Syria and the Fall of Assad – A Lesson in Right International Order
Published December 16, 2024
Syria and the Fall of Assad – A Lesson in Right International Order
An international order developed after World War II with the creation of the United Nations. This order was intended to do away with war, promote economic and social development, and protect the rights of persons. The United States with the United Kingdom were the leaders, and have been the leaders, of this effort. Essential to this effort is reason which implicates the natural law and the law of nations while utilizing positive law. Law establishes right order, brings peace, insures justice, strengthens good norms of conduct while controlling appetites and desires, and can create a common language and understanding. Law brings unity, and a desire for unity supports law. This order, which is most remarkable in human history given it has united so many countries and peoples for such a long time in peace and increasing prosperity, is now under attack and we are engaged in a great struggle to see if it can long endure. At the heart of this attack, which comes from Putin’s Russia and Xi’s China, is a rejection of reason and with it a rejection of law both of which shatter unity. The events in Syria provide us with glimpses of this beneficial international order and help us appreciate and understand how the foreign policy of the United States has traditionally been in accordance with the natural law, the law of nations, and reason to advance unity for the betterment of all.
The Basics and the Frame of Reference
St. Thomas Aquinas, OP, Francisco Vitoria (also de Vitoria, Victoria, and Vittoria), OP, Francisco Suarez, SJ, Luigi Taparelli, SJ, James Brown Scott, and John Eppstein. These are the scholars who brought, and renewed, the discipline of the law of nations and international ethics as based on the concept of ius gentium as set forth by St. Thomas who articulated the entire discipline with his Summa Theologica. Vitoria developed the concept with his various lectures at the School of Salamanca most notably De Indes and De Potestae Civili. Suarez writing in the early 1600s furthered the study with Tractatus de Legibus ac Deo Legislatore. Taparelli came onto the scene by 1843 with his Theoretical Treatise of Natural Right Based on Fact. Scott, a legal giant of the first decades of the Twentieth Century, in his epic work, The Catholic Conception of International Law published in 1934 wrote “The modern law of nations of which Victoria was the expounder, Suarez the philosopher and [Hugo] Grotius the systematizer, is the contribution of what we may call, and indeed must call, the Spanish School of International Law. For if Grotius was not a Spaniard by blood, he was a Spaniard in his conception of international law…so far as the basic principles of his system are concerned…”[1] Scott wrote to the Father General of the Jesuits on September 29, 1934 that he had given a copy of his book to Monsgr. Pizzardo two copies of his book, with one to go to Pope Pius XI. Scott told the Father General that his book was meant to show “that the Catholic conception of International Law should be and therefore must be, the accepted Law of Nations of the future if not of the present, if the intercourse of nations is to be, as it must be, both moral and Christian.”[2]
Eppstein authored in 1935 The Catholic Tradition in the Law of Nations a book that had such a profound effect that Fr. John Lafarge, SJ, referenced it in his works pertaining to interracial justice. Eppstein edited The Code of International Ethics, the Malines’ Group or Congress last handbook on ethics in the international arena that encapsulated the natural law understanding of what we know as international relations.
If you have been reading The American Proposition, you will know that for some time now I have been discussing the work and principles set out by these great thinkers. That is because the ius gentium and natural law understanding of international law, or the Law of Nations, is ever more valuable. That is so for a variety of reasons. Most importantly, it gives us a proper framework by which to gather information, keying on the crucial facts, while assessing the propriety or morality of international actors and actions.[3] With current asymmetric warfare being waged by Russia and China on the United States, the West, and the world at large, a sound understanding of ethical or moral principles is needed in cutting through the fog that the Russian and Chinese information operations are creating. Distorting perceptions of reality, inflaming passions, clouding reasoning, and perhaps most importantly, suppressing both principles of right order and the truth are the challenges that confront us. A clear statement of ethics is needed, and its unambiguous application to situations at hand is necessary.
The events of Syria in the last two to three weeks provide what we have called a “teaching opportunity” or an opportunity to present these principles of right order. With Syria we see the existence of the community of nations (something the natural law always recognized as existing) and an international order under stress and in action. With the Syrian Civil War which has lasted more than a dozen years, we see a global conflict between a small number of ruthless, greedy tyrants who use countries as their tool or weapon by which to gain more wealth and power, and a world that rejected this vision of a global society with the United Nations Charter and all that followed at the end of World War II. However, that is not how the contest is presented by the insurgent, revisionist powers. They claim that the United States is the bad guy, the evil hegemon seeking to hold on to power as it destroys and wrecks everything good. That is a lie, propaganda and part of information operations, for if we were the hegemon as they claim, Russia and China would not have been allowed to rise. The United States is not trying to install or maintain a hegemony. The issue is whether the USA with allies will maintain a beneficial world order – increasingly based on the natural law as conceived in the Catholic vision of the Law of Nations — while China and Russia (with some transnational global interests) seek to impose tyranny and worldwide devolution, or a return to a time before Christianity. The United States, with the United Kingdom, is largely responsible for the current world order, and it is one that operates on principles based in Christianity. Indeed, the American experience on the international stage has been one of supporting the natural law, the Catholic view of the Law of Nations, all in very large measure and quite often. Not so with other countries.
Russia, and Iran, propped up a bloody dictator for their own purposes, not in the interests of the world community, and at the expense of the Syrian people. The United States and other countries worked to bring peace by establishing right order in Syria. It is in this Syrian conflict that we may discern several essential concepts of the natural law: that there is a community of nations which has obligations or duties to act for right purposes; that the common good of the community of nations is a general good that overrides specific or individualized good of a country; that in pursuit of that general good the community of nations can operate to restore right order – including removal of a tyrant — in a country that is disordered which includes the removal of a tyrant; and that faithful adherence to the treaty establishing an international organization is a moral responsibility.
Syrian Civil War
Basher al-Assad’s departure from Damascus is, according to some, the end of the Syrian Civil War which began in Spring, 2011. This resulted by some counts in the displacement of up to 13 million[4], while others put it at a lower number that includes about 5.4 million displaced abroad and 6.9 million displaced within Syria.[5] Deaths are estimated to be around 600,000.[6]
The civil war and its carnage is due primarily to the imprudent reaction of Assad to peaceable demonstrations and protests, and to his tyrannical regime. Bashar is the son of Hafez al-Assad who took power in 1970 under the banner of the secular Ba’athist power. Hafez was a brutal dictator himself who in February, 1982 killed 25,000 people in Hama as part of an effort to suppress what he considered was a Muslim Brotherhood uprising. The Assads ruled by terror and their rule was termed a kleptocracy which meant doling out wealth to supporters. Surprisingly, many minorities remained loyal to the regime as did the Sunnis.[7] That gives us an insight to the type of tyranny which the Assads maintained, and which is being resurrected in the form of Putin’s Russia and Xi’s China which is a situation in which ethnic and religious minorities are protected, order maintained, and everybody is slowly crushed, slowly impoverished, for the benefit of the rulers and their allies.
