Russia and US Row over Syria
On Thursday, September 11th, 2014, the BBC reported that Russian leaders have made statements against US airstrikes in Syria. This follows a speech by President Obama in which he discussed strikes against ISIS forces, as well as 475 military personnel deployed to Iraq (BBC).
Russian military spokesperson Alexander Lukashevich spoke on this issue, saying that “The US president has spoken directly about the possibility of strikes by the US armed forces against Isil (IS) positions in Syria without the consent of the legitimate government.”
He went on to say that “This step, in the absence of a UN Security Council decision, would be an act of aggression, a gross violation of international law.”
It seems highly unlikely that the United States leadership would go through the United Nations Security Council, given that Russia has a permanent veto power, meaning that they could easily reject any plans for military action in Syria and Iraq.
This is not the only tension between the United States and Russia. Just this past week, NATO has met to discuss their role in the Russia Ukraine conflict, where it is believed that Russia is backing rebel forces in Eastern Ukraine.
It is interesting, but not surprising that Russia is taking this position. On the one hand, the leadership has tried for years to challenge US power in the world. Interestingly, they have criticized US intervention in places like Kosovo, and then proceeded to have a differing policy with places like South Ossetia and now the Ukraine.
This is clearly an example of referencing elements of international law when it suits your own interests. Russia has shown little in the way of supporting international law with support of rebels in the Crimea and now the Ukraine.
Now, this in no way suggests that the United States should have a green light to carry out strikes without going to other international organizations; the rule of law and the United Nations should be a place where states cooperate on international affairs. Furthermore, some have suggested that Obama has not done as much as he could to clarify Congress’ role into this decision and action. As Naureen Khan, writing in Al Jazeera states:
“According to the War Powers Resolution of 1973, the President can only deploy U.S. troops for more than 60 days if Congress officially authorizes war. But in the recent past, in conflicts like those in Kosovo and Libya, the resolution has been largely glossed over with few consequences. This time, Obama administration officials are saying that the Authorized Use of Military Force that Congress passed in 2001, to declare war against those who orchestrated the Sept. 11 attacks, covers the war against IS — never mind the fact that the Obama administration called earlier this year for the legislation’s repeal.”
However, one has to question the motives when Russia, who is involved with supporting separatist rebels in Eastern Ukraine is speaking on issues of international law and sovereignty.
