The US Has No Credibility Dealing With Chemical Weapons

Truthout September 9, 2013; Also in Third World Network and
Blog.Transnational.org. This is an updated and expanded version
of “The US and Chemical Weapons: No Leg to Stand On,”
originally posted in Foreign Policy in Focus, May 2, 2013.
If, as alleged, the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons, it would indeed be a serious development, constituting a breach of the Geneva Protocol of 1925… which banned the use of chemical weapons… Syria is one of only eight of the UN’s 193 member countries not party to the convention. However, U.S. policy regarding chemical weapons has been so inconsistent and politicized, that the U.S. is in no position to take leadership in response to any use of such weaponry by Syria…

Interview on KQED’s “Forum”: Congress Set to Vote on Syria Strikes (audio)

KQED: September 29, 2013
Dr. Stephen Zunes talks with a panel that includes, David Mark, editor-in-chief of Politix, an online community focusing on national politics, and former senior editor with Politico, Robert Danin, senior fellow for Middle East and Africa studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, Steve Weber, professor of political science at UC Berkeley and author of books including “The End of Arrogance, America and the Global Competition of Ideas”, about the vote to strike Syria.

Eight Arguments Against Going to War With Syria

Truthout September 4, 2013 [Versions were also published by Future of Freedom Foundation, ZNetwork, and Santa Cruz Sentinel]
Ten reasons why the U.S. should not attack Syria. The decision by President Barack Obama to first seek congressional approval of any US military action against Syria is good and important, not only on constitutional grounds, but because it gives the American people an opportunity to stop it. It is critically important to convince members of Congress not to grant the president that authority.

Interview: The Impact of Drone Strikes on Yemen (audio)

Uprising Radio August 12, 2013: Obama has escalated the U.S. unspoken war on the Gulf Arab state of Yemen with 9 drone bombing raids in 10 days killing about 3 dozens Yemenis… apparently in response to an Al Qaeda terrorist threat which both the U.S. and Yemeni governments have cited in recent days, at the same time as the closures of American embassies in the Middle East and North Africa. But the people of Yemen are puzzled and more than a little angry…

Managing Repression (video)

International Center on Nonviolent Conflict (NonviolentConflict.org) Fletcher Summer Institute 2013: Managing Repression June 18 [Video]

Dr. Stephen Zunes, Professor of Politics and International Studies at the University of San Francisco, emphasizes the international impact of repression, specifically how nonviolent responses in the face of brutal repression makes it easier to isolate the oppressive regime, whereas violent resistance, even where seemingly justifiable, could be seen as rationalizing further repression in the name of “national security” or “counter-terrorism.” He also addresses the importance of nonviolent discipline in encouraging defections by security forces and divisions within the regime.
Dr. Erica Chenoweth, Assistant Professor at the Josef Korbel School, University of Denver, discusses how repression affects nonviolent campaigns. She provides empirical evidence that nonviolent movements are still effective even against brutally oppressive opponents. She discusses how movements “manage” repression through the promotion of backfire, as well as the strategic options movements have in dealing with repression. She also provides evidence suggesting that nonviolent movements that adopt violence or develop armed wings are not usually advantaged relative to nonviolent movements. This is because using violence against the regime, even when provoked, can undermine the necessary public participation that nonviolent campaigns enjoy, and can also undermine the backfiring of regime repression.