Bashar assumed the presidency upon the death of his father in 2000, and he instituted “reforms.” Markets were supposed to take the place of Arab socialism. This threatened the old patronage networks, however, those best connected with the regime gained from the turn to a market economy. As reported, the “end of subsidies and price ceilings harmed rural peasants and urban laborers.” A four year drought beginning in 2006 along with the mismanagement of farmland rendered many acres unproductive and sent a migration of farmers to the cities where they were largely unemployed.[8]
The so-called Arab Spring began in Tunisia in December, 2010. Shortly after that, fifteen boys in Deraa, Syria, spray painted on a school wall: “The people want the fall of the regime.” The boys were arrested and tortured resulting in the beginning of protests that spread around Southern Syria and the entire country beginning in March, 2011. The protesters’ demands were not unreasonable: release political prisoners, end the decades old state of emergency, grant greater freedoms, end corruption. Assad responded brutally and indiscriminately. He ordered mass arrests, torture, extrajudicial executions, depriving entire cities and areas of food, water, medicine, telephone, and electricity for days, and directing armor attacks on civilians. The response was understandable as committees of resistance sprang up around the country.[9]
Assad’s actions lead to the formation of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) in response, but they were outgunned and outmaneuvered. The Syrian National Coalition claimed to be the government in exile of Syria and was recognized as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people. It was succeeded by the ineffective National Coalition. As a result, the FSA fighters went to the Islamist brigades. This dynamic Assad encouraged or at least highlighted because he wanted the world to see the choice as being between secular rule or jihadis, considered to be terrorists.[10]
In August, 2011, President Barack Obama called for Assad to step down for the benefit of the Syrian people.[11] The President repeated this call during his address to the United Nations General Assembly four years later, and he urged Iran and Russia to work with the United States to make it happen.[12] In the meanwhile, a number of rebel groups arose in addition to the FSA. They were supported by the United States as well as various other allies including the United Kingdom, Italy, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates, while Assad was supported by Iran and Russia.[13]
When it became clear that Assad had chemical weapons and could use them on his own people, President Obama issued his famous “red line” which was that if chemical weapons were used, there would be an American military response. Sarin gas was used about a year later at Ghouta, Syria to kill 1,400 civilians in August, 2013. The Syrian government denied it was behind this attack.[14] Obama did not respond with military force but engaged in talks and diplomatic initiatives that resulted in an agreement to cooperate with Russia ostensibly to remove chemical weapons. For his failure to deliver on his red line promise, modern day Donald Trump apologists and partisans are blaming the entire conflict, or at least the loss of so many lives, on Obama and not Assad who was the tyrant. Additionally, there was a question as to whether the American military response to the Ghouta attack would have been too strong and removed Assad creating a power vacuum, or whether the response would be ineffectual and viewed as an example of American weakness.[15]
Beginning in 2013, the Islamic State or ISIS (also called ISIL) seized territory in Syria. It was met by the combined air power of the United States, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other countries with over 11,000 airstrikes while the US lead the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) on the ground.[16] The Syrian government with the help of Iran and Russia also conducted strikes against ISIS and much of the territory lost to ISIS was reclaimed by this joint effort of east and west. Russia directly entered the conflict in September, 2015 by deploying its air force ostensibly to target ISIS, but it also targeted other rebel groups thereby aiding Assad strengthen his grip on population centers. Iran was interested in maintaining a land-bridge to support Hezbollah in the fight against Israel, and hence its support for Assad.[17] Assad took Aleppo in December, 2016, a stronghold of the opposition forces, and the Islamic State was gradually rolled back. By early 2018 it held an area of less than 2 percent of what it once held in Iraq and Syria. Assad allegedly used chemical weapons again in 2017 and 2020.[18]
The various rebel groups received backing from different foreign countries, with the United States providing training and other countries providing general logistic and military support.[19] The United States supposedly provided arms covertly to anti-Assad rebel forces as early as 2013. It was undertaken in conjunction with other countries and the CIA coordinated a program known as Timber Sycamore. Many of these weapons were stolen and sold on the black market to terrorist groups.[20]
Northeast Syria posed a special problem as the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) was leading the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). In 2014, the Islamic State attacked Kobani, a strategic town near the Turkish border. United States forces assisted the SDF to victory who then sought to consolidate power. That in turn prompted a response by the Turks who in August, 2016 amassed forces to oppose both the Islamic State and the Kurds. Eventually, United States forces were withdrawn when President Donald Trump ordered the withdrawal in October, 2019 after killing the ISIS commander Abu Bakr Al-Bagdadi. The result was an increase in Turkish influence in the area.[21] Trump’s decision infuriated members of both parties as the decision opened the doors to a resurgence of ISIS in Syria.[22] Turkey pushed the Kurds back to establish a twenty mile deep buffer zone, causing the SDF to ask Assad for help and leading to the introduction of Russian troops into the region. Turkey received international condemnation and United States sanctions for the top Turkish officials with a threat that never materialized to raise steel tariffs but that never developed.[23]
By 2020, Syrians were fighting Turks, and a March, 2020 agreement brokered by Russia and Turkey lead to a cease fire and relative calm for more than four and a half years. There were attacks on Islamic state targets by the United States and allies during this period and the United States kept a force of about 1,000 soldiers to coordinate and handle those attacks. The American forces became the target of attacks after the Israeli invasion of Gaza suffering nearly 165 attacks in a four month period.[24]
The war, and Assad’s plundering, left the country in dire economic straights. Iran sought to strengthen the Syrian economy with a meeting between heads of state in May, 2023.[25] By early 2024, the conflict was in a stalemate that became characterized by “hopes for regime change have largely died out, peace talks have been fruitless, and some regional governments are reconsidering their opposition to engaging with Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad.”[26]
The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) passed numerous resolutions concerning the Syrian Civil War. A resolution to secure humanitarian aid was passed in 2014 but much of that aid was used by Assad and not sent to the rebel areas. Six years later, Russia vetoed a measure that would have allowed UN aid deliveries to the rebel-held north to go through four different routes. With the veto, only one route was allowed. Russia also vetoed measures in the Security Council that would have punished Assad.[27]
