The civil war in Syria has been raging for about two years, with over 100 000 people killed and nobody seemed to care. A few weeks ago it was alleged that sarin nerve gas was used by the Syrian regime, killing about 1 500 people, and all hell breaks loose.
We are not at all advocating that it is okay to use chemical weapons in contravention of international law, but are more concerned about the lack of a concerted international response when so many were dying and the physical infrastructure of Syria was being reduced to rubble.
It seems that United States President Barack Obama has made the decision to make a pre-emptive strike against Syria’s military targets in order to teach it a lesson. He has, however, decided to take an enormous gamble by going to a Republican Congress, which has blocked his every turn, for approval.
Secretary of State John Kerry has already made a strong case for intervention when he said that if “we do not move against Syria now, history will judge us quite harshly”. He said the United Sates had proof that sarin was used.
However, on Monday, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Russia was totally unconvinced by the evidence of an alleged chemical attack by the Syrian regime, as presented by the United States and its allies. The ghost of Iraq is already being replayed.
It was evident in Britain where Prime Minister David Cameron has already suffered the ignominy of defeat when members of the British parliament – with the support of some of his cabinet members – voted against going to war with Syria.
We can only hope that the House of Commons’ conscience to stop London from going to war once again in the Middle East will give diplomacy a chance. The million-dollar question is: will the United States hold fire until the United Nations inspectors come up with their findings or not?
Though Damascus has crossed the “red line”, Obama’s leadership skills are going to be severely tested by Congress next week. The fear is that weakening the al-Assad regime in Syria is likely to embolden the rebels aligned to al Qaeda.
Russia’s President Vladimir Putin has publicly backed its ally Syria, brushing aside Washington’s claims that Damascus used chemical weapons, describing them as “utter nonsense” – echoes of Iraq.
The fact that the United States, France and Turkey are determined to go into Syria in high military gear has prompted Russia to raise alarm over the action’s inadmissibility. But Putin’s hue and cry is unlikely to make a difference.
The problem is that the United States believes it must act unilaterally to enforce selective international laws if other collective means of action are vetoed in the UN Security Council by Russia and China.
That gives the sense that the United States cannot be defied when it lays down an ultimatum. However, it is critical that the legality of unilateral attacks without UN Security Council approval be fully explored; however impotent that body has now become.
