew from the moment that he signed this that the West did not have a plan B.  It is not as if he violated this and it was clear what penalty he was going to suffer. Russia and China were still blocking significant UN action, the Iranians have continued to send in enough to keep the regime alive.

Now, there are sort of two ways to look at what the ultimate survivability of the regime is. Many American officials, including President Obama, have said that over the long term this is fatal to Assad. That he can't hold on. Nobody's defined what the long term is okay. He is certainly running out of money. The efforts to look at where their current is suggests that they've depleted the treasury by at least half since all of this started. There are lots of embargos. That said, there's no sign the Syrian military has cracked.

To stop Syria atrocities, should take a cue from ICTY

An Arab war-crimes court for Syria

ARYEH NEIER, April 6, 2012 Friday

(gist) A war-crimes tribunal run by the Arab League could be the solution to Syrian atrocities. + development of ICTY

The United States and other governments don't want to intervene militarily in Syria. That's understandable; hardly anyone wants another Middle East war.

In seeking other ways to ensure that the Syrian government and its henchmen pay a price for slaughtering their citizens, U.S. officials are seeking ways to bring them to justice. A war crimes tribunal run by the Arab League could be the solution. The experience of war-torn countries like Bosnia has proved that such tribunals can work, if properly designed.

A war crimes tribunal run by the Arab League is the only viable option to bring the butchers to justice

Last weekend, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said that the United States would ''support and train Syrian citizens working to document atrocities, identify perpetrators, and safeguard evidence for future investigations and prosecutions.'' A difficulty with this plan, however, is how to use the evidence that is collected. Syria is not a party to the treaty for the International Criminal Court in The Hague, and Russia and China would most likely use their veto power to block any United Nations Security Council effort to refer the case to the court.

To overcome such obstructionism, another innovation is required: an Arab League tribunal to deal with the crimes against humanity that are taking place in Syria. Such a tribunal could have Arab judges, Arab prosecutors, Arab investigators and Arab defense attorneys and conduct its proceedings in Arabic. The Arab League could give it jurisdiction over crimes against humanity and war crimes as the treaty for the International Criminal Court defines them. And such a court should have jurisdiction over all crimes, including those committed by rebels. It is essential to uphold the principle that, no matter the justice of the cause or the crimes committed by one's opponents, all must be held to the same standards.

Because it would take time to establish such a tribunal and because there is an urgent need to stop Syrian forces from committing more crimes, the Arab League could specify that prosecutions for crimes committed after the resolution's adoption would have priority. That would put the forces of Syria's president, Bashar al-Assad, on notice that the surest way to end up in the dock is to persist in the crimes they have been committing.

We should not grant them impunity for crimes committed up to now. But the urgent need to prevent further atrocities justifies giving them an incentive to stop. Of course, some of those responsible for crimes would imagine that they would never be apprehended and brought to justice. Yet the record of other international tribunals makes it increasingly necessary for them to take such courts seriously.

In case those responsible imagine that they would not be apprehended or brought to justice, ICTY could be a good example

Something similar took place during the Bosnian war, which began 20 years ago this week. Neither the administration of President George Bush nor that of President Bill Clinton was ready to intervene militarily. But both expressed outrage at the crimes of ethnic cleansing in that conflict. That led to American support for the establishment of what became the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. At the time (of establishment of ICTY), few took it seriously.

It had no capacity on its own to get hold of those accused of crimes. Hardly anyone imagined that the leading perpetrators could be brought to justice. Yet the court has been remarkably successful. Of the 161 people on all sides of the Balkan wars whom the court indicted for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, all were eventually apprehended and brought to The Hague except those who died or had their indictments withdrawn; 64 were convicted and sentenced, and 13 were acquitted. The rest are appealing their convictions, are still on trial, have died or have had their cases referred to courts at home.

Indeed, national courts in Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia have conducted scores of high-quality trials of lower-ranking defendants accused of war crimes.