As a result, many decried the UNSC as toothless or ineffective for a number of reasons. One was the inability to get agreement – because of the veto – on humanitarian and human rights measures, as well as to mediate a conflict-ending political transition in Syria. Obviously, Assad did not want to negotiate the end of his regime, and also Russia wanted an ally in the region as did Iran which was friendly with Russia.[28] The main culprit in all of this appears to be Russia, often backed by China, in the casting more than a dozen vetoes of resolutions that could have helped to end the conflict.[29]
Despite this, the UNSC did pass a number of resolutions and those resolutions clearly formed the basis of American action, and right action, in Syria. First, there was UNSC Resolution 2042 (Res. 2042) from April 14, 2012 that called on Assad to withdraw his troops and that was followed by the authorization and formation of the United Nations Syria Mission or UNSMIS to observe the conflict. On September 27, 2013, the UNSC passed Res. 2118 which called for the verification and destruction of Syrian chemical weapons. On August 7, 2015 the UNSC passed Res. 2235 that called for the investigation and determination of responsibility for the use of chemical weapons in Syria. Res. 2178 from September 24, 2014 called for member states to respond to threats of foreign terrorist fighters in Syria, and Res. 2254 (December 18, 2015) and 2268 (February 26, 2016) called for a political solution of the conflict. A call for the cessation of hostilities was the subject of Res. 2401 passed February 24, 2018.[30]
Everything broke loose in late 2024. Abu Mohammad Al-Jolani, leader of the Hyat Tarir Al-Sham (HTS), a terrorist organization according to the United States lead by a terrorist with a 10 million dollar bounty on his head, was the man who toppled Assad and his hollowed-out regime. In a lightning campaign beginning November 27 at Aleppo and ending on December 8 with entry into Damascus, and in spite of Russian air strikes, Al-Jolani succeeded. The response of the Syrians was overwhelmingly one of joy as many started immediately to return to their homeland.[31] Al-Jolani is calling for a unified Syria and his actions to date have inspired a great deal of support and optimism especially as there are no reported attacks on Christians or other minorities. It is reported that he will issue an amnesty for all of Assad’s soldiers except for those involved in torture. Syria, without Assad who is being protected in Moscow by Putin, is entering into a new day though the relationship with the Kurdish-dominated forces in the northeast known as the Syrian Defense Forces needs to be resolved, and relations with Turkey and Syria normalized.
The US and UN – Champions of Intervention and Right Order
December 8 is a significant day for a number of reasons. That is now the date Assad’s regime was ended, and it has for a long time been the date Catholics celebrated the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. It is also the date in 1864 on which Pope Pius IX issued his famous Quanta Cura and Syllabus of Errors. Item 62 announces as error the following proposition: “62. The principle of non-intervention, as it is called, ought to be proclaimed and observed. — Allocution `Novos et ante,’ Sept. 28, 1860.”[32]
Non-intervention is an idea that holds other states may not intervene in the internal operations of another state. It was an important part of the Law of Nations as articulated by Emmerich de Vattel whose The Law of Nations published in 1758 influenced the rulers of Europe and the American Founders. And it was an idea that was perpetuated by a number of different interests for decades thereafter as these interests held that the state was a perfect society in itself.
Pius IX’s allocution as referred in the Syllabus rejected these ideas since the sovereignty of states is not absolute, states are not perfect societies, there is an international community in which states are members, and states owe duties of justice and charity to other states as well as to the subjects or citizens of each state. Intervention is allowed to promote the common good of the country and the society towards which the intervention is directed.[33] Building on the Doctors of the Church (e.g., St. Isidore) and Scriptures as well as the natural law tradition articulated by Taparelli, Eppstein explained:
“Intervention. It has been established in the previous pages that intervention in the internal affairs of one State by another, or better still by the organized society of States – since intervention is an act which has its origin in natural solidarity and society – is justified under certain conditions and may even be demanded by the Law of Charity. Its purpose according to Taparelli is `to reestablish the harmony between the social persons of the state.’ This may require support of the Government against unjust rebellion or support of some or all of the subjects against a ‘government which has gravely violated their rights, it being understood that forcible intervention can only be employed when peaceful representations and remonstrances have failed….”[34]
Interventions have occurred all through history and manifest in various ways. Eppstein in Code of International Ethics explained:
“Nonetheless, the history of international relations is very largely a tissue of continual interventions, in the ordinary sense of the word, which States claim the right to undertake in one another’s internal affairs and foreign policies – interventions which may be armed or diplomatic, open or disguised, individual or collective……Intervention does not necessarily mean war. It can take all sorts of forms: diplomatic remonstrances, economic reprisals, embargo, peaceful blockade, military or naval demonstrations. War is the most extreme form of intervention, and can be resorted to only when other methods have failed, and for a very grave motive…. “[35]
Eppstein set forth four conditions that allow for interventions in the absence of an “international organization which is juridically organized and capable of keeping order among States.” These include defending a State’s legitimate interests when that state is “unjustly attacked or threatened by the internal or external policy of another power”; to assist a victim of unjust aggression; to “secure the respect of certain rules of the law of nations, the observance of which is of vital interest to all the members of international society”; and to defend “the rights of God, the rights of human personality and the overriding interests of humanity against barbarism and tyranny.”[36]
This understanding includes one state or a number of states working together to save the people of another country from a tyrant. To understand what or who is a tyrant and what tyranny is, we turn to Francisco Suarez, SJ. He explained:
“`Is it permissible for a private person, or for his subjects to slay a tyrannical king?’ Now the term `tyrannical king,’ may be interpreted as referring either to one who has usurped the royal power unjustly and by force, or to one who is a true, that is, a constitutional, king, but exercises his sovereignty in an unjust and oppressive manner.”[37]
The concept of opposing tyranny is one known to Americans as evidenced by our own American Revolution. Vattel wrote of it in his The Law of Nations which set forth three foundational functions of the government of a state which are to defend the state, provide for the happiness of the people, and to provide for the necessities. While the perfection of each state is left to that state, there is an exception. Vattel said intervention into another country to save the people was warranted if those people asked for help. He wrote:
“It is an evident consequence of the liberty and independence of nations, that all have a right to be governed as they think proper, and that no state has the smallest right to interfere in the government of another. Of all the rights that can belong to a nation, sovereignty is, doubtless, the most precious, and that which other nations ought the most scrupulously to respect, if they would not do them an injury.
