‘Geneva Documents’ Expose Constitutional Gap between Damascus, Opposition

‘Geneva Documents’ Expose Constitutional Gap between Damascus, Opposition
TT
20

‘Geneva Documents’ Expose Constitutional Gap between Damascus, Opposition

‘Geneva Documents’ Expose Constitutional Gap between Damascus, Opposition

The sixth round of talks of the Syria Constitutional Committee in Geneva concluded on Friday with “big disappointment” for the UN Special Envoy for Syria Geir Pedersen as they stood on the “precipice of flexibility” outlined by Damascus.

This has put the ball in Moscow’s court. It will decide on the future of the political process in the next stage.

Russia will mount a two-pronged diplomatic campaign that will see efforts spent on getting the Syrian government to move forward to the seventh round of talks according to the previous operational reference and negotiations with Arab and Western nations on approving concessions, delivering aid, and lifting off isolation and sanctions facing Damascus in exchange for the “flexibility” shown by it.

“I think it’s fair to say the discussion today was a big disappointment,” Pedersen said at a brief news conference on Friday.

This week’s round of the Syrian Constitutional Committee talks, the first since last January, was supposed to be a major breakthrough after delegations agreed to start by drafting constitutional principles.

Nevertheless, the delegations were unable to work on the four proposed provisions of the new constitution principles, and they also failed to set a date for the seventh round of talks.

For his part, Pedersen noted that there needs to be more trust and political will so that the drafting process may commence.

The drafting committee consists of 45 members from the Syrian government, opposition, and civil society.

The delegations agreed to task the Syrian government with handling provisions related to “sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic” and “terrorism and extremism.”

The opposition delegation took on responsibility for drafting constitutional text related to “the army, armed forces, security, and the intelligence,” while the civil society delegation would draft text on “the rule of law.”

Pedersen said the government delegation decided not to present any new text.

This comes as a shock to Pedersen’s efforts in the past months, as he waged a diplomatic campaign to bring the government and opposition delegations to an agreement on a working mechanism to begin “drafting the constitution” and holding the sixth round of talks.

Indeed, Moscow was able to obtain approval from Damascus on a “mechanism of action.” This was thanks to high-profile interventions, including the discussion of the issue during a meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Syrian counterpart, Bashar al-Assad, in mid-September.

It was after Moscow’s success in getting Damascus on board that the date for the sixth round of talks was set between October 18 and 22 in Geneva, the only place where the opposition and government are still treated on equal footing.

Last Sunday, Pedersen held a tripartite meeting that included the heads of the government and opposition delegations, Ahmed al-Kuzbari and Hadi al-Bahra. This was the first time that al-Kuzbari and al-Bahra met in the past two years.

On the eve of the sixth round of talks, last Monday, an understanding was reached on practical measures so that the four constitutional principles would be discussed at a pace of one code a day.

It was also agreed that each party would submit their proposals in writing and then discuss them. According to the agreement, all the principles would be reviewed on the last day with preparations to complete the presentation of other principles in two upcoming rounds before the end of 2021.

Western Oversight

Western envoys in Geneva or back “cautiously welcomed” the Constitutional Committee’s sixth round of talks, with some calling for the opening of other provisions in UNSCR 2254 so that it covers a comprehensive cease-fire, the file of detainees, and the voluntary and safe return of refugees.

Rejection of Separatist Agendas

The head of the government delegation, al-Kuzbari, presented a two-page proposal on the “sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic.” The proposal had six items that included a total rejection of any intervention into the war-torn country’s internal affairs and a confirmation that Syria was “unified by land and people, and indivisible.”

According to al-Kuzbari’s proposal, “everyone who deals with any external party in any illegal manner is subject to legal accountability.”

“Any separatist or semi-separatist projects or trends are...contrary to the principle of the unity of the Syrian land and contrary to the will of the people,” it read, adding that the “state has the exclusive right to sovereignty over natural resources and underground wealth.”

Impartial Security and a Neutral Army

“The army is compelled to adhere to complete political neutrality and support the civilian authorities in accordance with the provisions of the law,” read the proposal presented by the head of the opposition’s delegation, al-Bahra.

“Security services are tasked with safeguarding security, individuals, and property while respecting basic human rights principles and within the framework of complete political neutrality,” the proposal added.