As a result, most of those principally responsible for the ghastliest crimes in the former Yugoslavia, like the murder of 8,000 Muslim men and boys at Srebrenica in 1995, have been forced to serve long prison sentences. A process that some initially supported only as a substitute for more forceful action has turned out much better than expected. It provided a substantial measure of justice in the Balkan conflicts, and it has led to the establishment of several other ad hoc international criminal tribunals and the International Criminal Court. And it has contributed to national prosecutions, in many countries, of dictators, warlords and guerrilla leaders responsible for crimes against humanity.

Establishing the Balkan court in 1993 was an innovation in international law, and creating a tribunal for Syria today would be a bold decision for the Arab League - one that could ensure that those who committed atrocities would face consequences.

NOTES: is president of the Open Society Foundations and the author, most recently, of ''The International Human Rights Movement: A History.''

Harold Hongju Koh on Syria at ASIL meeting 2012

http://www.state.gov/s/l/releases/remarks/187163.htm

Statement Regarding Syria

Remarks : Harold Hongju Koh, Legal Advisor U.S. Department of State

Venue : American Society of International Law Annual Meeting, Washington, DC

March 30, 2012

It is my honor to speak here again at the annual meeting of the American Society of International Law. A year ago, I spoke before this audience about the international legal basis for the United States’ military operations in Libya. In that same spirit of openness and dialogue, I am grateful for the opportunity to engage so many distinguished international lawyers in this room about the very serious challenges we face in Syria today.

Let me divide my comments this morning into three: First, what, precisely, is happening in Syria? Second, what are the U.S. government and the international lawyers within it doing to address the crisis? And third, by what legal principles should this crisis be assessed and lawfully and effectively addressed?

(DO- (1) what is happening on the ground, (2) what has been the response from the US government, (3) the legal principles and guidelines that should govern the US government addressing the crisis)

(1)

Starting with the facts on the ground, everyone here knows the situation in Syria is extremely grave. As President Obama noted earlier this month, “what’s happening in Syria is heartbreaking and outrageous. . . . [President Bashar al-Assad] has lost the legitimacy of his people. And the actions that he’s now taking against his people [are] inexcusable . . . .” The Assad regime’s brutality is well-documented and not subject to dispute. As Secretary Clinton has detailed,

“the regime is creating an appalling humanitarian disaster. Tanks, mortars, and heavy artillery continue to target civilians in residential areas, including women and children. Security forces have cut off electricity and communications, sabotaged water supplies, invaded hospitals, and forced thousands of Syrians to flee their homes. The UN has found crimes against humanity. And now there are reports of troops massing for even more deadly assaults.”

(DO - interesting, Harold Koh cited POTUS and SecState)

The Assad regime’s massacre of hundreds of citizens in the city of Homs is only the most flagrant example of its lawlessness and ruthlessness. The regime seems determined to suppress democratic dissent through bloodshed. Our best estimates are that the crisis has already claimed upward of 9,000 lives and uprooted tens of thousands of Syrians.

(2)

Given this alarming snapshot, what should we be doing about it? How can the United States best respond to the situation in Syria, consistent with domestic and international law as well as our values and interests? There are no easy answers, and there is no single tool capable of solving all the problems.  (the challenges in addressing Syria issue in comparison with Lybia  –  neighboring states, allies, complexity of domestic politics, splanting opposition, uncertainty about post-Assad)  The country sits at the hub of a geopolitically sensitive area, bounded by Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, Israel, and Lebanon. Its rulers have had powerful protectors in Russia and China, as evidenced by their vetoes of not one but two Security Council resolutions. Syria is home to a complex mix of ethnic and religious communities. The opposition is still coalescing and faces enormous challenges. People are concerned and uncertain about what comes after Assad. There is no denying that this is an enormously challenging moment for all of us who are committed to international human rights and to the rule of law.

