Support NeoGAF

[TacticalHotdog]

A senior war crimes prosecutor has announced she is resigning from a United Nations panel on Syria, saying she has lost faith it will ever bring criminals to account and that “everyone is bad” now in the war-torn country.

Carla Del Ponte said she was quitting the three-member commission investigating human rights abuses in Syria after five years because it "does absolutely nothing".

"We have had absolutely no success," she said on Sunday. "For five years we've been running up against walls."

Mrs Del Ponte, who has previously sat on tribunals that investigated atrocities in Rwanda and Yugoslavia, has repeatedly decried the UN Security Council's refusal to appoint a similar court for Syria's six-year-old civil war.

Permanent member Russia - a key backer of Bashar al-Assad's government - has repeatedly vetoed council actions.

"I give up. The states in the Security Council don't want justice," the 70-year-old Swiss national said frankly. "I can't any longer be part of this commission which simply doesn't do anything."

The commission was set up in August 2011 by the Human Rights Council to investigate crimes in Syria, whoever the perpetrator.

It has released about a dozen reports but investigators have never gained access to Syria itself, instead relying on interviews, photos, medical records and other documents.

In the reports they detail torture, rape, starvation sieges, the mass bombing of civilians and the use of chemical weapons.

But Mrs Del Ponte, who put Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic in the dock at The Hague, said that as long as the Security Council did not put in place a special tribunal for war crimes in Syria, all such reports were pointless.

"Nothing happens, only words, words, and more words," she lamented earlier this year.

She was the first UN official to explicitly point the finger of blame at the Assad regime for the sarin gas attacks in 2013, which left more than 1,000 dead, and vowed justice would catch up with President Assad.

In her comments, made to Swiss magazine Blick on the sidelines of the Locarno film festival, Mrs Del Ponte described Syria as a land without a future.

She said she had never seen since crimes before, either in Rwanda or former Yugoslavia. "We thought the international community had learned from Rwanda. But no, it learned nothing," she said.

At first in Syria, "the opposition (members) were the good ones; the government were the bad ones," she was quoted as saying.

But after six years, Mrs Del Ponte concluded: "In Syria, everyone is bad. The Assad government is committing terrible crimes against humanity and using chemical weapons. And the opposition, that is made up only of extremists and terrorists anymore."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...now-says-un-war-crimes-prosecutor-quits-post/
http://www.npr.org/2017/08/07/54203...-crimes-expert-resigns-from-u-n-syria-inquiry
The situation in Syria remains dire with no end in sight

 

[ultratruman]

She should call out russia directly, they're the only ones stopping this.

 

[Jackpot]

She's primarily quitting due to her viewing the panel as toothless, but for some reason the article seems to focus on her views of the opposition.

 

[Chmpocalypse]

So fucking depressing.

 

[SodiumBenzoate]

The same UN Human Rights Council that Saudi Arabia is a member of?

 

[Xando]

She's primarily quitting due to her viewing the panel as toothless, but for some reason the article seems to focus on her views of the opposition.

Well because what she says about the opposition is true.
At the start of the war Assad was the only bad guy but the democratic opposition barely exists anymore and was largely replaced by extremists (Which got weapons supplied from the US ironically).

 

[sphagnum]

Rojava is better (even with their own possible crimes if the YPG did push Arabs out of their towns).

 

[Jackpot]

Well because what she says about the opposition is true.
At the start of the war Assad was the only bad guy but the democratic opposition barely exists anymore and was largely replaced by extremists (Which got weapons supplied from the US ironically).

The problem is the article's going for a nihilistic "both sides" view when the Syrian gov's victim count is larger than all the extremist groups put together.

 

[Turbo Killer]

The problem is the article's going for a nihilistic "both sides" view when the Syrian gov's victim count is larger than all the extremist groups put together.

So they are both bad, but one is much worse? Happy now?

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

It's going on 8 years of conflict now, not too surprising that only the most hardened fighters choose to remain. Especially with how brutal the Assad regime is to anyone who even lived in Rebel held areas.

 

[Xando]

The problem is the article's going for a nihilistic "both sides" view when the Syrian gov's victim count is larger than all the extremist groups put together.

What difference does that make?

Both sides kill, torture or rape civilians but Assad killed more people. Don’t see how that makes the core argument of there is no good side any less true.

