re: "Trying to beat Palestine on a technicality"

Joshua Keating at PASSPORT ("A Blog By The Editors Of Foreign Policy") makes a crucial distinction that, in our overly legalistic and litigious society, is lost on many.

Money quote(s):

"(T)he impending U.N. General Assembly vote recognizing the Palestinian state will be illegitimate, as Palestine doesn't meet international law's minimum standards for nationhood"

That's not Mr. Keating's position, by the way; he's just re-stating another's argument.

"I don't think this is a particularly strong case for supporters of Israel to make. Montevideo is a rather quaint set of criteria with little actual relevance in the Calvinball world of contemporary sovereignty disputes. This is doubly true when it comes to U.N. recognition."

Calvinball? Rather fizbin.

"U.N. member states come into being not because they meet an objective standard for nationhood. As I've written before, if that were true, the Palestinian state would probably have been admitted long before South Sudan. Countries become member states after two-thirds of the General Assembly votes for them and the Security Council approves. It's a political process, not a legal one, and wishing it away with a technicality is unlikely to be effective." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Bear in mind also that, UN membership aside, what makes a nation-state is being a nation-state; nothing more, nothing less. Recognition by others, even the UN, is nice and all, but only dispositive if you thing the UN is some sort of world authority or something.

re: "The Daily Caller - The Libyan intervention is not wholly legal"

David Kopel at The Daily Caller is troubled by the legalities.

Money quote(s):

"Is President Obama’s war against the Libyan government legal? It is arguably compliant with modern international law, because it has been authorized by the United Nations Security Council. Nothing in international law, however, can change the United States Constitution’s procedures for when the United States can go to war — which require the consent of Congress."

Nothing in the U.N. Charter about it superseding the Constitution. I read it (the Charter) decades ago, and if it had said something like that I feel certain it surely would have stuck in my memory.

"(T)he Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power “To declare War.” Some persons claim that the president’s commander-in-chief power includes unilateral authority to make war on his own initiative. The founders believed otherwise."

There is indeed a fuzzy bit of Constitutionality about the president's role as commander-in-chief and Congress' responsibility for declaring war. This is one of those areas that gets hashed out over time and there's often some back and forth over this stuff. That being said, it shouldn't be considered beneath the dignity of the commander-in-chief to comply with either the Constitution or at least the War Powers Act. Or so one might have thought.

"America’s first war in Libya — two centuries ago — complied with the Constitution. The Barbary pirates, who were supported by the government of Tripoli, seized American ships in the Mediterranean because the Americans would not pay protection money. While President Thomas Jefferson dispatched the American Navy to guard the ships, he asked Congress for permission to take further action. As his message to Congress acknowledged, authorization for offensive war is an “important function confided by the Constitution to the Legislature exclusively.”

Congress passed two separate authorizations for military force in 1801 and 1802."

Has anyone checked to see if one of those has, perhaps, gone unexpired all these two centuries now and might still be in force?

"Placing U.S. forces under a NATO command changes nothing. Even if the NATO Treaty could somehow authorize war, that treaty only requires nations to fight in response to an attack against the territory of a NATO member."

Considering that the commander of NATO is a U.S. Navy admiral (and a good guy, by all reports), this would be a rather thin fiction at best.

re: "War Powers"

Dr. Jerry Pournelle at Chaos Manor ("The Original Blog *") is a pretty bright guy.

Here's his take:

"(T)here are two holes in the roof of Gaddafi's palace as I reported last night, but the US military now says that Gaddafi is not a target. This probably means that some component of the Tripoli air defense system was installed in or on the palace. Possibly there was a radar on the roof."

These were my thoughts exactly. After all, it's not been unknown, even in the U.S., to station elements of some sort of air defense arrangement on the grounds of presidential palaces, particularly during wartime. As time goes on, however, we're starting to see air strikes on items (tanks, boats) whose connection with enforcement of a no-fly-zone eludes me.

"The President claims the War Powers Resolution as the authorization for the gunboat style bombardment of Libyan air defense forces. I presume he uses Harvard Law School logic: the US is a signatory to the UN treaty. The UN has called for a no-fly zone in Libya. The US is obligated to carry out the mandates of the UN, because treaties are the supreme law of the land and rank with the Constitution. The War Powers Resolution gives the President the power to resist attacks on US forces. Any attempt to impose the no-fly zone would inevitably expose US forces to attack from Libyan air defenses, and therefore it would be absurd to send in US aircraft over Libya while those air defense forces are intact; therefore carrying out the UN resolution did expose US forces to attack, and therefore the preemptive strikes on Libyan air defense targets was within the powers given by the War Powers Resolution. QED."

