On Syria I will be on BBC Hausa, afternoon program (Nigerian Time), to discuss the decision of the UK Parliament not to support military strike against Syria, and the implications of the decision on the US-UK relations. We will also discuss the legal and political implications of a US military strike on Syria without UN or congressional approval. Summary of my analysis: Why did the UK parliament voted against military option? The decision was guided by the following considerations. 1. Till now, there is no conclusive evidence that it was the government that used the Chemical weapon; 2. The matter is still under UN investigation; 3. UK didn’t want to repeat the mistake of 2003 (going to war based on concocted evidence); 4. Fear that military strike on Syria will lead to a large scale and protracted military and humanitarian crisis; 5. If Assad is ousted as result of the strike, which is highly possible, it is not clear who is going to takeover. There is evidence that some of the rebel fighters are affiliated to Al-Qaida. Implications on US-UK relations Since the Second World War, UK and US have been strong allies. The decision of the UK parliament surprised many US government officials. The decision by the UK parliament will further strengthen the anti-war advocates in the US and weaken the case of those advocating for military strike. It also shows that the UK is no longer following the US blindly. It will not, however, significantly affect the relationship between the two countries. The US understands that the UK is a sovereign country. Majority of the US citizens I spoke with expressed reservation on dragging the US into another military conflict. On legality of the proposed military strike President Obama, a former constitutional law professor, knows more than anyone that military strike on any country without UN or congressional approval is illegal. That was his position in 2003 when he opposed the Iraq War. It is not only against the UN Charter, it is also against the US constitution, to attack another country without UN or congressional approval. But the US has a history of taking military action without UN approval—Balkans and Libya, for example. It is almost impossible to secure approval from the UN Security Council or General Assembly. The US congress is now divided, even those who support military strike insist on seeing additional evidence and they are also weighing the implications. There is nothing like “surgical strike.” If you start a fight, you should be ready to face the consequences. Syria is not Libya, with Russia and Iran supporting Syria, the fight may grow bigger. Attacking Syria means the US has taken side with the Rebels in a civil war. What next? It will be interesting if a Nobel Peace Prize winner (Obama) starts another war without exhausting diplomatic options, a war that may favor Al-Qaida and US enemies in the long term. I doubt if US will attack Syria, despite pressure from countries like Saudi Arabia and Israel. If it does, the consequences are unpredictable. My heart goes to the innocent Syrians that are being killed daily by the rebels and murderous government. I hope, wish and pray that they find a peaceful solution to this crisis. Global public opinion is against war.
Posted on: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 14:01:38 +0000