 

[Nikodemos]

Sadly unsurprising. The more a civil was rages on, the more stuff starts piling up from all sides. And as Dubbed remarked, only the most hardened tend to stick on.

And the (mostly) democratic opposition forces got mashed in '14-'15. Only people more or less acceptable now are the Kurds.

 

[fabricated backlash]

The problem is the article's going for a nihilistic "both sides" view when the Syrian gov's victim count is larger than all the extremist groups put together.

No the problem is that all sides commit war crimes in Syria. This isn't a bloody contest. There's no medals for who killed more, or who did what first.

The reality of the situation is that there are no good guys left in Syria, and to belittle the victims of the opposition groups because they lack the resources of Assad to commit atrocities on the same scale, is just the height of cynicism.

 

[Preezy]

Time for Easy D to test out his nuclear football whilst he's on his holibobs.

 

[KarneeKarnay]

The UN should have put troops on the ground a long time ago. Russia should have been kicked out if they weren't refusing to play ball. SA should never have been made a member.

But no one wants to give the UN what it needs to get the job done. So fuck it. I'm with the prosecutor. We know shit has happened and no one wants to do dick about it.

 

[Blablurn]

Syria is so fucked I feel sorry for the civilians who are fighting for their lives over there day after day after day

 

[ClosingADoor]

The problem is the article's going for a nihilistic "both sides" view when the Syrian gov's victim count is larger than all the extremist groups put together.

"I only committed a few war crimes" is not really the best excuse.

 

[Rentahamster]

Told ya everyone sucks.

 

[Dopus]

She should call out russia directly, they're the only ones stopping this.

Do you actually think this?

 

[Nikodemos]

The UN should have put troops on the ground a long time ago.

That would've only been possible after Assad was gone, so step 1 should've been a decapitation strike against Assad.

Which nearly happened, but Obama refused at the last moment. IIRC the French had a Rafale squadron all fuelled and armed, ready to go.

 

[Kill Your Masters]

The same UN Human Rights Council that Saudi Arabia is a member of?

She is right though. And she did a relatively good job in ex-Yugoslavia after the war in my opinion, so she has plenty of experience in prosecuting war criminals.

I assumed this years ago.

There is no good guys or good side in Syria. Edit: speaking specifically about resistance fighters and the regime. There are good people there obviously, but whoever from the current sides gains control over Syria is essentially evil.

 

[Dopus]

That would've only been possible after Assad was gone, so step 1 should've been a decapitation strike against Assad.

Which nearly happened, but Obama refused at the last moment. IIRC the French had a Rafale squadron all fuelled and armed, ready to go.

He also refused a potential peace negotiation.

 

[spineduke]

He also refused a potential peace negotiation.

I keep seeing this trotted out and out again - do you really honestly believe that Russia or Assad would have acted in good faith and adopted the terms of the deal?

 

[Nikodemos]

I keep seeing this trotted out and out again - do you really honestly believe that Russia or Assad would have acted in good faith and adopted the terms of the deal?

Yeah, I don't buy it either. Ever since he took power for the first time, Putin has slowly but steadily devolved into a less-outwardly murderous caricature of Stalin. I'm pretty certain the idea of "good faith" amuses him.

 

[Dopus]

I keep seeing this trotted out and out again - do you really honestly believe that Russia or Assad would have acted in good faith and adopted the terms of the deal?

Do you honestly believe it's not worth exploring? If you're of the opinion that a cease fire is bad then I don't know what to tell you because the alternative, you know the situation that we have now is simply out of control. The situation in 2012 was far more manageable and there was room for some diplomacy.

It's in Russia's interests to end this.

 

[Shadowhelper]

Russia should not be on the security council. That is insane.

 

[Mohonky]

Just a clusterfuck all round.

 

[Xando]

I keep seeing this trotted out and out again - do you really honestly believe that Russia or Assad would have acted in good faith and adopted the terms of the deal?

I see what you're getting at but if they'd give Assad the choice between being bombed to hell or accept a peace deal he would have accepted.

It's just that the west always threatened action without being willing to do a military strike so Assad could just ignore all the ultimatums.

 

[spineduke]

Do you honestly believe it's not worth exploring? If you're of the opinion that a cease fire is bad then I don't know what to tell you because the alternative, you know the situation that we have now is simply out of control. The situation in 2012 was far more manageable and there was room for some diplomacy.

It's in Russia's interests to end this.

