Subjecting Syria’s Chemical Weapons Stockpiles To International Control: A Fool’s Errand?

Despite Syrian strongman Bashar Al Assad now fully agreeing to surrender his military’s chemical weapons stockpiles to full international control, is the task making this possible nothing more than a fool’s errand? 

By: Ringo Bones 

Even though Syrian strongman Bashar Al Assad managed to reach a deal with both America and Russia without the Obama administration ever firing a single shot on surrendering his military’s chemical weapons stockpiles to international control, I, like many others, have doubts whether this can even be practically achieved within the mid 2014 deadline. There are a number of reasons on why this now looks more like the proverbial fool’s errand and quite a “Quixotic Task” for the international community to fully implement.

As respected international organizations not controlled by Russia shall now be designated to be in charge in putting the Syrian military’s chemical weapons stockpiles more or less under UN control, the difficulty of the complicated process of subjecting Assad’s chemical weapons stockpiles under international control and subsequent destruction by mid 2014 has yet to be fully discussed. After all, we all got to this point because Assad allegedly used his chemical weapons on Syrian civilians not loyal to him during their still on going civil war. 

The difficulty of controlling Assad’s chemical weapons centers upon the very fact that UN weapons inspectors are not UN Peacekeepers. They are primarily trained for chemical weapons detection and the supervision of their dismantling once declared – not as UN sanctioned global policemen in charge of peacekeeping via keeping warring factions from harming unarmed civilians / refugees.

Another “fly-in-the-ointment” about the Bashar Al Assad now agreeing to surrender his chemical weapons stockpiles in order to avoid an American lead military intervention is that the UN is utterly unsure about Assad’s honesty and sincerity in the declaration of all of his existing chemical weapons stockpiles for international inspection and subsequent destruction on the agreed timetable. This is where the agreed proposal of the US and Russia on what to do with Assad’s chemical weapons stockpiles devolves into a fool’s errand. 

And the on-going civil war in Syria where tens of thousands of unarmed civilians are already killed via conventional means and millions of refugees fleeing the fighting had now become a humanitarian concern for countries surrounding Syria. Imagine the difficulty of UN weapons inspectors dodging small-arms fire while trying to detect the barest of traces of the evidence of chemical weapons being used that will be used in a case for charging Syrian strongman Bashar Al Assad for war crimes in The Hague when the time comes.

As the UN weapons inspectors begins in Syria, the proverbial “boots on the ground” – more likely via US special forces operatives – will be a necessity to protect the UN weapons inspectors doing their work in the middle of Syria’s on going civil war. It might be either via UN Peacekeepers or a small cadre of US troops providing an escort role to insure safety of the weapons inspectors, but this might attract attacks from rebel factions of the Syrian civil war with ties to Al Qaeda further complicating the issue. If this doesn’t pass muster as a “fool’s errand”, I don’t know what does? 

Syria Surrendering Its Chemical Weapons to International Control: A Landmark Peace Agreement?

Even though it still won’t halt the on-going bloodshed of Syrian civilians being decimated by conventional weapons, should the Assad government’s agreement to surrender its chemical weapons stockpiles considered a landmark peace agreement? 

By: Ringo Bones 

Let’s make it clear, Syrian strongman Bashar Al Assad now agreeing to surrender his military’s chemical weapons stockpiles to international control in the wake of overwhelming evidence that chemical weapons were used – though by which side is still under investigation – in the ongoing Syrian civil war back in August 21, 2013 is a clear violation of the 1925 Geneva Protocol that prohibits the use of toxic and asphyxiating gases and chemical agents will not end the ongoing slaughter of Syrian civilians being decimated by conventional means. A “tentative” time-table has now been agreed by US Secretary of State John Kerry and his Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, to destroy surrender and put under international control all of Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles by the middle of 2014. Given the alternative of the Obama administration launching Tomahawk Cruise Missiles with conventional explosive warheads as a punishment to the Assad regime of using Sarin gas on Syrian civilians not loyal to the regime, is the agreement of Bashar Al Assad surrendering chemical weapons to international control more or less a landmark peace agreement on behalf of the Obama Administration? 

A few weeks ago, US Secretary of State John Kerry somewhat “jokingly” suggested that the Syrian strongman Bashar Al Assad could avoid a military strike via conventionally tipped Tomahawk Cruise Missiles as a punishment for its alleged use of chemical weapons on Syrian civilians not loyal to his regime if he surrenders his military’s chemical weapons stockpiles to international control. Inexplicably, Russia – who as one of the permanent seat-holders of the UN Security Council and been blocking an international intervention against the Syrian civil war since it started two years ago – agreed with State Secretary Kerry’s suggestion. Unfortunately, right-wing Christian conservatives in America had always criticized this recent Obama Administration decision on not launching any retributive strike on the Assad regime since Kerry and his Russian counterpart agreed on this relatively peaceful settlement. 

