Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. Margaret Mead

Why have three members of the UN Security Council opted to act recklessly over Syria?

Saturday, 14 April 2018 0 Comments by Claire

There are 15 members of the UN Security Council, but a splinter group of three decided to break away from convention, common sense and possibly international law, to launch a military attack on Syria’s chemical weapons factories.

Even more recklessly, the US and UK took this action (and possibly France too) without the backing of congress and parliament and in just a few days after the chemical attacks were reported to have taken place.

A more isolationist act in the midst of a bubbling international firestorm cannot possibly be imagined.

“But we have no practicable alternative” claimed Mrs May in a statement in the early hours of this morning. “This persistent pattern of behaviour must be stopped,” she added.

“This isn’t about intervening in a civil war,” she also claimed, ludicrously.

The fallout has been swift. The Russians are comparing Trump with Hitler and are threatening “consequences”, casting doubt of the legality of the air strikes and claiming that the UK is behind the chemical attacks.

The leaders of Russia, Syria and Iran are united in their condemnation of the attacks by our government, the US and France.

So the propaganda is that Syria’s capability for chemical weapons production is severely damaged, yet a military expert on Radio 4’s Today Programme confirmed that the strikes would probably have limited effect on the production of chemical weapons.

I am thoroughly fed up with hypocritical politicians, who already have blood on their hands through the selling of arms to countries of dubious morality (Saudi Arabia) claiming to hold the higher moral ground, and poking large sticks into hornets nests.

We couldn’t apparently “stand idly by” while Saddam Hussein supposedly stockpiled weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There was none to be found, yet Iraq was destroyed anyway, leaving a power vacuum for Isis to flourish.

It was a similar situation in Libya a few years ago. David Cameron insisted on military air strikes in 2011, along with France and the US. Col Gaddaffi was overthrown. Libya is now described as “awash with arms” and “lawless.”

But the world has changed since 2011. It is more dangerous. World superpowers are aligning.

Russia and the US are investing heavily in their military arsenal and the United States is now led by a reckless tyrant, described by the former head of the FBI as similar to a “mafia boss,” who reportedly had to be talked down (for several days) from a far more aggressive military response to the chemical attacks in Syria.

Syria is attracting the world’s power-hungry superpowers like moths to a candle flame. It is a tinder box waiting for the match.

The UN Security Council is the route for dealing with this matter, Russian veto or no Russian veto.

I am desperately hoping that the arrogant and impulsive actions of three reckless countries have not struck that final match. But the outlook doesn’t look good.


There are no comments for this entry.

Submit A Comment