Aidana Sapuan
In response to Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons against nonviolent Syrian citizens, on April 7, 2017 newly elected President Trump authorized 59 Tomahawk missile strikes. This has raised serious doubts about the lawfulness of Trump’s unilateral decision both under the US Constitution and the international law.
The US Constitution in Article I clearly states that the decision and responsibility to start a war belongs to Congress, not the president. Though the president can make a sole decision to repel sudden attacks, Assad’s recent actions in Syria do not represent such worries for the US national security.
Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, the Congress adopted the Authorization of the Use of Military Force (AUMF) to take violent actions against “those nations, organizations, or persons he (the president) determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.” This document has given a president of the US a mandate to make a unilateral decision to use force against a particular type of actors connected to a disastrous event in 2001. Nevertheless, during the following 16 years presidents have been using this resolution to justify operations in the Philippines, Yemen, Somalia and Syria, sometimes with a minimal connection to the main cause stated in AUMF.
In the context of this document, ISIS and Assad’s regime do not seem to fit the characteristics that would allow the sole decision to use force, since the former is an organization that did not exist in the time of 9/11 attacks, whereas Assad regime’s direct threat to US’s national security is under a big question. Therefore, the question of whether Trump’s decision violates US constitution still remains open.
There was a precedent during Obama’s administration that reflects today’s concerns around Trump’s order to deploy missiles in Syria. In 2013, Obama unilaterally authorized striking against Syria after Assad’s use of chemical weapons. This has provoked a big discontent among the representatives in Congress, which ended up by an unsuccessful presidential request to redesign and adopt a new AUMF . This precedent might explain the inactivity of current members of Congress as a kind of tacit consent to comply with Trump’s sole decision to use military force against Syria.
Nonetheless, though there might be a silent consensus between Congress and President Trump about the morals and motives for the use of US military force in Syria, do things have to stay the way they are? In terms of sustaining healthy civil-military relations, the answer is definitely no. The adoption of a new separate AUMF for Syrian conflict would define the scope of the mission and outline political and military objectives of potential military operations in Syria. Moreover, the Congress is in urgent need of providing the channel for public to check if the financial, human and military capability costs associated with the “war” is worthwhile for the Americans. President Trump’s unilateral decision to employ bombing attack in Syria and the following public debate over new AUMF is a real-world example of the theory by Avant explained in Bruneau and Tollefson (2008). Her theory, the division of civilian power between the executive and the legislature might potentially degrade the wellness of civil-military relations in the US, since instead of forming a bilateral decision, parties will try to “play one off against the other” and to promote its own interests (ibid, 61).
__________
Reference list:
Bruneau, Thomas C., and Scott D. Tollefson. 2008. Who Guards the Guardians and How: Democratic Civil-Military Relations. University of Texas Press
Web sources:
https://www.justsecurity.org/39695/illegal-hard-part-begins/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trumps-challenges-in-asking-congress-for-authorization-for-use-of-military-force/
http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/military-force-syria-congress
http://www.concordmonitor.com/Congress-must-act-on-new-Authorization-for-the-Use-of-Military-Force-9250103
In response to Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons against nonviolent Syrian citizens, on April 7, 2017 newly elected President Trump authorized 59 Tomahawk missile strikes. This has raised serious doubts about the lawfulness of Trump’s unilateral decision both under the US Constitution and the international law.
The US Constitution in Article I clearly states that the decision and responsibility to start a war belongs to Congress, not the president. Though the president can make a sole decision to repel sudden attacks, Assad’s recent actions in Syria do not represent such worries for the US national security.
Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, the Congress adopted the Authorization of the Use of Military Force (AUMF) to take violent actions against “those nations, organizations, or persons he (the president) determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.” This document has given a president of the US a mandate to make a unilateral decision to use force against a particular type of actors connected to a disastrous event in 2001. Nevertheless, during the following 16 years presidents have been using this resolution to justify operations in the Philippines, Yemen, Somalia and Syria, sometimes with a minimal connection to the main cause stated in AUMF.
In the context of this document, ISIS and Assad’s regime do not seem to fit the characteristics that would allow the sole decision to use force, since the former is an organization that did not exist in the time of 9/11 attacks, whereas Assad regime’s direct threat to US’s national security is under a big question. Therefore, the question of whether Trump’s decision violates US constitution still remains open.
There was a precedent during Obama’s administration that reflects today’s concerns around Trump’s order to deploy missiles in Syria. In 2013, Obama unilaterally authorized striking against Syria after Assad’s use of chemical weapons. This has provoked a big discontent among the representatives in Congress, which ended up by an unsuccessful presidential request to redesign and adopt a new AUMF . This precedent might explain the inactivity of current members of Congress as a kind of tacit consent to comply with Trump’s sole decision to use military force against Syria.
Nonetheless, though there might be a silent consensus between Congress and President Trump about the morals and motives for the use of US military force in Syria, do things have to stay the way they are? In terms of sustaining healthy civil-military relations, the answer is definitely no. The adoption of a new separate AUMF for Syrian conflict would define the scope of the mission and outline political and military objectives of potential military operations in Syria. Moreover, the Congress is in urgent need of providing the channel for public to check if the financial, human and military capability costs associated with the “war” is worthwhile for the Americans. President Trump’s unilateral decision to employ bombing attack in Syria and the following public debate over new AUMF is a real-world example of the theory by Avant explained in Bruneau and Tollefson (2008). Her theory, the division of civilian power between the executive and the legislature might potentially degrade the wellness of civil-military relations in the US, since instead of forming a bilateral decision, parties will try to “play one off against the other” and to promote its own interests (ibid, 61).
__________
Reference list:
Bruneau, Thomas C., and Scott D. Tollefson. 2008. Who Guards the Guardians and How: Democratic Civil-Military Relations. University of Texas Press
Web sources:
https://www.justsecurity.org/39695/illegal-hard-part-begins/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trumps-challenges-in-asking-congress-for-authorization-for-use-of-military-force/
http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/military-force-syria-congress
http://www.concordmonitor.com/Congress-must-act-on-new-Authorization-for-the-Use-of-Military-Force-9250103
No comments:
Post a Comment