Don't jump the gun in Syria

The military preparations are being made, but US President Barack Obama has yet to convince his people and the world that military intervention in Syria would make strategic sense, or to explain how it would deter the further use of chemical weapons by combatants in the war-torn country.

The US assumes that the government forces of Syrian President Bashir al-Assad were behind last week’s gas attack in a Damascus suburb. The UK, France and Turkey are also blaming Assad’s regime for the use of chemical weapons.  Although a calculated guess is possible that Assad’s forces were responsible – given the lack of reports that the regime ever lost control of its chemical-weapons stockpile – there is still no definitive evidence.

The US has been wrong before, as the world discovered too late. In 2002 Washington was crying foul over weapons of mass destruction and chemical weapons it believed Saddam Hussein was hoarding in Iraq. The US went to war and removed a dictator, but found no such arms. 

So it’s understandable that the world is asking for hard evidence of Assad’s guilt, which is something that Obama will have to provide immediately and incontrovertibly before the military option is taken up.

There is also a pending report from the United Nations inspectors currently in Syria investigating the chemical attacks. The international community needs to know what the report reveals before military action is undertaken. 

The forum where such a debate and due process could begin is, of course, the UN Security Council. The US, UK and other countries that support military aid to Syria’s rebels have been frustrated that China and Russia have been helping the Assad regime, giving it a new lease on life when earlier it appeared doomed to fall. 

The use of chemical weapons is a war crime. Numerous treaties have banned it, and guilty parties can be tried at the International Criminal Court. If hard evidence is provided, Assad’s name can be sent to the ICC for prosecution. Theoretically, this could still happen. But if China and Russia continue to defend Assad, even after evidence is provided, then the world will know that the two Security Council members are using their position to defend a war criminal with no legitimacy to rule. 

However, before any drastic decision is made, the Western powers should wait a little longer and let events take their course. The US, UK, France and Turkey might not receive the desired mandate from the Security Council and will likely look elsewhere should China and Russia continue to use their veto. Such a course will not be easy for the US and its allies, given that neither Nato nor the Arab League has endorsed a military intervention in the Syrian civil war, this despite the fact that these key organisations continue to blame Assad for gassing his own people. 

The US might also try to assemble another “coalition of the willing”, which could prompt non-Nato allies like Thailand to endorse military action against Syria. The moment of truth is coming, and Thailand is not exactly out of the loop should the US start knocking on doors to ask for help.