(what US gov. did)

Many in our government, and in the State Department, have been working around the clock to evaluate options and facilitate a resolution. President Obama and Secretary Clinton have devoted themselves to an all-out diplomatic effort to help bring increasing pressure to bear on the Assad regime. Secretary Clinton led our efforts at the Friends of Syria Conference in Tunis in February, and has spoken out about the crisis and engaged behind the scenes on a daily basis. Ambassador Susan Rice has led our efforts at the United Nations, tirelessly working to build a unified position. And from the beginning of the crisis, my colleague Ambassador Robert Ford has displayed extraordinary heroism by risking his own personal safety to engage directly with the Syrian people, including through his travels to Jassim and Hama. He has also used social media to establish channels of communication with the Syrian people, encouraging them to embrace nonviolent protest and calling the world’s attention to the urgency of the human rights and humanitarian situation.

(what US gov. did – venue, support, and sanction)

While our efforts have not yet resulted in a resolution to the Syrian crisis, neither have we stood idly by. To the contrary, the U.S. government, together with our partners, has been actively pushing on numerous fronts. We have engaged in ceaseless diplomacy in the Security Council, General Assembly, Human Rights Council, Friends of the Syrian People, and numerous other venues to build international consensus around the Arab League plan and further isolate the Assad regime. We are providing over $17 million in humanitarian assistance through the UN and other organizations to support the people of Syria, and we are pursuing every available avenue to get that assistance to those in need. We have helped the Syrian opposition prepare to participate in the Syrian-led transition process that the Security Council has endorsed. We have redoubled our efforts to put financial pressure on those responsible for human rights abuses in Syria, including through three executive orders in the past year imposing increasingly severe sanctions. We have sought to ensure that Syrian nationals present in the United States are not forced to return to unsafe conditions, most notably by designating Syria for Temporary Protected Status under the federal immigration laws. We have strongly supported the work of the Human Rights Council and the Office of the High Commission for Human Rights in documenting and publicizing human rights abuses through the Commission of Inquiry for Syria. And we have begun to discuss issues of accountability with our Arab and international partners. I am particularly proud of the contributions that dozens of lawyers from my own office—what we call the “L-Syria team” of the Office of the Legal Adviser—have made to these efforts.

Achievement - UN Security Council’s Presidential Statement, which the US support  

It is our firm hope that the UN Security Council’s Presidential Statement of last Wednesday, March 21, will mark a step forward toward a more unified international approach. Like our regional and global partners, the United States has made clear that Assad must immediately end his campaign of savagery against his own people, allow humanitarian aid to enter, and make way for a political transition that protects the rights of all Syrians. At the same time, we have made clear that now is the time for all nations to stand behind these demands. The Security Council’s statement last week expressed strong support for the six-point plan put forward by the UN and Arab League Joint Special Envoy and former UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan. Most critically, the Council echoed Annan’s call for all sides to end the violence, with the onus on the government to take the first steps. The statement calls for immediate implementation of a daily pause in hostilities for the delivery of humanitarian assistance, and also for political dialogue and the release of detained persons. The statement further expresses support for a Syrian-led political transition to a democratic, plural political system. And the statement closes by indicating that the Council “will consider further steps as appropriate.” Without speculating on how exactly events might unfold in the weeks ahead, I know the administration will constantly assess what is happening inside Syria and adjust its tactics accordingly.

(3)

What international legal principles and other guidelines should govern our actions going forward? Let me close by suggesting three.

(3-1) art. 24 of the UN Charter ; UNGA and Arab League

First, we must recognize that the primary responsibility for international peace and security in the United Nations system continues to rest with the Security Council. Under the UN Charter, only the Security Council can make certain decisions, such as sanctions determinations, that all UN member states are under a legal obligation to carry out. The General Assembly has already played a very important role in this crisis, as have regional organizations such as the Arab League, a role that Chapter VIII of the UN Charter expressly recognizes. We both support and applaud the constructive steps that have been taken by the General Assembly and particularly the Arab League, which has been a leader in seeking to resolve this crisis. But we will also continue to press ahead in the Security Council to build on the advances made in the March 21^st Presidential Statement, with its unanimous endorsement of a UN-supervised cessation of violence, humanitarian access to all areas in need, and the beginning of a Syrian-led political transition.