“The sovereign is he to whom the nation has intrusted the empire and the care of the government: she has invested him with her rights; she alone is directly interested in the manner in which the conductor she has chosen makes use of his power. It does not, then, belong to any foreign power to take cognisance of the administration of that sovereign, to set himself up for a judge of his conduct, and to oblige him to alter it…
“But, if the prince, by violating the fundamental laws, gives his subjects a legal right to resist him, — if tyranny, becoming insupportable, obliges the nation to rise in their own defence, –every foreign power has a right to succor an oppressed people who implore their assistance….”[38]
The United Nations Charter holds that the United Nations is not authorized “to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state”[39] thereby repeating the non-intervention concepts what has become known as customary international law. This view was further upheld in later resolutions of the General Assembly but the principle is limited by other provisions of the Charter that permit “application of enforcement measures” to “maintain international peace and security” as called for in Chapter VII of the Charter[40].The principle of non-intervention has eroded somewhat with time to provide for intervention for humanitarian reasons, which is a controversial position for many.
The United Nations came to recognize an idea known as Responsibility to Protect or in shorthand, R2P. In a resolution by the United Nations General Assembly adopted September 16, 2005, entitled “World Summit Outcome” or Resolution 60/1, the UN committed itself and all of its members committed themselves to working together, or collectively, in protecting against threats to “development, peace, security and human rights.”[41] The Members recommitted to “actively protecting and promoting all human rights, the rule of law and democracy” as they are “interlinked and mutually reinforcing” as they “belong to the universal and indivisible core values and principles of the United Nations.” [42] And the Members reaffirmed to “respect human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction of any kind as to race, colour, sex, language or religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”[43]
The resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly serve as norms of conduct for the Member States. These resolutions are designed to advance right order, peace, and unity. To be more precise, Security Council resolutions may either be recommendatory or legally binding under Article 25 of the United Nations Charter.[44] UN General Assembly Resolutions are most commonly and accurately understood to mean “political acts that reflect or create standards of proper and lawful policy acceptable for all or most States regarding a specific situation or in a specific field of activity.” [45]
When one country takes it upon oneself to violate norms of conduct or the law, then right order, peace and unity is threatened or shattered. Justice and charity then require that actions be taken to bring the offender back into line. Hence, sanctions were levied against Syrian leaders, and military forces deployed to protect civilians not only from the Assad regime but also to protect the people from the terrorists of the Islamic State. Finally diplomacy was employed to try to bring the matter to a peaceful resolution and to insure that human rights and dignity were protected. All of these tools of intervention were employed in the case of Syria by the United States and other members of the international community. However, some members of that international community maintained the tyrannical Assad regime to advance their own interests and in doing so they committed a grave offense against the community of nations – they broke unity or a general norm for what they perceived to be their specific or peculiar needs. Iran and Russia proved themselves to be lawless and violators of the peace and hence destroyers of unity for their own specific purposes, something which they continue to do to this day.
A Greater Duty
With Hitler’s invasion of Poland in September, 1939, United States Secretary of State Cordell Hull determined that “we must begin almost immediately to plan the creation of a new system.”[46] The British and the Americans did most of the work in setting up the United Nations though there were meetings with the leadership of the Soviet Union and China between October, 1943 and February, 1945. The American and British designs were different in some respects and so there was some compromise, but key aspects of the American proposal came through. Among other things, the Americans wanted to ban the resort to military force in international relations; removal of traditional concepts of international relationships consisting of spheres of influence, balances of power, and unilateral action; and the most powerful allies (Russia, China, United Kingdom, United States) fighting the Axis Powers would be given a powerful role in keeping the peace. The result was a political entity “pursuing political objectives, albeit within a legal framework” with the Great Powers “safeguarding peace and security on behalf and in the interest of all nations of the world”.[47]
The UN or the UN Security Council has been criticized as ineffective for at least a couple of reasons. One is that the veto has been used to block constructive action. Despite that, the “Uniting for Peace Resolution” or UN General Assembly Resolution 377(V) authorizes the General Assembly to call an emergency session if the Security Council fails to maintain international peace or security which usually means it is incapable of passing a resolution.
A second is that the UN does not have a standing military to compel compliance by the Member States with Security Council or General Assembly resolutions or even with rulings of the International Court of Justice. The Members States must act in accordance with right conduct and comply with the norms of conduct as well as various resolutions and decisions. If a Member State refuses to do so, then it may incur the censure of other Member States or even the General Assembly. It is possible that the Security Council could act under the Charter to fashion some sanction accordingly.
The Members of the United Nations have committed themselves to peace based on right order as set out in the Preamble of the Charter:
“We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war…to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person….to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress…And for these ends to practice tolerance and live together in peace….to maintain international peace and security…that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples, Have resolved to combine our efforts to accomplish these aims, Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations….”[48] (emphasis supplied)
The Member States committed themselves to act to keep the peace:
“Article 1….1 To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situation which might lead to a breach of the peace…..
“Article 2 The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles….2. All Members…shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present charter. 3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means….4 All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state….”[49] (emphasis supplied)
The UN Charter is a treaty, and a treaty must be honored. A treaty is a positive agreement between countries, and it brings unity and peace as set out above. Treaties must be honored unless rightly excused. As indicated earlier, a special responsibility is given to the members of the Security Council or the Great Powers which includes Russia. Putin’s Russia has a real obligation in keeping the peace, an obligation he repudiated with his aggressive war. Russia is a permanent member of the Security Council. The UN Charter places vital responsibilities on Russia and other members of the Security Council:
“Article 24 1 In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf….”[50]
Russia as a permanent member of the Security Council cannot be an aggressor nor can it support aggressors nor can it encourage or cause other situations that lead to a breach of the peace. These prohibitions include any actions that lead to a violation of the peace by the violation of human rights or other principles to which the Member States have committed themselves. Despite its solemn commitments, Russia is the aggressor in Ukraine and has been in numerous other places. Russia denies human rights and its leadership and others are accused of serious crimes against humanity. Putin’s Russia also upheld the Assad regime that threatened and destroyed human rights, the same conduct of which Russia is accused in Ukraine.
