what’s left
By Stephen Gowans
Political scientist Ian Hurd, writing in the New York Times, scotches the misconception that there is a legal basis for a US attack on Syria. Because Syria does not belong to international conventions prohibiting the use of chemical weapons, there is no “legal justification in existing law” for US military action, Hurd writes. Even if Syria had signed onto these conventions, the treaties are enforceable only by the United Nations Security Council, and not by the United States acting unilaterally or with allies. Indeed, an attack on Syria would be illegal. [1]
Without a legal basis for military action, Washington and its British and French allies have invoked a moral imperative. British prime minister David Cameron says that planned military action “is about chemical weapons. Their use is wrong and the world shouldn’t stand idly by.” However, the Washington Post’s Walter Pincus reminds us that, “In the late 1980s, not only did the Reagan White House take no action when Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against Iranian forces and his own people but the United States also aided the attacks by providing intelligence.” [2] [pullquote] US foreign policy has long been riddled with hypocrisy and double standards. [Thus] the idea that US foreign policy in connection with Syria is shaped by outrage over the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian military and its violent repression of demonstrators carries no weight in light of Washington’s benign tolerance of similar behaviour on the part of its allies. [/pullquote]
And it’s not as if the United States has an aversion to chemical weapons. It has, along with Russia, the world’s largest stockpiles. [3]
But the lack of a legal basis for military action, and the insincerity of the allies’ claim that they’re driven by a moral revulsion against chemical weapons, is beside the point. There’s no hard evidence that Syrian forces are responsible for last week’s attack. US, British and French politicians may say they’re certain that Assad is guilty, but the US intelligence community isn’t.
According to The Associated Press’s Kimberly Dozier and Matt Apuzzo [4],
• U.S. intelligence officials say, “The intelligence linking Syrian President Bashar al-Assad or his inner circle to an alleged chemical weapons attack that killed at least 100 people is no ‘slam dunk.’”
• “A report by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence outlining the evidence against Syria is thick with caveats.”
• “U.S. intelligence officials are not so certain that the suspected chemical attack was carried out on al-Assad’s orders, or even completely sure it was carried out by government forces (emphasis added).”
The New York Times’ Mark Mazzetti and Mark Landler echo the Associated Press’s reporting. “Administration officials say there is no “‘smoking gun’” and no “hard evidence tying Mr. Assad to the attack.” [5]
So, there’s no hard evidence that the target has done what he is accused of, and even if he had, military action would still be illegal, and the assertion that the planned attack is driven by moral imperatives is not credible. Not only did the United States assist Saddam Hussein’s gas attacks, it has stood idly by while Saudi tanks and troops helped Bahrain’s royal dictatorship crack down violently on protesters and stood idly by as Egypt’s military launched a coup and killed civilians who were peacefully demonstrating against the illegal ouster of their elected government. The idea that US foreign policy in connection with Syria is shaped by outrage over the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian military and its violent repression of demonstrators carries no weight in light of Washington’s benign tolerance of similar behaviour on the part of its allies.
To understand US, British and French actions vis-à-vis Syria, it is therefore necessary to understand what sets Syria apart from Bahrain, Egypt’s military rulers, and other Western allies which have one or more of the characteristics the imperial powers claim to abominate about Syria. The distinguishing factor appears to be the degree to which the balance of a country’s public policy tilts away from domestic constituencies toward accommodating the economic, political and military interests of Western financial and corporate concerns.
Egypt, Bahrain, the Gulf state monarchies and Israel are pro-West, which means accommodating of Western economic, political and military interests, while Syria is pro-Arab, and pro-Syrian. This is the real basis for US, French and British hostility toward the country. The rest is artifice, intended to obscure the authentic motivation for Western aggression against the Arab nationalist state.
Stephen Gowans is one of Canada’s most astute political observers. His blog is What’s Left.
1. Ian Hurd, “Bomb Syria, even if it is illegal”, The New York Times, August 27, 2013.
2. Walter Pincus, “Obama is boxed in on Syria”, The Washington Post, August 28, 2013.
3. Hurd.
4. Kimberly Dozier and Matt Apuzzo, “Intelligence linking Syria to chemical attack no ‘slam dunk’, U.S. intelligence says”, The Associated Press, August 29, 2013.
5. Mark Mazzetti and Mark Landler, “U.S. facing test on data to back action on Syria”, New York Times, August 28, 2013.
APPENDIX
The view according to old-dog imperialists
Notice how these guys think, like the US “can’t afford to look weak” (sic) or the unexamined assumption that we are the center of the universe, and that not a butterfly wing moves in Syria without the natives wondering about America’s reaction. As always, this is a mainstream media product with inevitable toxicity built in, so consume with caution.—Eds
____________________
U.S. “committed” to Syria action, will look weak to Assad if it doesn’t act, retired general says
- By Amanda Cochran
(CBS News) How could a potential U.S. attack on Syria unfold? One possible model for such a strike happened in 1998, when the U.S. launched cruise missiles at targets in Afghanistan and Sudan in retaliation for the bombings of two American embassies in Africa.
Ret. Gen. Anthony Zinni, who was commander of the United States Central Command at that time, recalled parallels in the current situation with Syria to various U.S. military actions over the years, and like them, he said, the U.S. is now “committed” to action because of the “problem … of red lines.”
With Syria, President Obama has drawn a red line on the use of chemical weapons — a line that Syria has allegedly crossed several times.
Assad: “Syria will defend itself against any aggression”
U.S., Russia said to up Naval presence in Gulf region
Obama: “I have not made a decision” on Syria military strike
“Bashar Assad, much like Saddam Hussein, will continue to violate red lines and do unacceptable acts,” Zinni said on “CBS This Morning.” “We’ll find ourselves like we did in the ’90s with Iraq that we will repeatedly conduct these kinds of actions against these kinds of acts and find ourselves in sort of a slow-rolling campaign and unsure where it might lead unless we have a strategy in place to understand how this is going to play. It just can’t be a one-and-done. You can’t assume that there isn’t anything that’s going to provoke another response.”
The president, according to Zinni, must do something because the U.S. will be deemed weak if he doesn’t, and Syrian forces will “continue to test us.” Zinni added, “We need to think in terms of a longer campaign, not that this might be just one act and then finished.
He continued, “In Iraq, what we did because we assumed we would be doing this repeatedly, we decided what kinds of targets we wanted to take down to make the regime more vulnerable. For example, we rolled back and basically removed his air defense systems. So I think looking at command control, air defense, not assuming this is just a one-act play, but look at the long-term as to how to deplete and draw down any kind of capabilities he may have to making him more vulnerable in the future. Now, the trick here, though — same as we had with Saddam — if the objective is not regime removal, you don’t know when you might hit that point where you make the regime so weak it might topple anyway, and you have to be prepared for that eventuality.”
Turning to the potential for retaliation, which has been threatened by Iran and Syria, Zinni said the U.S. has to be prepared for that kind of action and it should be part of military planning. He explained, “We should always assume that any capability they have — sleeper cell terrorist attacks, use of Hezbollah to attack Israel, attacking our targets in the region, U.S. military — we should have a plan in place to respond to each of those potentials.”
However, Russia’s movement of two ships into the Mediterranean Sea doesn’t feel like a threat, but rather a signal of displeasure over the Syria situation, according to Zinni.
“It’s not a threat in any way,” he said. “We certainly have overwhelming force compared to them in the region and I don’t think they’re interested in any way interfering with us. I think it’s their way of message-sending.”
For more with Zinni on Syria, as well as the culture of leaking information in Washington, D.C., watch the video above.