Legal News

The Syrian Mistake US-France-UK Committed

 

follow us on twitter

 

 

Written By :  ABHIVARDHAN

Abstract

The possession of chemical weapons was a humanitarian catastrophe akin to another humanitarian catastrophe observable in Syrian Arab Republic. A Russian plus Iranian nexus to Assad and his supportive groups makes up a moot consonance to action and responsibility, which International Law found purposively calm. Even Security Council votes on draft resolutions relating to the working of UN-OPCW was somehow derogatory to Russia, which termed out to be under a specific matter of review. However, the Western mistake in Syria turns out to be the vague act as it turned a deviation from action against the ISIS to the government regime, which indeed puts a question for redressal. This article attempts to critically analyse the recent chemical attack in Damascus and Homs.

Introduction

 On April 14, 2018, a limited escalation of attacks in the regions of Homs and Damascus in Syria turned out to be ‘one-time shot’ for the US Defence Secretary of State, which were under a believable allegation on Assad pertaining to the possession and utility of chemical weapons in the region. Strategically, it is making an unknown, previously unconnected however unusually and unstably affecting relationship among the Western pioneers and the all-round Russian circle with Iranian support. It can be stated that Russian wished to maintain its arbitral facade towards the Syrian-Turkish transnational conflict, but Iran intends to wind up the economic development under ignorance towards public welfare and wishes to support to some specific assets for a proxy-based realm. Recalling that the Syrian Arab Republic acceded to the CWC, noting that the use of any toxic chemical, such as chlorine, as a chemical weapon in the Syrian Arab Republic is a violation of resolution 2118, and further noting that any such use by the Syrian Arab Republic would constitute a violation of the CWC[1], a draft resolution was vetoed by Russian Federation under Chinese abstinence. VASSILY A. NEBENZIA (Russian Federation) proposed, under Rule 33.3 of the Security Council’s Provisional Rules of Procedure, to adjourn the meeting until 7 November, saying it was clear why the premature adoption of the draft resolution had been proposed — to once again dishonour the Russian Federation.[2] The decision, according to him, would in no way have an impact on the future of the Joint Investigative Mechanism and he said that entity would continue to operate independently of any decision. Before voting on the draft, the Mechanism’s report should be submitted and discussed, he said, noting that the report would be published in two days.  The Russian Federation suggested adjourning the meeting until 7 November and discussing an extension in a calm way, without undue pressure[3]. While Jeremy Corbyn from the Labour Party shall attempt an institution for voting to attack the UK Government, a wake of electoral vicinity in Iraq is too important, which shall make the Shia-Sunni conflict wider and turbulent with being fair for Iran to clinically utilize the barriers. Guy Verhofstadt states the attack to be ‘unavoidable’. He furthered- “Assad must understand he cannot use chemical weapons with impunity. The international community must now lead a more systematic effort to bring peace, political transition and accountability to Syria[4]”, which is sympathetic when European unity and integrity is far discernible.

The Syrian Mistake

This is a gentle subversion towards a mistake, which the West must understand. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has written to Theresa May questioning the legality of this morning’s missile strikes in Syria[5] and has asked the PM to publish the legal advice she received from the attorney general in relation to the attack. In the letter, he writes “the UK prime minister is accountable to parliament, not the whims of the US president”, and calls for the UK to lead diplomatic engagement with all parties involved in the Syrian conflict to end the violence.[6] “A pre-designed scenario is being implemented. Again, we are being threatened. We warned that such actions will not be left without consequences. All responsibility for them rests with Washington, London and Paris[7]”, which is what the Russian Ambassador to the US meant. This special cream however of what President Trump meant is irresistible and a mere mistaken aspect of what defensive program is necessitated.

The purpose of our actions tonight is to establish a strong deterrent against the production, spread, and use of chemical weapons.  Establishing this deterrent is a vital national security interest of the United States.  The combined American, British, and French response to these atrocities will integrate all instruments of our national power — military, economic, and diplomatic.  We are prepared to sustain this response until the Syrian regime stops its use of prohibited chemical agents[8].”

Several years ago, given the strong request by Western nations, Russia opted out of supplying S-300 AD systems to Syria[9]. Taking into account recent incident, Russia believes it to be possible to reconsider this issue not only regarding Syria but other countries as well[10], which must have been done. The basic aspect is that patience is not considerable right now, but an imagery and actionable responsibility is an absolute need, which the Western bloc did not understand. Kremlin’s discretionary opinion of a ‘violation of international law’ and the pursued pause pertaining to the Israel-Jerusalem political ‘black hole’ now makes the West P5s closer to effects and this really does not help the deterrence factor as this does not really help. However, in perfect matter, International Law, to an extent, is under a moral violation. Theresa May’s brief is a sarcastic remorse and backfired defence, which is itself miserable.

This persistent pattern of behaviour must be stopped – not just to protect innocent people in Syria from the horrific deaths and casualties caused by chemical weapons but also because we cannot allow the erosion of the international norm that prevents the use of these weapons. We have sought to use every possible diplomatic channel to achieve this. But our efforts have been repeatedly thwarted. Even this week the Russians vetoed a Resolution at the UN Security Council which would have established an independent investigation into the Douma attack. So there is no practicable alternative to the use of force to degrade and deter the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian Regime. This is not about intervening in a civil war. It is not about regime change.[11]

The Fated Hope or Change Needed

Syria, may be a black hole under the lack of neutrality, whether it is political, social, economic or military. The US, UK and France, who represent the regents of active West bloc with an armed NATO and a confused EU, is now going towards a diverged mention and consideration into the United Nations Security Council. Thus, it is a need that further actions and sanction-based manifestations are duly dealt with limitation to approach and a specific diplomatic matrix of amity and consonance, which is hard to seem and observe right now, but we can still hope for something better, which if we institute to discover, can duly help. The UK Parliament and its people, the Facebook-approaching Senate and the Americans and the French people must duly deal with the scrutiny and questionability, which is an important aspect of what is to be solved after what we have lost, whether it is dozens of killing and a grave violation of International Humanitarian Law.

References

[1] S/RES/2235 (2015), p. 1.

[2] Security Council (2017, October 24). Security Council Fails to Renew Mandate of Joint Investigative Mechanism on Chemical Weapons Use in Syria, as Permanent Member Casts Veto. Retrieved from: https://www.un.org/press/en/2017/sc13040.doc.htm.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Guy Verhofstadt, (2018, April 14). Targeted US-FR-UK strikes were unavoidable. Retrieved from: https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FGuyVerhofstadt%2Fposts%2F10156689840880016&width=500″ width=”500″ height=”539″ style=”border:none;overflow:hidden” scrolling=”no” frameborder=”0″ allowTransparency=”true” allow=”encrypted-media.

[5] Grierson, James (2018, April 14, 12:31 BST). Syria latest: Theresa May calls strikes ‘right and legal’ – live updates. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2018/apr/14/syria-donald-trump-announcement-chemical-attack-live.

[6] Ibid.

[7]Retrieved from https://twitter.com/RusEmbUSA ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor.

[8] USA TODAY (10:26 p.m. ET April 13, 2018). ‘Precision strikes’: Trump’s speech on why the U.S. attacked Syria. Retrieved from: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/04/13/precision-strikes-trumps-speech-why-u-s-attacked-syria/516835002/

[9] Ibid 8.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Prime Minister’s Office, 10 Downing Street; The Rt Hon Theresa May MP (2018, April 14). Press release: PM statement on Syria: 14 April 2018. Retrieved from: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-statement-on-syria-14-april-2018.

Tags

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Close
Close