Of course I would advocate for a peace deal - and I agree that something should have been done sooner. I just don't think Russia was in a hurry to resolve it back then, as they, along with most of the major stakeholders were exploiting the situation to the best of their advantages - the refugee crisis for example, helped ignite the rightwing narrative and helped trigger brexit among other potential divides. It's very much in their interests to see a fractured EU.

 

[Dopus]

Of course I would advocate for a peace deal - and I agree that something should have been done sooner. I just don't think Russia was in a hurry to resolve it back then, as they, along with most of the major stakeholders were exploiting the situation to the best of their advantages - the refugee crisis for example, helped ignite the rightwing narrative and helped trigger brexit among other potential divides. It's very much in their interests to see a fractured EU.

Frankly this is nonsense. It was a Russian proposal in 2012. The unrest started a year earlier until it broke into civil war. Syria is really the only Russian ally in the region and the Russians have a military base there. They wanted to end it, it was in their interest to do so as quickly as possible because with each passing month things were steadily escalating. Especially on the international scene.

 

[BajiBoxer]

The problem is the article's going for a nihilistic "both sides" view when the Syrian gov's victim count is larger than all the extremist groups put together.

The problem is there aren't two sides for even a both sides argument. I did a short research paper on some of this last year, and it was eye opening getting into the various factions fighting each other all with outside funding.

 

[Nikodemos]

Russia should not be on the security council. That is insane.

Russia should definitely be on the Security Council.


At the same time, Putin and his cabal should definitely be swinging from lampposts in Feliks Dzerjinskiy Square.

 

[Kuroi Gogeta]

Wouldn't be too surprised if eventually the resources going to that conflict slowly get diverted somewhere else. Chances are Assad will take the country, but even if he does--he'll be the president of a pile of rubble and he'll have to live with being an international pariah and living the rest of his life knowing any day his life can be ended by an assassin.

 

[Nerazar]

Well, then Russia has won that battle. This is the world Putin wants to be in. Where everyone is bad, so everything is OK to do.

 

[7iberius]

Chances are Assad will take the country, but even if he does--he'll be the president of a pile of rubble and he'll have to live with being an international pariah and living the rest of his life knowing any day his life can be ended by an assassin.

"Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven."

 

[spineduke]

Frankly this is nonsense. It was a Russian proposal in 2012. The unrest started a year earlier until it broke into civil war. Syria is really the only Russian ally in the region and the Russians have a military base there. They wanted to end it, it was in their interest to do so as quickly as possible because with each passing month things were steadily escalating. Especially on the international scene.

I think you put to much stock in Russian proposals, and too little in Putins endgame.

 

[hobblygobbly]

Russia should not be on the security council. That is insane.

None of those countries should be on the security council, in fact, there shouldn't be a permanent security council at all, it should be rotational.

U.S, France, UK, Russia, and China all have the ability to veto too, which is fucking bullshit, because as we have seen all of them repeatedly use it in their own self interest, U.S, Russia, and China being the main culprits.

The structure of the security council is not applicable to the geopolitics of today, a lot of attempts of reform have been put forward but nothing has happened yet.

It's unfortunate that it isn't spoken about more, it's ridiculous that there are permanent members with veto power over UN resolutions/decisions.

 

[NEO0MJ]

Wouldn't be too surprised if eventually the resources going to that conflict slowly get diverted somewhere else.

Some of the remnants of IS fled to Afghanistan and seem to be working with the Taliban, a group they were previously fighting for control of areas.

 

[Dopus]

I think you put to much stock in Russian proposals, and too little in Putins endgame.

Yeah, because Russia would totally propose a deal with zero intention of upholding it because Syria totally isn't of strategic importance to them.

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

Human rights council is a nice idea.
But lets not kid ourselves, if human rights get in the way of the interests of any of the big players, there is nobody who will stand up for them. At least not anybody who's voice has any weight.

Give the panels the power to override vetoes of members, else it will always stay a toothless institution, at best a hypocritical symbolic commitment.

 

[Soph]

Kurds are pretty good!

 

[spineduke]

Yeah, because Russia would totally propose a deal with zero intention of upholding it because Syria totally isn't of strategic importance to them.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-russia-syria-idUSKBN1AC1R9

You don't get a half-century base deal out of nowhere - a less desperate Assad would have refused to submit as much.

 

[Nerazar]

Yeah, because Russia would totally propose a deal with zero intention of upholding it because Syria totally isn't of strategic importance to them.