From a political and philosophical perspective, the 1925 Geneva Protocol that prohibits the use of poisonous and asphyxiating gases and chemical agents and of biological methods of warfare during times of war – primarily born out of a painful tactical experience during World War I over the indiscriminate way chemical weapons kills everyone on the battlefield and the potential carnage it can inflict on unprotected civilians had never been easy to enforce under existing international law – then and now. During Nazi era Germany, fascist era Italy under the behest of Benito Mussolini and with Nazi top brass as observers used newly discovered nerve gases that were not yet invented during World War I on Abyssinian separatists with impunity. While back in March 6, 1988, Saddam Hussein ordered one of his loyal henchmen Chemical Ali to drop Sarin, hydrogen cyanide and mustard gas on the Kurdish of Halabja over their suspected loyalty to Iran while the then Reagan Administration never spoke out about the incident. 

Part of the difficulty of the enforcement of the 1925 Geneva Convention is that even though most countries had signed it back in June 17, 1925 on behalf of the United States and many other powers, the United States Senate has refrained from giving its full consent to the ratification of the 1925 Geneva Protocol and is therefore not binding to the United States. Even as relatively recently during the Vietnam War, the United States could be considered a non-signatory of the 1925 Geneva Convention. It wasn’t until April 10, 1975 that the United States was in full binding agreement with the 1925 Geneva Protocol. 

Sadly, even if Assad surrenders the entire Syrian military's stockpile of chemical weapons within the agreed timetable, he could still "exterminate" those Syrians not loyal to him by conventional means. And by that time, the death toll in Syria's ongoing civil war could exceed one million. 

Is Whistleblower Edward Snowden Guilty Of High Treason?

Despite leaking sensitive state secrets that allegedly revealed the unjust eavesdropping of the Obama administration on average American citizens, is the former NSA contractor Edward Snowden guilty of high treason?

By: Ringo Bones 

Currently trapped in international legal limbo in an airport transit terminal in Moscow, former U.S. National Security Agency contractor and famed whistleblower Edward Snowden has attracted runaway interest from the leading news providers, late night comedians and every average citizen of the world. Though he might seek political asylum in either Russia or those South American countries with belligerent diplomatic beef with the U.S. government, it looks like he might follow the Russian punk rock band Pussy Riot’s example in order to an almost permanently stay in Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Even though it’s rather disconcerting that no distinguished journalist or political pundit has compared him to Benedict Arnold and given the existing evidence – is Edward Snowden guilty of high treason? 

It would be a surprise to everyone that American comedian Wanda Sykes used to work for the U.S. National Security Agency, but unlike the high-school dropout Snowden who only, at present, has a high-school equivalency level education, Sykes had a doctorate before the powers-that-be at the NSA entrusted her with the U.S. government’s most sensitive secrets. And given that back in May 2013 there was a study conducted whose findings show that people of high I.Q. are less likely to commit violent crime (but the way they use their intellect to not get caught hasn’t yet been mentioned), the world’s top security analysts has been pointing out that narcissism is the most likely reason for Edward Snowden’s leaking of the U.S. government’s and the NSA’s most sensitive top secret data. And Snowden’s dissatisfaction with his beautiful exotic dancer wife and a rather comfortable lifestyle in a quiet suburb in picturesque Hawaii only reinforces the case of narcissism. 

Unlike late 1960s era RAND Corporation leaker and Vietnam War veteran Daniel Ellsberg who leaked sensitive top secret Pentagon documents pertaining to the U.S. government’s rather controversial involvement in the Vietnam War, Edward Snowden fled away from the United States and didn’t surrender to the authorities. While Daniel Ellsberg publicly surrendered to the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts in Boston back in June 28, 1971 after Ellsberg shared top secret documents to New York Times correspondent Neil Sheehan back in June 13, 1971. While 21^st Century era leaker Edward Snowden remained on the lam until this day, Daniel Ellsberg was willing to serve the 115 year prison sentence for violating the Espionage Act of 1917just to expose the unjust and malfeasant way the Vietnam War was being run by the US government at the time which further earned the ire of then US Defense Secretary Robert s, McNamara and then US President Richard M. Nixon. 

The George Zimmerman Shooting Of Trayvon Martin: 21st Century Lynching?

Even though he got a not guilty verdict due to a quirky “Sand Your Ground” law in Florida, is the neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman’s shooting of Trayvon Martin tantamount to lynching? 