(3-2) rejects “one-size-fits-all” thinking – military intervention -- explore various options -- difference from Libya – what international community did ;  

Second, as international lawyers charged with dealing with complexity, we should avoid the trap of seeing this dynamic and multifaceted situation in one-dimensional terms. For that reason, I do not agree with those who insist upon viewing our commitment to solving the Syrian crisis solely through the lens of military intervention. The international community’s commitment to solving a problem should not be measured so narrowly. As we have seen throughout the Arab Awakening, different circumstances call for different responses. In addressing the Arab Awakening in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Bahrain, and elsewhere, this administration has carefully and consistently applied a smart power approach to foreign policy that rejects “one-size-fits-all” thinking.

In so saying, we specifically see no inconsistency between the U.S. approach to Syria and the U.S. approach to Libya. Neither our legal theories, nor our strategic objectives, nor our moral commitments have changed. What is different are the facts. As President Obama observed several weeks ago, in Libya we had “a UN Security Council mandate . . . and we knew that we could execute very effectively in a relatively short period of time.” As difficult as Libya was, the President added, “[t]his is a much more complicated situation. . . . [T]he notion that the way to solve every one of these problems is to deploy our military, that hasn’t been true in the past and it won’t be true now.” With respect to Libya, the Security Council of course adopted two important Resolutions, 1970 and 1973. The proposed Security Council resolutions on Syria have differed substantially from 1970 and 1973 in their terms. Moreover, from a practical perspective, it is by no means clear that the type of actions taken to protect Libyan civilians would have the same effect in Syria.

But that does not mean that the international community has turned away from the Syrian people or ignored the responsibility of the Syrian government to protect its civilian population. The Syrian government has been condemned for committing human rights violations by the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council; it has been placed under sanctions by the Arab League, the United States, and the European Union; and it has been the subject of a searching report by a UN Commission of Inquiry—which found credible evidence that it has committed crimes against humanity. As I alluded to earlier, the United Nations and the Arab League appointed Kofi Annan as a Special Envoy to seek both a cessation of hostilities and political reform. And on Sunday, Secretary Clinton will join the next Friends of Syria meeting in Istanbul, which will endorse the Syrian opposition’s plan for a peaceful political transition. I recite this list not to suggest that we are satisfied with where things stand in Syria: Of course we aren’t. But the principle of a “Responsibility to Protect” vulnerable civilians, or R2P, itself recognizes the importance of pursuing such options. This list of actions does give a sense of how--consistent with the principle of R2P-we and our international partners have been continually seeking out, developing, and using the tools that are available to us and appropriate to the situation to advance the protection of the Syrian population.

(3-3)  ensuring that the Assad regime cedes power + denying impunity for gross human rights violations

Third and finally, a commitment to ensuring that the Assad regime cedes power and a commitment to denying impunity for gross human rights violations can and should be maintained simultaneously. Like so many aspects of the situation, this issue is a delicate one. But as I have already noted, the United States has strongly encouraged efforts to use emerging technologies to document and expose human rights abuses in Syria. In addition to the information that Ambassador Ford has shared on his own Facebook page, the State Department has set up a dedicated page on the “Humanrights.gov” website where we are posting satellite imagery of the Syrian Army’s attacks on civilian areas, alongside policy statements from U.S. officials.

We have co-sponsored resolutions in the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council stressing the need for accountability. At the State Department last week, I met with Paulo Pinheiro, Chair of the UN’s Commission of Inquiry on Syria, which has forthrightly stated that crimes against humanity have occurred and that the Syrian people will need to have a leading voice on issues of accountability. The international community must continue to work to uncover and tell the truth about what Assad and his thugs are doing, and ultimately, as Secretary Clinton has said, “there must be accountability for senior figures of the regime.” While it is critical that a political transition occurs, the anticipation of certain forms of post-transition accountability may help to facilitate that process—for example, by opening up space for the regime’s opponents and encouraging defections by those officials who want to distance themselves from its crimes. We think it of the utmost importance that, we work with governments and NGOs alike to continue documenting human rights violations and collecting evidence to keep shining a light on the inexcusable actions the Asad regime is taking against its people, and so the international community can uncover and tell the truth about what is occurring.