Putin’s Russia is allied with Xi’s China and the latter wants to do away with intervention as understood by the UN’s statement of R2P or other provisions for that matter, and as allowed under the Law of Nations. Putin made statements limiting intervention, but during the 79th Session of the UN General Assembly, the foreign minister of China, Wang Yi, was clear. He said:
“In the face of the task of human rights protection, China maintains that all countries’ right to independently choose their path of human rights development should be respected. No country should impose its own will on others, or arbitrarily interfere in others’ internal affairs citing human rights as an excuse…We have found a path of human rights development that suits China’s national conditions….””[51]
Russia and China are in opposition to the entire current system which, as retired Army LTG Ben Hodges says succinctly, consists of the rule of law, human rights, sovereignty of countries, freedom of the seas. Russia and China, called revisionist by the United States since at least 2012, have not lived up to their obligations under the UN Charter to keep the peace.
Principle Versus Lawlessness
President Joe Biden is someone whose career was forged during the Cold War by a political class that respected and acted on principles and ideas. This class in large measure understood the importance of the world order that arose after World War II, and President Biden certainly holds those ideas or at least to the rhetoric. He issued a statement from the Roosevelt Room of the White House on December 8 concerning the fall of Assad. It contained themes of right international order, condemning that which Assad had done as against this order, and anticipating a future based on good principles. He said:
“After 13 years of civil war in Syria and more than half a century of brutal authoritarian rule by Bashar Assad and his father before him, rebel forces have forced Assad to resign his office and flee the country.…At long last, the Assad regime has fallen. This regime brutalized and tortured and killed literally hundreds of thousands of innocent Syrians. A fall of the regime is a fundamental act of justice….You know, for years, the main backers of Assad have been Iran, Hezbollah, and Russia. But over the last week, their support collapsed — all three of them — because all three of them are far weaker today than they were when I took office…..”
The three main supporters of Syria were weakened by the actions of Israel and the West in fighting Hezbollah, Iran and Russia. The President said:
“Russia’s support for Assad also failed. And that’s because Ukraine, backed by our American allies, has put up a wall of resistance against the invading Russian forces, inflicting massive damage on the Russian forces. And that has left Russia unable to protect its main ally in the Middle East…..The upshot for all this is, for the first time ever, neither Russia nor Iran nor Hezbollah could defend this abhorrent regime in Syria. And this is a direct result of the blows that Ukraine, Israel have delivered upon their own self-defense with unflagging support of the United States.”
President Biden explained the past policy towards Syria that was one based on principles of good order in international ethics, namely the judicious use of tools for intervention (sanctions, military force, diplomacy):
“First, we made clear from the start sanctions on…Assad would remain in place unless he engaged seriously in a political process to end the civil war, as outlined under the U.N. Security Council resolution passed in 2015. But Assad refused, so we carried out a comprehensive sanction program against him and all those responsible for atrocities against the Syrian people. Second, we maintained our military presence in Syria. Our counter-ISIS — to counter the support of local partners as well on the ground — their partners — never ceding an inch of territory, taking out leaders of ISIS, ensuring that ISIS can never establish a safe haven there again. Third, we’ve supported Israel’s freedom of action against Iranian networks in Syria and against actors aligned with Iran who transported lethal aid to Lebanon, and, when necessary, ordered the use of military force against Iranian networks to protect U.S. forces….Our approach has shifted the balance of power in the Middle East. Through this combination of support for our partners, sanctions, and diplomacy and targeted military force when necessary, we now see new opportunities opening up for the people of Syria and for the entire region.”
Biden’s future policy continued in accordance with principles of international ethics. One was to protect ethnic and religious minorities. Another was defending the peace and security of the region by opposing terrorists in accordance with the international community’s decision as expressed in the United Nations Security Council. In other words, Biden and the United States were doing the will of the peoples of the world as expressed by the United Nations. He said:
“Looking ahead, the United States will do the following: First, we’ll support Syria’s neighbors — including Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, and Israel — should any threat arise from Syria during this period of transition….Second, we will help stability…in eastern Syria, protecting any personnel….against any threats….We’re clear-eyed about the fact that ISIS will try to take advantage of any vacuum to reestablish its capability and to create a safe haven. We will not let that happen. In fact, just today, U.S. forces conducted a dozen of precision strikes — air strikes within Syria targeting ISIS camps and ISIS operatives. Third, we will engage with all Syrian groups, including within the process led by the United Nations, to establish a transition away from the Assad regime toward independent, sovereign…I want to say it again — sovereign Syria with a new constitution, a new government that serves all Syrians. And this process will be determined by the Syrian people themselves. And the United States will do whatever we can to support them, including through humanitarian relief, to help restore Syria after more than a decade of war and generations of brutality by the Assad family. And finally, we will remain vigilant. Make no mistake, some of the rebel groups that took down Assad have their own grim record of terrorism and…human right abuses….So, it’s now incumbent upon all the opposition groups who seek a role in governing Syria to demonstrate their commitment to the rights of all Syrians, the rule of law, and the protection of religious and ethnic minorities….”[52]
The President Elect’s response left much to be desired. Two tweets or posts received public acknowledgement about the time of the fall of Damascus. The first from Donald Trump dealt with Syria and in it he wrote: “Opposition fighters in Syria, in an unprecedented move, have totally taken over numerous cities, in a highly coordinated offensive, and are now on the outskirts of Damascus, obviously preparing to make a very big move toward taking out Assad. Russia, because they are so tied up in Ukraine, and with the loss there of over 600,000 soldiers, seems incapable of stopping this literal march through Syria, a country they have protected for years. This is where former President Obama refused to honor his commitment of protecting the RED LINE IN THE SAND, and all hell broke out, with Russia stepping in. But now they are, like possibly Assad himself, being forced out, and it may actually be the best thing that can happen to them. There was never much of a benefit in Syria for Russia, other than to make Obama look really stupid. In any event, Syria is a mess, but is not our friend and THE UNITED STATES SHOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. THIS IS NOT OUR FIGHT. LET IT PLAY OUT. DO NOT GET INVOLVED!”
