'Moral Obscenity' a Flimsy Pretext for Illegal War (Huanqiu,
China)
As adamantly as Western diplomats like Secretary of State Kerry
and British Foreign Minister William Hague insist on the necessity of attacking
Syria, Russian, Chinese and Iranian diplomats are convinced that such an attack
will cause more harm than good - particularly to their interests. This
editorial from China's state-run Huanqiu
points out rgar with U.S. power at a low ebb, and Russia and China growing in
influence, a united front has a better chance than ever of preventing a U.S. attack,
and bolstering China's prestige.
U.S.
Secretary of State John Kerry declared Monday that there was
"undeniable" proof about last week's chemical weapons attack in
Syria, and that this "moral obscenity" committed by the Assad regime
"should shock the conscience of the world." The Middle East appears
on the outbreak of a new war, and the most daring analysts anticipate a U.S.
strike against Syria "as early as Thursday."
Even
if this so-called "evidence" isn't recognized by the United Nations,
given America's record of using of false evidence to launch the Iraq War,
Washington is unlikely to have compunctions about bypassing the U.N. and mounting
this attack. Who can stop it? It will nevertheless be an unnecessary air strike
that merely looks impressive. With so little political support, it will be one
of the most reluctant air strikes since the end of the Cold War.
The
1999 air war over Kosovo was aimed clearly at coercing Serbia's military to
withdraw - and Washington succeeded. The West's Libya air strikes in 2011 helped
the Libyan opposition defeat the isolated Qaddafi. But this time, Washington lacks
clear political objectives. Citing "moral obscenity" as a pretext to
wage war looks rash and careless.
Posted By Worldmeets.US
The
attack on Syria, if it occurs, will encounter extraordinarily fierce
resistance. The Assad regime has been cut off by the West and has sustained a more
than two year insurgency, which is evidence of its viability. Also, unlike the
Qaddafi regime, Damascus has the firm support of Russia and Iran. In addition, the "Arab Spring" setback in Egypt has improved the odds for the
Assad government, giving it the confidence to survive external intervention.
America's
influence was far greater when it launched air strikes in the last century, and
now, Russia and China are much more resolutely opposed to its use of force. While
Washington's global influence is declining, Russia is recovering its national
strength, and China's influence is climbing. Although the two are not in direct
confrontation with the West, their warnings about a strike, which are becoming increasingly
hard to ignore, make the West's job of building
support for the endeavor far more difficult.
The
Americans are most likely to use air strikes to assist the Syrian opposition,
which has been in retreat for some time now. Air strikes can certainly play a
role in such a strategy. In Syria, however, it would never have been as easy as
it was in Libya to bring a complete reversal on the battlefield. In addition, the
air strikes against Qaddafi went on for quite some time, given that they were
conducted under a U.N.-authorized no-fly zone. If the Syrian raid is deemed
illegal, it will be difficult to sustain for long.
Those
forces around the world that oppose military intervention should unite as far
as possible to prevents U.S. and British air strikes against Syria. If the
strikes cannot be prevented, help for the Syrian government to resist should be provided. Furthermore, Russian and Iran must consider providing Damascus with
direct military aid. As the countries with the most to lose in the event of a
Syrian collapse, the two have little choice but to strongly oppose military
intervention in Syria.
Because
Russia has such a special interest in Syria, it has most strongly opposed
military intervention in Syria. Iran and Syria, however, are mutually dependent.
So after Russia, if the West succeeds in eliminating the Assad regime, Iran
stands to lose the most. In fact, if the two countries fail to act resolutely, other
countries are unlikely to show much concern for their losses.
China
is not carrying the banner on the Syria issue, but it certainly must express
its attitude on a possible Western strike more clearly than ever. The strategic
benefits this brings is more important to Beijing than the risk of friction
with the West, particularly since the West is gradually targeting China as the
"biggest potential threat." The Syrian crisis is unlikely to alter
China's strategic relations with the West, but will help consolidate trust in
China in other countries.
When
it comes to striking small countries, Washington is more hesitant than it was 20
years ago. The world must constantly push Washington until the overwhelming
odds force it to shrink from the use of force. This is vital to the security strategies
of emerging countries.