conclusion

In sum, in Syria, like elsewhere in the Middle East during this remarkable Arab Spring, we do not have the luxury of confronting a simple situation. And neither should we expect simple answers to such difficult questions. As the organizers of this annual meeting have reminded us in choosing its title, the central challenge for international lawyers in the 21^st century is “confronting complexity.” What that means—in this and every setting that modern international lawyers face—is avoiding simplistic analogies and short-sighted solutions in favor of thoughtful, nuanced approaches that might deliver lawful and durable solutions to complex global problems.

Thank you very much. I look forward to the discussion.

military intervention in Syria poses tough challenges

Pentagon presses warnings on Syria;

Military operation carries grave risks, officials say, as calls for action mount

ELISABETH BUMILLER, March 12, 2012 Monday, IHT

Senior officials say that a U.S. military intervention would be a daunting and protracted operation, with the potential for killing thousands of civilians and plunging Syria closer to civil war.

FULL TEXT

Despite growing calls for the United States to help stop the bloodshed in Syria, senior Pentagon officials are stepping up their warnings that military intervention would be a daunting and protracted operation, requiring at least weeks of exclusively American airstrikes, with the potential for killing thousands of civilians and plunging the country closer to civil war.

The officials say that Syria presents a far larger problem than did Libya, which still required a seven-month NATO air campaign last year in which hundreds of aircraft dropped and fired 7,700 bombs and missiles.

Although the United States has the military capability to launch sustained airstrikes in Syria - ''We can do anything,'' the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, told the Senate last week - defense officials say they are concerned about four tough challenges:  (military intervention)

(i), Syria , (ii) splintered opposition, (iii) Assad’s allies , (iv) int’l community against Assad

(i), The risks in attacking Syria's plentiful and sophisticated Russian-made air defenses, which are located close to major population centers; (ii) arming a deeply splintered Syrian opposition; (iii) the potential for opening up a proxy war with Iran or Russia, two crucial allies of Syria; and (iv) the lack, at least so far, of an international coalition willing to take action against the regime of President Bashar al-Assad.

(So is creating safe havens)

One senior defense official said over the weekend that even creating ''safe havens,'' or protected areas inside Syria for civilians, would be such a complex operation that military planners were ''looking at a serious contingent of U.S. ground troops'' to help establish and maintain them, should the United States take such a course of action.

(Obama’s stance)

The planning is in response to a request from President Barack Obama for preliminary military options from the Pentagon, even though the administration still believes that diplomatic and economic pressure is the best way to stop the violent repression of Mr. Assad's regime.

The violence continued on Sunday, with heavy shelling in the northern province of Idlib. Diplomatic initiatives also continued, but Kofi Annan, former U.N. secretary general who is serving as a U.N. envoy, left Damascus without securing a deal to end the conflict.

The American military options under review in Washington include humanitarian airlifts, naval monitoring of Syria and the establishment of a no-fly zone, among other possibilities, but last week General Dempsey and Defense secretary Leon E. Panetta cast them as in the earliest stages. Modern commanders in chief have routinely asked for military contingency plans during foreign crises.

Senator John McCain of Arizona and some of his Republican colleagues continue to argue that the United States has a responsibility to lead.

With an estimated 7,500 people killed in less than a year in Syria, Mr. McCain told Fox News on Sunday, President Barack Obama was violating his own vow ''to prevent massacres wherever they take place.'' The senator said that opposition members in Syria were ''being slaughtered in an unfair fight,'' made worse by aid to that country's government from Russia and Iran. He said the United States and its allies had the capability to put a stop to it, adding, ''For us not to do so, in my humble opinion, is disgraceful and shameful.''

Senator Lindsey Graham, Mr. McCain's Republican colleague from South Carolina, said in an interview that the United States has far more strategic interest in Syria than it did in Libya and that the risks are worth it. ''We can't do every war where you never lose an aircraft,'' he said.

