Syria’s chemical strike sparks global debate on intervention

Ian Hurd, Al Jazeera: “Even incontrovertible evidence of the government’s use of gas will not create a legal mandate for intervention. Debate should focus instead on how best to help the Syrian people, not on the false promise of international law. ... There is little history to back the claim that chemical weapons are universally prohibited. Many states continue to hold enormous stockpiles of chemical weapons, including the U. S. and Russia, which suggests they do not believe they are inherently illegal.” Tom Rogan, The Guardian, London: “President Obama’s statement suggests that the U. S. intelligence community believes a chemical weapons attack did indeed occur. ( But) even if Obama responds to the latest outrage in Syria, his existing record suggests that American leadership will be far from profound. ... Where, for right or wrong, George W. Bush sought to reshape the political makeup of the Middle East, his successor has been far more reluctant to utilize American power in bold ways. ... Ultimately, Obama needs to fundamentally re- appraise how he approaches the Middle East. Firing a few cruise missiles at Syrian President Bashar Assad won’t be enough. ... He must embrace risks that jeopardize his domestic popularity.” The Irish Independent, editorial: “If the international community allows such use of chemical weapons against civilian populations to go unpunished, all moral authority will be lost. Such inaction would embolden other despotic states and threaten the security of the region. ... Obama, although more of a pragmatist, will not want his legacy to include a lapse of moral authority because of inaction to stop crimes against humanity under his watch. ... The moral compass in this case clearly points towards intervention by Western powers. ... Although fraught with danger and unknowable outcomes, it is the right thing to do.” China Daily, editorial: “If the United Nations inspectors find that chemical weapons have been used ... the offenders will be condemned and opposed in the strongest terms. But before the U. N. inspection mission reaches a conclusion, it is irresponsible, as well as hotheaded, for some countries to use the allegation as an excuse for military intervention. It is, therefore, a relief that the United States, which deems the use of chemical weapons as a red line, has so far exercised caution on maneuvering for military action in Syria.” Timothy Bancroft- Hinchey, Pravda, Moscow: “Any intelligent human being ... would ask what possible advantage the Assad government would have deploying chemical weapons in an area where his forces are winning. ... Any balanced examination of the entire affair would have taken into account the U. N.’ s own declarations in May that the ‘ opposition’ was indeed responsible for previous chemical weapons attacks. ... So let us ask British Foreign Secretary William Hague to make a statement, right now, eye- to- eye, on the previous use of chemical weapons by ( Assad’s) ‘ opposition’ forces. ... But no, ( Hague) will remain silent and will continue to behave like an outdated, interfering, manipulative, insolent and totally incompetent representative of his country’s policy.” Ari Shavit, Haaretz, Israel: “The glorious Arab uprising that the West enthusiastically supported has become an apocalyptic event. No decent person can ignore what’s happening. What is supposed to be an enlightened world cannot remain silent. ... It’s not only innocent victims being buried in Damascus, but the concept of enlightened Arab nation- alism and the hope that the West has a conscience. … If civilians can be gassed to death in 2013, we face the end of the world.” Hans Hoyng and Christoph Reuter, Der Spiegel, Germany: “The credibility of both the United States and its Western allies is on the line. Anyone who mentions a red line but doesn’t back it up may as well forget about making any threats in the future. ... This latest chemical weapons attack should finally set aside reservations about a military intervention. Poison gas is outlawed internationally — a ban that should be respected.” Diana Moukalled, Asharq Al- Awsat: “The Syrian regime, which knows that the so- called international community won’t do anything, is not to blame. Why would the world that has been silent over the death of 150,000 people and that has overlooked explosive barrels, jets, Scud missiles, slaughter and torture act now because a few hundred people died from a poisonous gas? And why should we blame the regime?” Yavuz Baydar, Today’s Zaman, Turkey: “It’s not that the world doesn’t want Assad gone, but among Syria’s neighbors, the visions have become so schizophrenic that it is no longer possible to maintain unity on any crucial issue. ... The real challenge comes now. How will Ankara defend the view that it will be part of a coalition that is led by those who drink the blood and oil of the geography next door?”

LOCAL COMMITTEE OF ARBEEN VIA AP Syrian children after an alleged poisonous gas attack fired by regime forces in Arbeen last week.