Kosovo Protocol and International Norms in Syria
The 1999 Kosovo precedent is being utilized by the Obama administration to justify potential military intervention in Syria without UN Security Council approval. Analyst Phyllis Bennis explains that while chemical weapon use is a war crime, the U.S. lacks legal authority for force unless acting in immediate self-defense. The administration has shifted language from international law to international norms to bypass treaty limitations.
kosovo protocol· syria· international norms· phyllis bennis· nato· barack obama· chemical weapons
00:00 Turn around, make a U-turn, make a U-turn, make a U-turn! Reviewed for your protection here in the Travis Heights hideout in the capital of the drone star state Austin Tejas in the morning everybody I'm Adam Curry and from northern Silicon Valley where I go by the Kosovo protocols. I'm John C. Dvorak Oh Man it's like sometimes it's annoying when we have exactly the same research or we have the exact same conclusion The Kosovo protocol now
00:45 Well, at least I got to beat you to the punch. You did. You did. That is exactly what's happening, isn't it? Yeah, it's bullcrap. It's bullcrap. I actually have a couple, a definitive clip on it, I think. It's from a woman named Phyllis Bennis who writes books about this stuff. And she was on Democracy Now! and she explained the whole thing. It was kind of funny because you saw the same press conference I did, I'm sure, with the dingbat. Trying effect I actually I actually and maybe this might flow nicely into yours. I have Elliot angle okay, he's a Democrat and he was on the BBC and you know when though and when our Congress critters feel like you know when they go on the BBC they feel like no one's watching and
01:33 You know, so we're just talking to the Brits over there and that's an interesting slip style. Yeah, this is like you go to Vegas and then no one's ever gonna notice. No one saw me with a hooker. You're wandering around town with a hooker. It's like no one saw me with a tranny hooker. No, it didn't happen at all. This might slide in nicely. When I heard this I was like, oh, here's the first guy to bring up the Kosovo. meme and you actually have a better name for it the protocol I'll just slide this in and let you take it from there that there will be a price to pay for killing innocent men women and children with gas I mean he's got so many stockpiles of it if he thinks he can get away with it he'll do it again and so will a hundred other despots in the world
02:15 That's why I think it's important for the West to send a message. Now, I don't think the U.S. should do it alone. I think it needs to be done in conjunction with our NATO allies. I liken this situation to the 1999 situation in Kosovo, in the Balkans, where you had a besieged population being murdered by its own government and NATO stepped in with airstrikes. Yeah, you mean Clinton stepped in with airstrikes. Exactly. So we found this 1999 thing that was Actually brought up by one of everybody at the State Department press conferences now are just pounding this Blondie that just squeaky voice You mean that Marie? I love her Did you get clips cuz I kind of you as well? Well, I got this one, but this is like this is where I was first brought up She wouldn't really answer it in fact it became kind of funny And I just took the funny part and this is the clip that says some time ago gotcha
03:16 Yeah, I know it's gonna be a whole show. It's a dingbat is there is the oak? Dingbat all right guys read dingbag. I'm categorizing my clip I might I might point out that we're getting angry emails about our categorization of spokesholes in Washington Just letting you know just letting you know okay, I'm sorry sorry you The US decision to bomb Kosovo in Vrtebom, excuse me, Serbia in 99 was legal?
03:58 I'm not going to do a legal analysis on many things, but certainly not a historical event that happened some time ago I just don't think that's relevant for this discussion today all historical events happened some time ago You know it's it's becoming unfair even though she's been a spokeshole for the CIA it you know the whole it's it's off-kilter and You know, she just, she can't, is that the term? She just can't handle, I mean these are some very seasoned people who cover the State Department and they can do it because they know the stuff they talk about is never aired on television or on the radio. No, never. Ever. I mean the only place you hear about it is here essentially. So they can really go all out and they're not afraid of her. They're just not afraid of her.
04:46 Well, okay, I don't want to stop your flow. I mean, I have a clip from her as well, which... Yeah, but it's not about her. Here, let's play the Phyllis Bennis discussion. This is a longer clip, but it really, I think it wraps the whole thing into a nice package. And Phyllis Bennis, what kind of legal justification then do you think that the Obama administration might use for this? And what kinds of options are available to him? Well, you know, the decision to go to the Security Council that the British are doing today is, as you mentioned earlier, guaranteed to get a veto, certainly by Russia, likely by China as well. Although it's conceivable China could abstain, but they're likely to veto. They may not even get nine sufficient votes.
05:32 What's dangerous here is that the United Nations Charter, which is the fundamental component of international law governing issues of war and peace, is very, very clear on what constitutes the legal use of military force. There is no question that having used chemical weapons, whoever used it, is a huge war crime. It's a specific violation of the chemical weapons treaty. It's also a war crime or potentially even a crime against humanity. The problem is we don't know yet who is responsible. The US is hinting that it may use the Kosovo precedent of 1999 as a way to get around the prohibition, the absolute prohibition on using military force unless it is immediate self-defense, which no one in Washington is claiming that the use of these horrible weapons in Syria somehow threatens the United States. So that's off the table. But the Security Council agrees, which we know is not going to happen.
06:32 The Kosovo president basically said in 1999, we know we can't get support from the Security Council. Russia will veto. Therefore, we won't ask the Security Council. We'll ask the NATO High Command. So they went to NATO and what a surprise, the NATO High Command said, yes, we approve the use of military force in Kosovo. Now the problem is twofold. One, NATO is a military structure. It's like a hammer and a nail. If you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If you're NATO, everything looks like it requires a military response. The other problem is legal. There is simply no legal justification that says that the NATO High Command or any other organization has the right to determine the legality of the use of force other
07:17 other than the UN Security Council. So if that is the justification, it will stand in complete violation of international law. Yeah. Okay, a couple things wrong with that. First of all, the president himself yesterday, in an interview for the NewsHour, said that we are specifically at risk, specifically at risk from these chemical weapons. Did you catch his little interview there? Yeah, I saw that and I was gonna try to clip out of it but then I said, I don't get this. She justified taking action. I know you talked about international norms because of chemical... This by the way cracks me up. There is no... so they talk about... there's no talk about international law. It's about international norms. Hey Norm! Hey Norm, get me another beer!