Aside from a political attack on former President Obama, Trump does not articulate any principles of international order. The door is opened to appetites and desires in the name of transactionalism which is pragmatism without principle. Trump seems to reject any participation by the United States in right order as he repudiates the spirit of the United Nations and its history that requires the Great Powers, of which the United States is one, to build a just world order. Similar to Putin and Xi, he seems to repudiate the idea of intervention or “meddling” in the affairs of another country regardless of necessity, charity or justice. This post comports with the perception that he favors isolationism for the United States.
The second posting from Trump came around the same time and after a discussion with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zielensky. Here is the post:
“Assad is gone. He has fled his country. His protector, Russia, Russia, Russia, led by Vladimir Putin, was not interested in protecting him any longer. There was no reason for Russia to be there in the first place. They lost all interest in Syria because of Ukraine, where close to 600,000 Russian soldiers lay wounded or dead, in a war that should never have started, and could go on forever. Russia and Iran are in a weakened state right now, one because of Ukraine and a bad economy, the other because of Israel and its fighting success. Likewise, Zelenskyy and Ukraine would like to make a deal and stop the madness. They have ridiculously lost 400,000 soldiers, and many more civilians. There should be an immediate ceasefire and negotiations should begin. Too many lives are being so needlessly wasted, too many families destroyed, and if it keeps going, it can turn into something much bigger, and far worse. I know Vladimir well. This is his time to act. China can help. The World is waiting!” (emphasis supplied)
This posting by Trump is problematic for several reasons. An initial question is whether Trump improperly released information of Ukrainian losses given him by Zielensky who by some reports said that he told Trump there were only 43,000 Ukrainians killed.[53] The implication is a bad one as Trump revealed classified information given him by Zielensky. Trump’s emotionally charged language of “ridiculously lost 400,000 soldiers” is a troubling signal to his foreign policy people and Putin that he will settle the conflict at any cost, and peace at any cost is surrender.
Secondly, Trump is on a first name basis with Putin. He obviously considers that acceptable though it is hard to fathom why that is so given that Putin is a murderous tyrant waging an illegal and immoral war. Calling Putin “Vladimir” and saying “I know Vladimir well” suggests that there is more to this relationship than meets the eye and it supports Craig Unser’s claim that Trump is a Russian asset. In any event, it is most inappropriate and disturbing as more than personal relationships are needed to right order the world. We shall see what happens in a few weeks.
Third, Trump reveals again what is called his transactional approach to things. The meaning of such a statement has to be that Trump does not care about principles and is ultimately pragmatic in a materialist, more properly, monetary, sense. Disregarding principles destroys the very system based on principles and reduces all policy to a commercial deal of which Trump claims to be the master. Trump, called the orange wrecking ball, is weakening the one thing – an international system based on laws — that can restrain the tyrants and protect Americans and the other peoples of the world. Laws establish right order, which brings peace, insures justice, strengthens good norms of conduct, and creates a common language and understanding. Without laws, there is no justice, and there can be no peace. The “rules based system” is essential for justice, peace and charity. All of this supports a moral, just system in which the different countries of the world collaborate for the good of all since we are all part of a community of nations.
All of this is happening at a time when Russia, under Putin, has placed itself in a difficult situation. Its economy is suffering, it has lost a large amount of its troops and material, and it is a pariah state in the world having received numerous rebukes from the United Nations General Assembly. Most importantly, in Syria it has been shown that Putin can be defeated.[54] The Polish Prime Minister, Donald Tusk, tweeted “The events in Syria have made the world realize once again, or at least they should, that even the most cruel regime may fall and that Russia and its allies can be defeated.” [55] And, Russia did not use nukes as it was being rolled up in Syria.
Putin encountered the proverbial tar baby in Zielensky’s Ukraine and he can neither stop nor can he continue on. Yet, at the same time, because it is a war of attrition, and he has the bigger country, he can definitely endure greater losses for longer than Ukraine which gives him a grisly edge. The biggest question facing Putin is whether the internal strain of the war will cause the oligarchs to rebel against his rule. Another problem Putin faces is that Russia cannot be trusted if it makes a peace deal or a truce because it has not kept any of its promises, or treaties. Any agreement with Putin most certainly will be one that will come with security agreements for Ukraine thereby solidifying its sovereignty provided its ability to enter into alliances is not hindered.
Trolls and A Conclusion
Already the usual disloyal chatterers and influencers are at work blaming the United States for the fall of Assad as if that were a bad thing. Jeffrey Sachs is front and center in that effort with a clip circulating of him telling the television hosts that Obama wanted Assad taken out and that Trump’s withdrawal in October, 2019 was the right move. Sachs, not addressing any of the atrocities of Assad’s regime nor the history of the conflict, simply skipped over the principles or moral issues at stake. This indicates that Sachs is not interested in justice and charity, and so he is a perfect shill for the Russians and Putin, whose disinformation he has repeated since the onset of the Ukrainian War. Putin and Xi do not want justice, charity, and unity – they want devolution.
There is the occasional mention by some that Christians are being, or will be, persecuted. But there is no evidence that this is happening now with the victory of al-Jolani’s forces. Indeed, as stated elsewhere and as presented by numerous news reports (see PBS News Hour December 10, 2024), Christians are safe and returning to Syria. Syrians are rejoicing and speaking of a new Syria for all Syrians – not one divided by sectarian and ethnic differences – but one like America. Members of the new Syrian government are opening the prisons and releasing the prisoners to the joy and sadness of many, and when interviewed the new government is clear eyed, positive, realistic, and calm. The best example of this reality is their leader, al-Jolani himself, who speaks calmly, with confidence and conviction. Every indication is that al-Jolani and the incoming government will rule seriously, soberly, and responsibly which are concerns and beliefs that United States Secretary of State Anthony Blinken articulated on Friday, December 13.
The trolls and shills won’t let it alone because Iran and Russia suffered defeat. The defeat for Putin is very great. Depending on the day and also the source, the Russians have withdrawn their ships from Tartus, a port they held for about 50 years. A report earlier today from X indicates that the Russian fleet is out of the Syrian ports and has insufficient fuel. It is a disastrous turn of events for the Russians as it weakens their presence in the Mediterranean. Some sources say that the Turks will invoke the 1936 Montreaux Convention and not allow the Russians to pass their ships through the Dardanelles and into the Black Sea.
The trolls, shills, and Putin’s information operations will never admit that Putin held up a tyrannical regime every bit as corrupt as he is. That is because Putin, his shills and his trolls are liars. Like Putin, Assad crushed the little guy by allowing them the belief that they were safe in their ethnic enclaves and religious communities though all the while they were being crushed little by little. When Assad’s presidential palace was occupied, there was found a fleet of 50 of the most expensive cars on earth while people starved around the country, and while in Adna and Sednaya prisons people were beaten, starved, tortured and buried alive.