Mr. McCain, a navy pilot who was shot down and captured during the Vietnam War, and who ran against Mr. Obama for president in 2008, has particularly angered military planners for what they say are his emotional and cavalier comments about getting into another war. The planners say they also need more direction from senior officials in Washington on the administration's goals and desired end-state in Syria.

The US military role in Libya  

''We've been sucked into this open-ended arrangement before and we're not going there again,'' a senior military official said, speaking of Libya, which required extensive American air power - as well as hundreds of cruise missiles fired from American ships and submarines - to take out Libya's air defenses so that European warplanes could operate freely in the skies. Even then, the United States continued to supply ammunition, refueling planes and to fly combat missions.

As in Libya, the early stages of an air campaign would be almost entirely American because of the United States' arsenal and electronic warfare capabilities and would probably take, General Dempsey said, ''an extended period of time and a great number of aircraft.''

The problem with safe haven  

Once the United States had air dominance, it would be possible to create either safe havens or a ''humanitarian corridor'' - a secure exit route for refugees to, say, Turkey - but military officials say the corridor and safe havens would be vulnerable to attack by what American intelligence officials say is a formidable, 330,000-troop strong Syrian Army.

''I don't know how long they would tolerate those safe havens,'' Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island and a former Army Ranger, said in a Senate hearing last week. ''But second, given safe havens, it would also I think imply that someone would have to go in and organize training and organize, literally, an army. That could take months if not years.''

what challenges in intervention in Syria, compared to Libya

Defense and intelligence officials say that Syria's integrated air defenses - a combination of thousands of surface-to-air missiles, radars and anti-aircraft guns - are not only more advanced than those in Libya, they are arrayed in densely populated areas on the country's western border, meaning that even with precision bombing, civilians nearby would be likely to die. ''There would be some severe collateral damage going after those areas,'' Mr. Panetta said last week.

weakness of Syrian opposition

Military officials say that the opposition does not have control of any one area in Syria, unlike in Libya, where, General Dempsey said, ''we had tribal forces in the east and west collapsing on the center,'' In Syria, he said, ''there's no geographic density of population to collapse anywhere; they're all intermingled.'' Military and intelligence officials say that the opposition to Mr. Assad remains splintered, made up of as many as 100 groups, and that so far no clear leaders have emerged. American officials are considering providing the opposition an array of technical assistance, including potentially communications equipment, but have yet to be successful in bringing the disparate groups together into a cohesive council.

American intelligence officials say they believe that Al Qaeda, which established cells in Syria during the Iraq war, is trying to infiltrate the opposition in order to stage attacks and try to overthrow the Assad regime. The officials said that the opposition has no sympathy for Al Qaeda but that it might not know of the infiltration. ''We haven't seen any indication that the opposition is aware of this,'' one intelligence official said.

Iran factor

Another major concern of the Pentagon is Iran, Syria's most important ally. Military and intelligence officials say that Iran has recently flown small arms in Syria, chiefly rocket-propelled grenades, as well as technological equipment and high-ranking experts to assist the Assad government in interrupting social media communications and the Internet. ''They're providing listening capability, eavesdropping capability to try and pick up where the opposition networks are at, and they're providing experts who I can only say are experts in oppressing,'' Gen. James N. Mattis, the head of the American military's Central Command, said during a Senate hearing last week.

Russia factor

At the same time, Russia is a leading arms supplier to Syria and maintains a naval station at the Syrian port city of Tartus, on the Mediterranean coast. Moscow has worked ceaselessly in recent weeks to preserve its relationship with Mr. Assad, most notably vetoing, along with China, a U.N. Security Council resolution calling on Mr. Assad to resign.

''If we jump in with purely military instruments as the U.S., absent a broader strategy, we could very quickly hasten reactions from others, namely Iran and Russia, to bolster the regime and start us down a road towards greater confrontation,'' Michele Flournoy, a former top Pentagon official, said in Washington last week.

Administration officials say that they remain concerned about Syria's chemical and biological weapons, believed to be among the largest stockpiles in the world, and that they are in discussions with allies in the region about how to secure them.