6 Sep 2013

Obama, who won and what next

After President Putin had rattled off his list of countries that opposed the US planned attacks on Syria and claimed victory at his post summit press conference (very “unG20” behaviour), the US rushed out a rival tally claiming they’d actually won more countries’ support than the Russian leader.

The US list had 11 countries on it (though one of them, Spain, is not a G20 member but one of the countries invited in a national capacity – unlike some like Ethiopia who come representing wider bodies like the African Union). So the US didn’t strictly win 11 of the G20 but 10 of the G20 . It’s interesting to note that Italy appears on both sides’ lists!

What’s changed on Syria as a result of these two days in St Petersburg? Not much. Everyone’s pretty much in the camp they came in. Many blaming President Assad for the chemical attacks, fewer sure that a military rersponse by the US will help. President Obama sometimes literally wasn’t in the room. He was busy phoning US senators, cancelling his schedule for the next few days and planning a television address to the US people.


He’s still throwing everything into his battle to win support for military action against Syria but he spoke in his press conference today about how the more time passes from last month’s chemical attacks the harder it is to galvanise people to react. At his press conference, he ducked the questions about what happens if he fails to win one or both houses of Congress. But he appeared in one answer to be cementing in a constitutional innovation.

He said he was not planning to deploy the military in response to an imminent national threat and so it was right to get Congress’s approval. The suggestion clearly is that in “policeman” roles when the US is upholding international law rather than defending its borders and immediate interests, the president must cede some of his commander in chief powers. It’s very hard not to see that as fully ceding a veto to Congress over certain types of military action and it will be difficult for future presidents to ignore that precedent.

Follow @GaryGibbonBlog on Twitter


Tweets by @garygibbonblog

One reader comment

  1. TonyF12 says:

    Does President Obama believe that US lawmakers’ approval will make attacking Syria legal in international law? Does he believe there will be no repercussions for America if they break international law and cause many more deaths in Syria? We all know this is a precursor to regime change by force in Iran after Syria, which would be even bloodier, so we must all act with the greatest caution.

    Calling other world leaders a “jackass” is not likely to make many friends in the UN Security Council either – Russia, China and Brazil are the first three names of countries on the list of objectors who deserve more respect – it is not just Mr. Putin. The support for Obama’s War at G20 came from the “usual suspects” of friends of the USA who would not say any explicit boo to a goose if it might upset Washington. Most of them while communicating qualified support were careful in the detail of their words, communicating their disquiet and most noticeably their reluctance to having anything to do with the military action which might get blood on their own hands.

    I remember in detail the run-up to the invasion of Iraq with its dodgy dossiers and false evidence as if it were yesterday. Hearing Obama and Kerry grinding the organ with the same tunes again rings so hollow and phoney, and if anything less convincing than last time. I just hear echoes of Colin Powell and Tony Blair, and I do not want to hear them any more.

Comments are closed.