Trump risked global conflict with strike, Putin avoided it

The firing of approximately 120 American, French and English missiles into Syria, which Donald Trump called ‘‘perfectly executed’’ and Theresa May added was ‘‘legally justified’’, was — so far — the most reckless act of the 21st century.

It was reckless because it crossed a direct red line set down by Vladimir Putin. Putin, who is not known for making idle threats, warned that war was possible between the Superpowers if Trump repeated his earlier trick done in 2017 of firing missiles into Syria, as they would no longer be passive if their Syrian ally was attacked again. The Russians warned that this time, they would respond by not only shooting down the missiles, but also, targeting the launch platforms, such as the planes, boats or submarines, they were fired from. This was especially so if Russians were killed in the attack.

Trump took this risk — and called Putin’s red-line a bluff — because in his mind, Assad had, again, crossed the red line that America had set. Unlike Obama, Trump has struck Syria every time chemical weapons have been used. In 2017 Trump’s attack on Syria destroyed 20 per cent of Assad’s air force. This time, Trump and his allies took three chemical research and storage facilities.

Such an approach not only now makes him look stronger than Putin, it also helps Trump look formidable in the forthcoming debates on Iran and their nuclear deal, as well as the ‘‘denuclearisation’’ negotiations with North Korea. The missile strikes also help distract public attention from the political storms that surround the president in Washington.

President Macron of France associated himself with the same red line of using military force if chemical weapons were used in Syria. Teresa May had not articulated the same red line, but she agreed that chemical weapon use in Syria ‘‘must not go unchallenged’’. May was associated with the position of the United States and France, not because of her desire to go to war, but because of her need to stand behind her friends, like they recently stood behind her country in her dispute with Russia, over the attempted assassination, with another chemical weapon, of Sergei and Yulia Skripal.

Although Putin now looks weak to some for not following up on his red-line threat to target the launch platforms, his restraint avoided pushing the world into a global conflict. The fact that Trump and his allies used the de-escalation hotline in advance to give some warning, and that the targets appears to have been three chemical related facilities, at which there were hopefully no Russian casualties, may have helped. Either way, the bottom line is that Trump risked a global conflict and Putin avoided one.

While it is correct that a very strong penalty should be applied to anyone who uses chemical weapons, which are inhumane, indiscriminate and illegal in international law, it is questionable whether the missile attacks have enhanced or damaged the international architecture that builds co-operation in this area.

The proof of the chemical attack, and the assignation of responsibility should have been water-tight and publicly available through the independent and international body tasked to make such findings, the Chemical Weapons Convention, before the attack. While Russia was wrong to veto the latest Security Council Resolution (along with 11 other vetoes on Syria) asking the Chemical Weapons Convention to investigate the type of chemical, and attribute blame, the Russians were still willing to let the investigators investigate the type of chemical involved. Trump and his allies should have waited until this evidence was produced, before striking.

Trump, May and Macron could have waited until the evidence was conclusive and public. They should have paused to fully explore all diplomatic and long-term geopolitical options. This would have entailed looking at increased sanctions, arrest warrants for those responsible, or expanding the western forces in the existing enclaves in Syria, or giving greater assistance to the non-terrorist enemies of Assad, or even committing to recognise and defend an independent Kurdistan, carved from Syrian territory.

None of these options was seen as acceptable.

Rather, Trump, May and Macron went for military strikes, without publicly available independent proof of the crime, which could have triggered a global conflict while alternative, albeit difficult and slow, pathways were open to them.

Alexander Gillespie

is a professor of law at Waikato University.