On Wednesday, the delegation of civil society presented its proposal for the principle of “the rule of law” in two pages.

“All Syrians are equal before the law in terms of duties and rights,” read the proposal.

The proposal also stipulated that “war crimes, crimes against humanity and violations of human rights do not have a statute of limitations, and that all national state institutions work to implement the principle of non-impunity.”

Supporting the Army

On the fourth day, al-Kuzbari presented the opposition’s draft for the principle of “terrorism and extremism” based on previous papers delivered to the United Nations on the same subject.

The new paper stipulated five principles that include the state’s commitment to “confronting terrorism in all its forms and tracking its sources of financing,” in addition to “rejecting extremist ideology and working to eradicate it.”

The opposition’s proposal added that “the Syrian Arab Army and the Armed Forces are national institutions that enjoy the support and backing of the people, and are responsible for defending the integrity, security, and sovereignty of the homeland from all forms of terrorism, occupation, interference and external aggressions.”

Major Gap

After each item of the proposals was introduced, discussions took place, and each party presented some amendments.

According to participants, discussions were serious and professional, with periodic meetings held between al-Kuzbari, al-Bahra, and Pedersen, unlike the previous rounds.

Despite the extraordinary meetings, a significant gap was exposed between the three segments of the Constitutional Committee. This gap was further widened by the government delegation’s refusal to present new proposals or shift to adopting shared drafts.

More so, signs emerged on al-Kuzbari finding it challenging to agree to hold the seventh round of talks next month.

It is believed that this “will put the ball in the Russian court,” so that Moscow will persuade Damascus to make the government delegation work according to the “working mechanism” agreed upon between al-Kuzbari and al-Bahra.



The 911 Presidency: Trump Flexes Emergency Powers in His Second Term

FILE PHOTO: US President Donald Trump attends a meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz (not pictured) at the White House in Washington, D.C., US, June 5, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo
FILE PHOTO: US President Donald Trump attends a meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz (not pictured) at the White House in Washington, D.C., US, June 5, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo
TT
20

The 911 Presidency: Trump Flexes Emergency Powers in His Second Term

FILE PHOTO: US President Donald Trump attends a meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz (not pictured) at the White House in Washington, D.C., US, June 5, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo
FILE PHOTO: US President Donald Trump attends a meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz (not pictured) at the White House in Washington, D.C., US, June 5, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo

Call it the 911 presidency.
Despite insisting that the United States is rebounding from calamity under his watch, President Donald Trump is harnessing emergency powers unlike any of his predecessors.
Whether it’s leveling punishing tariffs, deploying troops to the border or sidelining environmental regulations, Trump has relied on rules and laws intended only for use in extraordinary circumstances like war and invasion.
An analysis by The Associated Press shows that 30 of Trump’s 150 executive orders have cited some kind of emergency power or authority, a rate that far outpaces his recent predecessors.
The result is a redefinition of how presidents can wield power. Instead of responding to an unforeseen crisis, Trump is using emergency powers to supplant Congress’ authority and advance his agenda.
“What’s notable about Trump is the enormous scale and extent, which is greater than under any modern president,” said Ilya Somin, who is representing five US businesses who sued the administration, claiming they were harmed by Trump’s so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs.
Because Congress has the power to set trade policy under the Constitution, the businesses convinced a federal trade court that Trump overstepped his authority by claiming an economic emergency to impose the tariffs. An appeals court has paused that ruling while the judges review it.
Growing concerns over actions
The legal battle is a reminder of the potential risks of Trump’s strategy. Judges traditionally have given presidents wide latitude to exercise emergency powers that were created by Congress. However, there’s growing concern that Trump is pressing the limits when the US is not facing the kinds of threats such actions are meant to address.
“The temptation is clear,” said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program and an expert in emergency powers. “What’s remarkable is how little abuse there was before, but we’re in a different era now.”
Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., who has drafted legislation that would allow Congress to reassert tariff authority, said he believed the courts would ultimately rule against Trump in his efforts to single-handedly shape trade policy.
“It’s the Constitution. James Madison wrote it that way, and it was very explicit,” Bacon said of Congress’ power over trade. “And I get the emergency powers, but I think it’s being abused. When you’re trying to do tariff policy for 80 countries, that’s policy, not emergency action.”
The White House pushed back on such concerns, saying Trump is justified in aggressively using his authority.
“President Trump is rightfully enlisting his emergency powers to quickly rectify four years of failure and fix the many catastrophes he inherited from Joe Biden — wide open borders, wars in Ukraine and Gaza, radical climate regulations, historic inflation, and economic and national security threats posed by trade deficits,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said.
Trump frequently sites 1977 law to justify actions
Of all the emergency powers, Trump has most frequently cited the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to justify slapping tariffs on imports.
The law, enacted in 1977, was intended to limit some of the expansive authority that had been granted to the presidency decades earlier. It is only supposed to be used when the country faces “an unusual and extraordinary threat” from abroad “to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.”
In analyzing executive orders issued since 2001, the AP found that Trump has invoked the law 21 times in presidential orders and memoranda. President George W. Bush, grappling with the aftermath of the most devastating terror attack on US soil, invoked the law just 14 times in his first term. Likewise, Barack Obama invoked the act only 21 times during his first term, when the US economy faced the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression.
The Trump administration has also deployed an 18th century law, the Alien Enemies Act, to justify deporting Venezuelan migrants to other countries, including El Salvador. Trump's decision to invoke the law relies on allegations that the Venezuelan government coordinates with the Tren de Aragua gang, but intelligence officials did not reach that conclusion.
Congress has ceded its power to the presidency
Congress has granted emergency powers to the presidency over the years, acknowledging that the executive branch can act more swiftly than lawmakers if there is a crisis. There are 150 legal powers — including waiving a wide variety of actions that Congress has broadly prohibited — that can only be accessed after declaring an emergency. In an emergency, for example, an administration can suspend environmental regulations, approve new drugs or therapeutics, take over the transportation system, or even override bans on testing biological or chemical weapons on human subjects, according to a list compiled by the Brennan Center for Justice.
Democrats and Republicans have pushed the boundaries over the years. For example, in an attempt to cancel federal student loan debt, Joe Biden used a post-Sept. 11 law that empowered education secretaries to reduce or eliminate such obligations during a national emergency. The US Supreme Court eventually rejected his effort, forcing Biden to find different avenues to chip away at his goals.
Before that, Bush pursued warrantless domestic wiretapping and Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the detention of Japanese-Americans on the West Coast in camps for the duration of World War II.
Trump, in his first term, sparked a major fight with Capitol Hill when he issued a national emergency to compel construction of a border wall. Though Congress voted to nullify his emergency declaration, lawmakers could not muster up enough Republican support to overcome Trump’s eventual veto.
“Presidents are using these emergency powers not to respond quickly to unanticipated challenges,” said John Yoo, who as a Justice Department official under George W. Bush helped expand the use of presidential authorities. “Presidents are using it to step into a political gap because Congress chooses not to act.”
Trump, Yoo said, “has just elevated it to another level.”
Trump's allies support his moves
Conservative legal allies of the president also said Trump’s actions are justified, and Vice President JD Vance predicted the administration would prevail in the court fight over tariff policy.
“We believe — and we’re right — that we are in an emergency,” Vance said last week in an interview with Newsmax.
“You have seen foreign governments, sometimes our adversaries, threaten the American people with the loss of critical supplies,” Vance said. “I’m not talking about toys, plastic toys. I’m talking about pharmaceutical ingredients. I’m talking about the critical pieces of the manufacturing supply chain.”
Vance continued, “These governments are threatening to cut us off from that stuff, that is by definition, a national emergency.”
Republican and Democratic lawmakers have tried to rein in a president’s emergency powers. Two years ago, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the House and Senate introduced legislation that would have ended a presidentially-declared emergency after 30 days unless Congress votes to keep it in place. It failed to advance.
Similar legislation hasn’t been introduced since Trump’s return to office. Right now, it effectively works in the reverse, with Congress required to vote to end an emergency.
“He has proved to be so lawless and reckless in so many ways. Congress has a responsibility to make sure there’s oversight and safeguards,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who cosponsored an emergency powers reform bill in the previous session of Congress. He argued that, historically, leaders relying on emergency declarations has been a “path toward autocracy and suppression.”