Soviet playbook. Around the top ten items.

That proposal was placed in order to make them look good later on and you among others took that bait. The plan was always to extend influence in Syria by placing more soldiers into the area or even move rockets there, if possible. I don't think that Putin would have pushed Assad aside or that Assad would have accepted that peacefully. So that most probably was a token effort and given the rest of Russia's performance in the international stage or how they treat neighbors, it should be obvious not to directly trust any effort from the Kremlin.

I suppose Syria was to become a bargaining chip at some point. Peace in Syria in exchange for full recognition of Crimea for example. Something to use later on.

 

[Nikodemos]

Soviet playbook. Around the top ten items.

It's actually number two, right after claiming the Russian minority is being oppressed.

 

[Alo0oy]

The UN Security council has always been a tool for the imperial powers, how else would 120-5 vote still lose because of a veto from one of the world's imperial powers?

The entire UN needs to be remade, giving them actual teeth, and giving all (elected) nations equal voting power.

 

[Dopus]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-russia-syria-idUSKBN1AC1R9

You don't get a half-century base deal out of nowhere - a less desperate Assad would have refused to submit as much.

Sure, but they're allies. This war has only cemented that and escalation has just given them even more commitment.

Soviet playbook. Around the top ten items.

That proposal was placed in order to make them look good later on and you among others took that bait. The plan was always to extend influence in Syria by placing more soldiers into the area or even move rockets there, if possible. I don't think that Putin would have pushed Assad aside or that Assad would have accepted that peacefully. So that most probably was a token effort and given the rest of Russia's performance in the international stage or how they treat neighbors, it should be obvious not to directly trust any effort from the Kremlin.

I suppose Syria was to become a bargaining chip at some point. Peace in Syria in exchange for full recognition of Crimea for example. Something to use later on.

We've fully entered into the realms of conspiracy. The unrest in Ukraine started in early 2014 with the annexation of Crimea a month or so after.

The Syrian Civil War started in 2011 and the Russian proposal was in 2012.

Whether the proposal was accepted or not, it should have at least been explored.

 

[ultratruman]

Yeah, because Russia would totally propose a deal with zero intention of upholding it because Syria totally isn't of strategic importance to them.

It's not even about intentions mate, look at the reality of what's happening.

This civil war erupted because of the wicked cruelty of the Assad regime. You cannot bring lasting peace to Syria by cementing Assad in place, especially after all the needless war atrocities he has committed. Even China understands this is dumb.

And yeah, Obama should've acted after the 2013 Sarin attack. But we're talking about the UN here, and Russia is the only one more concerned with protecting the Assad regime than bringing real stability to Syria.

 

[Dopus]

It's not even about intentions mate, look at the reality of what's happening.

This civil war erupted because of the wicked cruelty of the Assad regime. You cannot bring lasting peace to Syria by cementing Assad in place, especially after all the needless war atrocities he has committed. Even China understands this is dumb.

And yeah, Obama should've acted after the 2013 Sarin attack. But we're talking about the UN here, and Russia is the only one more concerned with protecting the Assad regime than bringing real stability to Syria.

“He said three things: One – we should not give arms to the opposition. Two – we should get a dialogue going between the opposition and Assad straight away. Three – we should find an elegant way for Assad to step aside.”

Said in 2012.

And why you're only concerned about the Russian position is beyond me. You have Saudi and Iranian involvement. Turkish and the Kurds. ISIS on their last legs and the increasingly radical FSA and other militias including Hezbollah, then the Western powers. To put this solely on Russia is quite an absurd position to take.

 

[Liha]

U.S, France, UK, Russia, and China all have the ability to veto too, which is fucking bullshit, because as we have seen all of them repeatedly use it in their own self interest, U.S, Russia, and China being the main culprits.

The ability to veto is the only reason why these countries are members of the UN. They would leave the UN and international community the moment they lose their veto power and the failure of the League of Nations proofs that.

 

[patapuf]

The UN Security council has always been a tool for the imperial powers, how else would 120-5 vote still lose because of a veto from one of the world's imperial powers?

The entire UN needs to be remade, giving them actual teeth, and giving all (elected) nations equal voting power.

The US, Russia and China will never accept an even playing field.

It's doubtfull the other members of the security council would either.

There's no doubt the UN is toothless in many ways and needs reform. But there's limits to how powerful a UN can be.