Interviewed About Syria, Use of Force, and Norms

Monday, Christopher Flavelle of Bloomberg interviewed me about the various norms at stake in the Syria debate. We discussed international norms limiting the use of force and the implications of using force to punish chemical weapons use. I'm not confident that a US retaliatory strike would meaningfully deter future use of chemicals. It might be an effective military action in Syria (by destroying capabilities), but would future dictators be deterred?

Flavelle ended up quoting me in his story published September 10:

In fact, the norm against the unauthorized use of force may be more important than the norm against chemical weapons, which are held by a small number of countries. By contrast, "norms limiting the use of force are seen as centrally important to most states," according to Rodger Payne, chairman of the political science department at the University of Louisville.

I was accurately quoted, though Flavelle and I talked about the problem of Security Council authorization. Essentially, one permanent member can block action desired by a global consensus.  The international community needs to figure out a way to authorize the use of force that is at least somewhat less onerous than the current procedure. States acting collectively ought to be able to prevent future Iraq-type invasions, if opposed by a very large number of states, but allow potentially desirable actions, such as limited interventions to protect civilians or prevent certain kinds of terrorist or WMD attacks.

Also, we didn't really talk about this, but chemical weapons are relatively easy to manufacture (their use dates back a century, after all), which means that dozens of states could make them if they wanted. That means the proposed strike might have implications for many other states in the future.

Finally, I also stressed that the norm against chemical weapons has actually been solidified if not strengthened these past few weeks by the fact that so many members of the international community are outraged by the alleged Syrian use. There are many other ways to signal the international community's displeasure, including sanctions, resolutions condemning the action, etc.


Visit this blog's homepage.

For 140 character IR and foreign policy talk, follow me on twitter.

Or for basketball, baseball, movies or other stuff, follow this personal twitter account.

Climate change and security

Britain holds the presidency of the United Nations Security Council this month and decided to introduce global warming as a threat to international peace and security, which is the domain of the body. The Guardian quoted British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett speaking to reporters in advance of the discussion:

"This is an issue which threatens the peace and security of the whole planet - this has to be the right place to debate it."

Inside the UNSC Beckett was just as direct:

"Climate change is a security issue but it is not a matter of narrow national security - it has a new dimension," she said. "This is about our collective security in a fragile and increasingly interdependent world."

...The foreign secretary quoted remarks made by President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda that global warming is "an act of aggression by the rich against the poor".

The BBC coverage referenced the so-called "Stern report on climate change, which was commissioned by the UK government" and "warned of potential economic disruption on the scale of the two world wars and the Great Depression." A document circulated by the Brits warned about the potential security threat to be posed by 200 million environmental refugees, energy scarcity, and new border disputes caused by physical changes.

New Secretary-General "Ban Ki-moon said that 'issues of energy an climate change have implications for peace and security'." He also mentioned water and food scarcities as potential threats to peace and security.

Representatives from other European nations, small island nations (the Maldives, for example), Bangladesh, Panama, and Peru were also supportive of Britain's initiative. As expected, environmental NGOs, including Greenpeace, praised the effort.

Delegates from China, Pakistan, Russia and South Africa said that the UNSC was not the appropriate forum for the discussion. The Group of 77 argues that Britain's move is an effort to expand the power of the security council beyond its domain. As you might have expected, the American representative was not enthused either.


Visit this blog's homepage.