This is the norm for tyrannies, but not in America which from our inception rejected tyranny. In doing so, America dedicated itself to following God’s law and nowhere else has that been clearer than in the foreign policy and international relations of the United States. The creation of the United Nations and the regime that has developed are certainly one of the greatest contributions by America to unity of all peoples of the world on principles of right order.
[1] James Brown Scott, The Catholic Conception of International Law (The Lawbook Exchange, Clarke, New Jersey, 2014), 127-128.
[2] James Brown Scott Papers, Box 52, Folder 2, Georgetown University Library, Special Collections Division, Washington D.C.
[3] While states or countries, have traditionally been known as the primary actors on the international stage, in the modern era additional – nonstate – actors have arisen. These include nongovernmental agencies, multinational or transnational corporations, international associations, and individuals
[4] Zachary Laub, “Syria’s Civil War: The Descent Into Horror,” February 14, 2023, Council for Foreign Relations.
[5] “Conflict in Syria,” February 13, 2024, Center for Preventive Action.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Laub
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Macon Phillips, President Obama: “The future of Syria must be determined by its people, but President Bashar al-Assad is standing in their way.” August 18, 2011, the White House; President Barack Obama.
[12] “Obama Tells UN: Syria’s Assad Must Go,” September 28, 2015, BBC News.
[13] “Conflict in Syria.”
[14] Anthony J. Blinken, Press Statement, “Tenth Anniversary of the Ghouta, Syria Chemical Weapons Attack,” August 21, 2013, United States Department of State.
[15] Timothy Nerozzi, “Syria’s Sudden Uprising Is a Stark Reminder of Obama’s Failed Foreign Policy,” December 8, 2024, Washington Examiner; former state department official whose name I am not authorized to use.
[16] “Conflict in Syria.”
[17] Laub.
[18] Laub; “Conflict in Syria.”
[19] Laub
[20] Nerozzi.
[21] Laub.
[22] Lindsay Newman, Dr. Leslie Vinjamuri, “Trump Withdraws Troops from Syria: The Fall Out,” November 4, 2020, Chatham House.
[23] Laub.
[24] Laub.
[25] “Conflict in Syria.”
[26] Laub.
[27] Laub
[28] Laub
[29] Michelle Nichols, “UN Security Council Appears United On Syria, Say Diplomats,” December 9, 2024, Reuters.
[30] In relevant part from certain UNSC Resolutions (emphasis supplied): 2042: “Noting the Envoy’s assessment that, as of 12 April 2012, the parties appeared to be observing a cessation of fire and that the Syrian government had started to implement its commitments, and supporting the Envoy’s call for an immediate and visible implementation by the Syrian government of all elements of the Envoy’s six point proposal in their entirety to achieve a sustained cessation of armed violence in all its forms by all parties, 1. Reaffirms its full support for and calls for the urgent, comprehensive, and immediate implementation of all elements of the Envoy’s six-point proposal (annex) aimed at bringing an immediate end to all violence and human rights violations, securing humanitarian access and facilitating a Syrian-led political transition leading to a democratic, plural political system, in which citizens are equal regardless of their affiliations, ethnicities or beliefs, including through commencing a comprehensive political dialogue between the Syrian government and the whole spectrum of the Syrian opposition; 2. Calls upon the Syrian government to implement visibly its commitments in their entirety, as it agreed to do in its communication to the Envoy of 1 April 2012, to (a) cease troop movements towards population centres, (b) cease all use of heavy weapons in such centres, and (c) begin pullback of military concentrations in and around population centres; 3. Underlines the importance attached by the Envoy to the withdrawal of all Syrian government troops and heavy weapons from population centres to their barracks to facilitate a sustained cessation of violence; 4. Calls upon all parties in Syria, including the opposition, immediately to cease all armed violence in all its forms….”
2118: “1. Determines that the use of chemical weapons anywhere constitutes a threat to international peace and security; 2. Condemns in the strongest terms any use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic, in particular the attack on 21 August 2013, in violation of international law; 3. Endorses the decision of the OPCW [Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons] Executive Council 27 September 2013, which contains special procedures for the expeditious destruction of the Syrian Arab Republic’s chemical weapons program and stringent verification thereof and calls for its full implementation in the most expedient and safest manner; 4. Decides that the Syrian Arab Republic shall not use, develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile or retain chemical weapons, or transfer, directly or indirectly, chemical weapons to other States or non-State actors; 5. Underscores that no party in Syria should use, develop, produce, acquire, stockpile, retain, or transfer chemical weapons; 6. Decides that the Syrian Arab Republic shall comply with all aspects of the decision of the OPCW Executive Council of 27 September 2013 (Annex I)….”;
2178: “Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, 1.Condemns the violent extremism, which can be conducive to terrorism, sectarian violence, and the commission of terrorist acts by foreign terrorist fighters, and demands that all foreign terrorist fighters disarm and cease all terrorist acts and participation in armed conflict; 2.Reaffirmsthat all States shall prevent the movement of terrorists or terrorist groups by effective border controls and controls on issuance of identity papers and travel documents, and through measures for preventing counterfeiting, forgery or fraudulent use of identity papers and travel documents, underscores, in this regard, the importance of addressing, in accordance with their relevant international obligations, the threat posed by foreign terrorist fighters, and encourages Member States to employ evidence-based traveller risk assessment and screening procedures including collection and analysis of travel data, without resorting to profiling based on stereotypes founded on grounds of discrimination prohibited by international law; 3.UrgesMember States, in accordance with domestic and international law, to intensify and accelerate the exchange of operational information regarding actions or movements of terrorists or terrorist networks, including foreign terrorist fighters, especially with their States of residence or nationality, through bilateral or multilateral mechanisms, in particular the United Nations; 4.Calls upon all Member States, in accordance with their obligations under international law, to cooperate in efforts to address the threat posed by foreign terrorist fighters, including by preventing the radicalization to terrorism and recruitment of foreign terrorist fighters, including children, preventing foreign terrorist fighters from crossing their borders, disrupting and preventing financial support to foreign terrorist fighters, and developing and implementing prosecution, rehabilitation and reintegration strategies for returning foreign terrorist fighters; 5.Decidesthat Member States shall, consistent with international human rights law, international refugee law, and international humanitarian law, prevent and suppress the recruiting, organizing, transporting or equipping of individuals who travel to a State other than their States of residence or nationality for the purpose of the perpetration, planning, or preparation of, or participation in, terrorist acts or the providing or receiving of terrorist training, and the financing of their travel and of their activities; 6.Recalls its decision, in resolution 1373 (2001), that all Member States shall ensure that any person who participates in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts or in supporting terrorist acts is brought to justice, and decides that all States shall ensure that their domestic laws and regulations establish serious criminal offenses sufficient to provide the ability to prosecute and to penalize….”
