US strikes Syrian airbase after chemical weapons attack

China urges all sides to exercise restraint

China on Friday called on all sides to prevent the deterioration of the situation in order to ensure a political solution of the Syrian crisis after the US struck Syrian airbase for chemical weapons attacks.

Foreign ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying said on Friday’s routine press conference that China condemned the chemical attacks carried out in Syria recently. China always opposes the use of chemical weapons by any country, organization or person for whatever purposes, and China’s position will remain consistent.

The spokesperson noted that China supports the United Nations in launching an independent and comprehensive investigation on the issues in order to come to a conclusion that stands the test of history and reality.

The US fired cruise missiles on Friday at a Syrian airbase from which it said a deadly chemical weapons attack had been launched this week, the first direct US assault on the government of Bashar al-Assad in six years of civil war.

The missile strike catapulted the US into a confrontation with Russia, which has military advisers on the ground assisting its close ally Syria.

The Syrian army said the US attack killed six people at its airbase near the city of Homs. Nine civilians including four children were killed in the US missile attack on the Syrian airbase near the city of Homs on Friday, the Syrian state news agency SANA said.

The army called the attack “blatant aggression” and said it made the US a “partner” of “terrorist groups” including Islamic State.

A spokesman for Russian President Vladimir Putin said the strike had seriously damaged ties between Washington and Moscow. Putin, a staunch ally of Assad, regarded the US action as “aggression against a sovereign nation” on a “made-up pretext,” spokesman Dmitry Peskov said.

Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev complained on Friday that US missile strikes were one step away from clashing with the Russian military.

Ground troops unlikely

Chinese experts interviewed by the Global Times believe that it is unlikely for the US to send ground troops to Syria.

Zhu Feng, an international relations professor from Nanjing University, told the Global Times that “the US may continue its airstrikes in the future but sending ground troops on a large scale is an unlikely option.”

Li Qingsi, a professor from the Renmin University of China, said a dozen missiles won’t change the situation in Syria. “If the US sends ground troops, it can overthrow Assad in a short period of time and change the power balance between the US and Russia in Syria. However, whether the international com- munity would accept such an action remains a question. The international opposition could rise and the US needs to take the consequence into serious consideration,” Li told the Global Times on Friday.

The experts also said that Russia will most likely react with vocal condemnation rather than military action. “Putin is savvy in diplomatic skills and will not let US-Russian ties further deteriorate,” Li noted.

“Russia could provide Assad government with more weapons or stealthily uproot the US intelligence outposts in Syria. But before the US sends out ground troops, Russia will do its best to reinforce what it has already accomplished, or otherwise it may risk losing everything in the Middle East,” Li said.

US officials said they had taken pains to ensure Russian troops were not killed, warning Russian forces in advance and avoiding striking parts of the base where Russians were present.

Several countries said they were notified in advance, but none had been asked to take part. US officials described the attack as a one-off that would not lead to further escalation.

The European Union said on Friday that it understood the aim of US missile strikes in Syria as an effort to deter any more chemical attacks there, but also highlighted political solutions as the only way to end the war.

The US launched dozens of cruise missiles at an airbase in Syria controlled by President Bashar al-Assad on Friday morning Beijing time in response to an earlier chemical weapon attack.

This is the first direct US assault on an Assad target in six years of Syrian civil war. In 2013, the Syrian government was accused of using chemical weapons and the Obama administration was mulling an airstrike. But the crisis was eventually resolved with Russian diplomatic efforts.

This crisis however was triggered by a chemical weapon attack in Syria on Tuesday that reportedly caused over 200 civilian casualties, including children. Countries including the US, the UK and France immediately announced that Assad’s forces were behind the attack, though the latter denied the accusation. Russia once again sided with the Syrian government. When the incident came before the UN Security Council, great divergence in opinion emerged between the Western camp and Russian and Chinese representatives.

The US military attack on Friday took place despite no definitive results from the investigation by an international organization, and was carried out in the absence of a UN Security Council resolution. The Trump administration wasted little time in striking its targets, marking a stark contrast with its predecessor.

The US’ decision to attack the Assad government is a show of force from the US president. He wants to prove that he dares to do what Obama dared not. He wants to prove to the world that he is no “businessman president” and that he will use US military force without hesitation when he considers it necessary.

US military action opens the door for other direct foreign military attacks on the Assad government, a signal that outside interference in Syria is rapidly escalating. Before US airstrike, Assad’s forces had gained an obvious advantage in the civil war, but foreign military interference could change the situation.

The US military strikes could lead to a “falling out” between the US and Russia. Conflict between the two countries will once again emerge.

Not too long ago, Trump said that simultaneously attacking the Islamic State and the Syrian government would be foolish. But now he has ordered an attack despite affording himself only a narrow window in which to make his decision. This is Trump’s first major move in international affairs, and it leaves an impression that the decision was made in haste and is not without contradictions.

Neither Russia nor Iran will remain silent on the attack nor sit idly by and accept the fallout. The Syrian civil war is entering a new phase. More refugees will flee the region and Europe may have to pay the price.