Dr. Pournelle cuts right to the heart of this matter. It's not as if the U.S. doesn't have a window into the machinations of the U.N. Security Council. As I learned, long ago, when I used to do "model U.N." as a high schooler, the U.S. has a permanent seat on the Security Council. And the U.S. has a permanent veto power in that body as well. So when the U.N. Security Council tells us something, it's somewhat like whispering in our own ears.

"Note that there is in fact some validity to the President's logic as explicated above. (Note also that I made it up: this is not based on any official statement I know of.) If you grant that the US is obligated to respond to the UN resolution imposing a no-fly zone, then the rest certainly follows, and any President who sent in US forces without adequate preparation would and should be condemned. However: the US holds a veto over such UN resolutions, and in fact the US sought that resolution. The counter argument here is that a UN resolution cannot give the President of the United States power to make wars without the consent of Congress, and if the President believes the US is obligated to act when the UN mandates such an action, then he ought not consent to such a UN resolution without authorization of Congress. That, however, contradicts the almost universally approved doctrine that matters of foreign policy are pretty much the business of the President and the President alone, and while Congress and particularly the Senate may advise the President, neither Congress nor Senate have any veto over how the President uses the UN votes and veto powers." (Bold typeface added for emphasis - CAA)

"Usually when we debate the limits to the power of the president to make (as opposed to declare) war, it is already too late: we are in, and the Legions need our support. This time we are not yet in, and we have no particular obligations to anyone. A good time for a real debate on these matters.

As to my views, I have no objection to wringing Gaddafi's neck, but I do not believe that decision belongs to the President alone. This is a matter for the Congress of the United States to decide. The nature and quality of debates on this matter should be illustrative. They might even change people's opinions about the present leadership qualities in the United States."

Just so. The Libyan dictator isn't exactly on my Christmas card list. He's a bad guy, has the blood of American servicemen and civilians on his hands (and has had so for decades) and belongs on any clear-thinking American's "better off dead" list.

But when it comes to the Constitution, I'm something of a stickler for form. Let's do this right. As both my long-time readers here will be aware, I consider the Iraq War Resolution to have sufficed as a declaration of war for Constitutional purposes, so I'd have the same reasonably wide benefit of the doubt for something like that here.

re: "Smart Diplomacy (By Other Means): Arab League "Ally" Criticizes Attacks In Libya"

Drew M. at Ace of Spades HQ watches how things fall apart, the center does not hold.

Money quote(s):

"We've heard how important Arab League support for the operation in Libya was and is. Supposedly its support was pivotal in getting the west moving and its participation would insulate us from charges of "imperialism" and "killing more Muslims"."

It's a nice fantasy; how's that working out for us?

"Apparently, the Arab League has a "Reset" button of its own."

They also, like the PLO and now various "Palestianian Authority" figures, have a tendency to say one thing in English and quite another for their Arabic language audiences.

"According to Obama and Clinton we're not leading this thing. That of course is absolute crap and the world can see it."

No really, NATO is in charge now. And the U.S. has as much to do with NATO's goings-on as it does with the U.N. Security Council's.

JG - Zimbabwe, African liberation and decolonisation

From my archive of press clippings:

Jamaica Gleaner

Zimbabwe, African liberation and decolonisation

published: Sunday July 6, 2008

Robert Buddan POLITICS OF OUR TIME

Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe is faced with sanctions from the west, mediation by Southern Africa and a call for a government of national unity from the African Union. The African Union opposes western sanctions being organised by the French leadership of the European Union (EU) and the American leadership of the UN Security Council with the British in tow.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"Mugabe was leader of the liberation movement, Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU), which had fought for independence against the apartheid-like policies of white-ruled Rhodesia, a country that had relied on the support of apartheid South Africa.

In fact, Zimbabwe's 17-year liberation war paralleled that of South Africa's African National Congress (ANC) and both leaderships (Mugabe and Thabo Mbeki) remain close today.

The former Rhodesia became independent as Zimbabwe on April 18, 1980."

&

"Colonisation began when Cecil Rhodes, with the backing of the British, took over land that is now mostly Zimbabwe.

The Shona and Ndebele people fought their first liberation war in 1896/97 to get their land back but white power only grew.

White agriculture flourished and the Shona and Ndebele were shunted off into 'African reserves', the dust bowl of Zimbabwe.

Even when the war for liberation won independence it was a highly compromised independence.

Rhodesia's whites had made up less than five per cent of the population but held 95 per cent of the votes and 70 per cent of the Africans' land.

An agreement for independence reserved as many as one-third of the parliamentary seats for these whites, 20 Assembly seats and 10 seats in the Senate, and whites remained in control of the police, army, air force judiciary and civil service.

Mugabe's liberation government abolished the reserved assembly seats at the first chance in 1987 and the Senate seats in 1990."