Poison gas attack in Syria: site scrutinised
International inspectors trying to get access after Allied air strikes
INTERNATIONAL inspectors were to try to visit the site of a suspected gas attack yesterday which brought US-led missile strikes on Syria and heightened the diplomatic confrontation between the West and President Bashar al-Assad’s main ally, Russia.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Sunday more Western attacks on Syria would bring chaos to world affairs, while Washington prepared to increase pressure on Russia with new economic sanctions.
Moscow also condemned the Western states for refusing to wait for the findings of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) inspection team on the attack before launching the strikes.
But the US envoy to the global watchdog said yesterday Russia may have tampered with the site of the incident on April 7 in Douma, outside Damascus.
“It is long overdue that this council condemns the Syrian government for its reign of chemical terror and demands international accountability of those responsible for these heinous acts,” US ambassador Kenneth Ward said.
In London, British Prime Minister Theresa May was facing criticism over her decision to bypass parliament and take part in the air strikes against Syria.
The US, France and Britain launched 105 missiles targeting what the Pentagon said were three chemical weapons facilities in Syria, in retaliation for the poison gas attack in Douma.
The Western countries blame Assad for the Douma attack, which a Syrian medical relief group said killed dozens of people and which thrust Syria’s seven-year-old conflict into the forefront of global concern once again. The Syrian government and its Russian ally deny involvement.
Inspectors for the Hague-based OPCW met Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad in the presence of Russian officers and a senior Syrian security official in Damascus for about three hours on Sunday. The inspectors were due to attempt to visit Douma, but the British delegation to the OPCW said they had not yet been granted access, citing the agency’s director-general.
Douma, which lies in the eastern Goutha district on the outskirts of the capital, was one of the last bastions near Damascus of rebels fighting to topple Assad, and the attack took place amid a ferocious government offensive.
In the aftermath, the remnants of the rebel army evacuated, handing Assad one of the biggest victories in a war that has killed about half-a-million people and laid waste to whole cities.
The US-led strikes did nothing to alter the strategic balance or dent Assad’s supremacy, and the Western Allies have said the aim was to prevent the further use of chemical weapons, not to intervene in the civil war or topple Assad.
British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson made this clear yesterday as he arrived at a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Luxembourg, telling reporters: “I’m afraid the Syrian war will go on in its horrible, miserable way. But it was the world saying we’ve had enough of chemical weapons.”
The US ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, said the US would announce new economic sanctions aimed at companies suppling equipment related to Assad’s use of chemical weapons.
Responding to Haley’s remarks, Evgeny Serebrennikov, deputy head of a Russian parliamentary defence committee, said Moscow was ready for the penalties. “They’re hard for us, but will do more damage to the US and Europe,” he warned. – Reuters/African News Agency (ANA)
RUSSIA, ASSAD FACE SANCTIONS IN RETALIATION FOR CIVILIAN DEATHS IN CHEMICAL WARFARE
THE missile strike on Syria was another embarrassing phase in a tragic episode that started in 2011. The joint operation by the US, UK, and France was a sheer show of power – nothing more, nothing less. What’s worse is their use of humanitarian language for such actions. It tarnishes international humanism.
The history of “humanitarian intervention” goes back to the 19th century and was a term invented to legitimise colonialism by the British. It was revived after 9/11 to justify military intervention in Afghanistan. The argument of humanitarian intervention was notoriously used for the US and British occupation of Iraq. Despite that, the invasion of Iraq not only led to a great tragedy of war, political chaos, and total devastation, but also proved to be based on lies. Humanitarian intervention also did not stop the politics of military intervention in the name of humanity in Libya.
In all cases, the humanitarian interventions led to disaster and proved to be utter forms of hypocrisy. The same argument that the US, the UK and France are “punishing Syria for its use of chemical weapons in Ghouta” sounds even less convincing than ever.
Again, it is not the first time that Western liberals have not only supported the so-called “humanitarian military measures” but have indulged in warmongering. The liberals, who despise Trump otherwise, not only cherished him for the military attack but have also put pressure on him to be on this track since he came to power. The Syrian affair has a dark story to unfold sometime, but the war is inflamed by Western powers, their regional allies and their proxies in order to achieve regime change.
The hostility against the Assad regime has much less to do with his authoritarianism than his alliance with Iran. Trump’s predecessor, Barack Obama, came to the understanding that the best way out was to make a deal with Iran. It was the only hope for peace in Syria, but that is over now.
A “humanitarian military intervention” is a contradiction of terms. Those who believe in humanitarianism should oppose all military aggression and stand up against those disguised as humanitarian interventions. It has huge importance, not only in the name of peaceful politics, but also in the name of the credibility of international humanitarianism.