2401: “Underscoring that Member States are obligated under Article 25 of the Charter of the United Nations to accept and carry out the Council’s decisions, 1. Demands that all parties cease hostilities without delay, and engage immediately to ensure full and comprehensive implementation of this demand by all parties, for a durable humanitarian pause for at least 30 consecutive days throughout Syria, to enable the safe, unimpeded and sustained delivery of humanitarian aid and services and medical evacuations of the critically sick and wounded, in accordance with applicable international law; 2. Affirms that the cessation of hostilities shall not apply to military operations against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as Da’esh), Al Qaeda and Al Nusra Front (ANF), and all other individuals, groups, undertakings and entities associated with Al Qaeda or ISIL, and other terrorist groups, as designated by the Security Council; 3. Calls upon all parties to respect and fulfil their commitments to existing ceasefire agreements, including the full implementation of resolution 2268, furthermore calls upon all Member States to use their influence with the parties to ensure implementation of the cessation of hostilities, the fulfilment of existing commitments and to support efforts to create conditions for a durable and lasting ceasefire and stresses the need for relevant guarantees from those Member States….”
[31] “What happened in Syria’s civil war, who took over and what’s next after decades of brutal rule?” December 9, 2024, CNN World; Justin Salhani, “Syrians who fled home rejoice at Assad’s ouster, although some are cautious,” December 9, 2024, AlJazeera; various other reports
[32] Pope Pius IX, Syllabus, accessed at www.papalencyclicals.com.
[33] John Eppstein, Code of International Ethics (The Newman Press, Glasgow, Scotland, 1953), section 43, p. 65.
[34] John Eppstein, The Catholic Tradition of the Law of Nations, (Lawbook Exchange, Ltd. Clarke, New Jersey, 2020), 322.
[35] Eppstein, Code of International Ethics, para. 44, pp. 65-66.
[36] Eppstein, Code of International Ethics, para. 44, pp. 65-66; Eppstein also made clear that Pius IX was discussing all aspects of non-intervention meaning different means and dealings with the external policies of another state as well as the internal situation of another state. (para. 46, p. 67)
[37] Scott, The Catholic Conception of International Law, 270.
[38] Emmerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations, or, Principles of the Law of Nature Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, (The Lawbook Exchange, Clarke, NJ 2020), 154-155.
[39] Article 2(7) of the United Nations Charter.
[40] See Article 2(7) and Article 39 et seq.
[41] “World Summit Outcome,” United Nations General Assembly Resolution 60/1 adopted September 16, 2005 found at https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_60_1.pdf paragraph 72: “72. We therefore reaffirm our commitment to work towards a security consensus based on the recognition that many threats are interlinked, that development, peace, security and human rights are mutually reinforcing, that no State can best protect itself by acting entirely alone and that all States need an effective and efficient collective security system pursuant to the purposes and principles of the Charter.…“
[42] “World Summit Outcome,” paragraphs 119-120: “IV. Human rights and the rule of law 119. We recommit ourselves to actively protecting and promoting all human rights, the rule of law and democracy and recognize that they are interlinked and mutually reinforcing and that they belong to the universal and indivisible core values and principles of the United Nations, and call upon all parts of the United Nations to promote human rights and fundamental freedoms in accordance with their mandates. 120. We reaffirm the solemn commitment of our States to fulfil their obligations to promote universal respect for and the observance and protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all in accordance with the Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other instruments relating to human rights and international law. The universal nature of these rights and freedoms is beyond question….”
[43] “World Summit Outcome,” paragraphs 121 to 123: “Human rights 121. We reaffirm that all human rights are universal, indivisible, interrelated, interdependent and mutually reinforcing and that all human rights must be treated in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing and with the same emphasis. While the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind, all States, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, have the duty to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms. 122. We emphasize the responsibilities of all States, in conformity with the Charter, to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction of any kind as to race, colour, sex, language or religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. 123. We resolve further to strengthen the United Nations human rights machinery with the aim of ensuring effective enjoyment by all of all human rights and civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development…..”
[44] Antonio Cassese, International Law (2d Ed., Oxford University Press, 2005), 321. Also, “A broad distinction may be made between the provisions of SCRs [Security Council Resolutions] that take the form of recommendations and those that are mandatory. The latter either impose obligations on third parties (primarily the Member States) or authorize action by third parties that might otherwise be unlawful.” see Michael C. Wood, “The Interpretation of Security Council Resolutions,” Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law p. 80.
[45] Oleksiy Kresin, The UN General Assembly Resolutions (Verlag, Stuttgart, 2024), 52.
[46] Cordell Hull, Memoirs (New York: Macmillan, 1948), ii at 1625.
[47] Cassese, 317-320.
[48] Preamble, United Nations Charter found at https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text#:~:text=The%20Organization%20is%20based%20on,taking%20preventive%20or%20enforcement%20action.
[49] Ibid.
[50] United Nations Charter.
[51] HE Wang Yi, “Building on Past Achievements and Forging Ahead Together Toward a Community with A Shared Future for Mankind,” September 29, 2024, CN.
[52] Joseph Biden, “Remarks by President Biden on the Latest Developments in Syria,” December 8, 2024, The White House.
[53] Bloomberg, “Zelensky says Ukraine has lost 43,000 soldiers – far lower than Trump’s claim US President-elect Donald Trump says Ukraine has ‘ridiculously lost’ 400,000 soldiers in the war to date,”
December 9, 2024, South China Morning Post.
[54] AFP, Agence France Presse, “Polish PM Says Syria Events Show Russia And Allies ‘Can Be Defeated’,” December 8, 2024, Barron’s.
[55]“Polish PM says Syria events show Russia and allies `can be defeated’,” December 8, 2024, Middle East Eye