By: Ringo Bones 

The tragic, senseless and preventable shooting death of a young African-African teenage boy mistaken for a prowler by an overzealous neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman that happened back in February 26, 2012 in Sanford, Florida has surprisingly reached a not guilty verdict on the neighborhood watchman on all counts of murder and manslaughter due to a quirky and arcane “Stand Your Ground” law in Florida that allows any gun owner to shoot a perceived intruder committing a trespassing offense even if the intruder poses no immediate threat to the gun owner. Given that the U.S. Civil Rights Movement that gave equality to African-Americans is now over 50 years old, does the shooting death of an unarmed African-American teenage boy by an overzealous neighborhood watchman who was clearly stalking and spoiling for a confrontation with that said young man tantamount to a 21^st Century lynching? 

The Jena 6 incident during the Bush administration and the namby-pamby way it was handled by that administration only makes me wonder if African-Americans have truly achieved equality in the United States over half a century after the Civil Rights Movement. Such tragic incidents only makes the aging 78-RPM shellac of Billie Holyday’s Strange Fruit that I had been started to play since 2006 seems strangely up-to-date topical in our largely colorless and limp-sounding digital music download age. The only silver lining of the tragic Trayvon Martin shooting is that the demonstrations and rallies called by leading African-American leaders like the Rev. Al Sharpton in major cities across the United States against the unjust not guilty verdict granted to former neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman had been peaceful so far. Not unlike the not guilty verdict granted to those LAPD personnel in 1992 that were clearly caught on tape inflicting police brutality on Rodney King a year before that resulted in widespread rioting over 20 years ago. 

Should The Philippines Have Its Own Version Of Jon Stewart?

Egypt’s version of Jon Stewart has been grabbing headlines earlier this year after being accused of insulting Egypt’s President Morsi and Islam, does the Philippines ever had its own version of Jon Stewart? 

By: Ringo Bones 

Earlier this year, Egyptian political satirist Bassem Youssef – more popularly known to the rest of the world as “Egypt’s Jon Stewart” – became famous beyond his home country after the Egyptian government issued an arrest warrant against him for allegedly insulting Egyptian president Mohammed Morsi and Islam. After embroiled in such hot water, Bassem Youssef got invited by the real Jon Stewart to appear as a guest in The Daily Show With Jon Stewart. As a former heart surgeon turned host of his very own political satire show titled The Program, Bassem Youssef is only one of the countless activists in Egypt choosing to use political satire to inspire change to a government that still seem to be trapped in the quagmire of the over 30-year Mubarak dictatorship. Given that Egypt has its own version of Jon Stewart, isn’t it high time for the Philippines to also have its very own version of Jon Stewart? 

Back in the early 1990s, the closest thing for the Philippines of having its very own version of Jon Stewart was a then very popular political satire show – now largely forgotten – titled Mongolian Barbecue where a self-styled Mongolian host named Mr. Shooli poked fun at the topical political issues of the day – especially the day’s buzzwords and sound-bytes. Mongolian Barbecue fans today will likely remember the “Political Wheel” – used to poke fun on Filipino politicians of the early 1990s who lacked political will. And every self-respecting Mongolian Barbecue fans will probably still remember those “Behest Man” jokes. Given that dysfunctional Filipino politicians are litigious as Hell, a Doonesbury  like cartoon strip called Pugad Baboy was sued by a Estrada administration crony back in 1999 after it poked fun at widespread nepotism and cronyism in Philippine politics that was then still alive and kicking years after the Marcos dictatorship. 

So is it high time for the Philippines to have its own version of Jon Stewart? Young folks today – as in Filipino millennials – would probably say: “Hell Yes!!! Well, I mean there is a lot of that contemporary dystopia we lovingly call the Philippine society to poke fun and satirize about. The Philippine educational system alone has been begging to be poked fun at after it has became a parody of itself by voluntary electing itself to be run like a 13^th Century Catholic / Abrahamic theocracy since the mid 1990s. I mean the Philippine Department of Education only respects one’s belief system if it revolves around a Middle Eastern charlatan that lived centuries ago and then ruthlessly evangelized by a bloodthirsty Medieval-era European warlord or a variant thereof.  Belief systems revolving around healing crystals and enlightened technologically advanced extraterrestrial beings capable of interstellar travel need not apply in the Philippines Department of Education for starters. This alone is not bad for a first episode for your very own political satire show.  Sadly, if a Filipino comedian reminiscent of Mr. Shooli was around in the Philippines these days and is as active and as “civic minded” as him during his heyday in the early 1990s, he – or she – would be immediately targeted for extra-judicial killing or threatened with ex-communication by the Philippine Vatican Princes just for “telling like it is”.