Even if Assad used chemical weapons, the West has no mandate to act as a global policeman

Hans Blix writes: It is true that the UN security council is not a reliable global policeman. It may be slow to take action, or paralysed because of disagreement between members. But do we want the US or Nato or “alliances of willing states” as global policemen either? Unlike George Bush in 2003, the Obama administration is not trigger-happy and contemptuous of the United Nations and the rules of its charter, which allow the use of armed force only in self-defence or with an authorisation from the security council. Yet Obama, like Bush and Blair, seems ready to ignore the council and order armed strikes on Syria with political support from only the UK, France and some others.

Such action could not be “in self-defence” or “retaliation”, as the US, the UK and France have not been attacked. To punish the Assad government for using chemical weapons would be the action of self-appointed global policemen – action that, in my view, would be very unwise.

While much evidence points to the guilt of the Assad regime, would not due process require that judgment and consideration of action take place in the UN security council and await the report of the inspectors that the UN has sent to Syria – at the demand of the UK and many other UN members?

We may agree with John Kerry, the US secretary of state, that the use of gas is a “moral obscenity”, but would we not feel that “a measured and proportionate punishment”, like striking at some missile sites or helicopter bases, is like telling the regime that “you can go on with your war but do stay away from the chemical weapons”? And what is the moral weight of the condemnation by nuclear weapons states of the use of gas as a serious war crime when they themselves will not accept a norm that would criminalise any first use of their own nuclear weapons?

It is hard to avoid the impression that the political and military developments now in overdrive stem partly from pressure exerted by the rebel side to trigger an American military intervention – by trying to hold President Obama to an earlier warning to Assad that a use of chemical weapons would alter his calculation. Equally, if not more important, may be a need felt by the Obama administration to avoid criticism for being hesitant and passive – and appearing like a paper tiger to countries such as Iran that have been warned that the US will not allow them to have nuclear weapons. [Continue reading…]

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Facebooktwittermail

3 thoughts on “Even if Assad used chemical weapons, the West has no mandate to act as a global policeman

  1. BillVZ

    La vérité,
    A sincere thanks to you for directing one to this clip. An amazing performance by a truly amazing young person. Bravo!

  2. La vérité

    The hypocrisy of this administration ( and past ones ) is worse than sickening having used Napalm, Agent Orange, Depleted Uranium, Cluster bombs….. the list goes on and on….. ..
    AND the “selective” softheartedness for a certain group, under certain situations only!!!
    I do not remember the administration being so enthusiastic and willing to bomb the perpetrators and sympathise with their victims in the following situation!!!
    http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/photo-gallery-the-bloody-war-against-hamas-fotostrecke-38496-10.html

    http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/photo-gallery-the-bloody-war-against-hamas-fotostrecke-38496-11.html

    http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/photo-gallery-retaliation-refugees-and-phosphorus-bombs-fotostrecke-44374-12.html

    http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/photo-gallery-retaliation-refugees-and-phosphorus-bombs-fotostrecke-44374-11.html

Comments are closed.