International Law, Political Commentary

Syria: Ingenuine Motives Behind USA, UK and France Willingness to Adopt Military Response

As with Iraq and Libya before this, the permanent 3 on the Security Council (USA,UK and France) have ulterior motives behind their sudden desire to “do right” by the Syrian people and international law. Motivated by a lack of distraction from failure nationally on key policy issues, each of the leaders of the P3 are looking for an effective distraction, now that their bid to embroil Russia in a phony chemical warfare scam has failed. Far from thinking about the Syrian people, these leaders are looking to usage the pains of unpopularity and policy disasters at home and show leadership, even if it means the death of countless thousands. 


POTUS is just looking at the bottom line in Congress. As the midterm nears, POTUS is more unpopular with every day that passes and even people who voted for him, staunch Republicans, regret their choice. Many key republicans are retiring after their embarrassment and frankly, disgust, at the policy decisions and scandals surrounding the Ivory Tower (or Whitehouse as it is known). A central consideration for DT is to show that he is a commander-in-chief and able to make war like the best of them. The midterm elections are around the corner and recent congressional races have clearly pointed to the dangers of losing base voters. DT has to rally his supporters and bring them back. What better then than to heap more misery on a country struggling on years of war, and to boot, they are all “Islamics” (AKA Muslims).

A second main reason for his wild tweets is John Bolton and Mike Pompeo – both hawks that are already influencing the POTUS thinking. Close to the Syrian situation for both these men is the complicity of Iran in Syria. They want to clamp down on Iran ergo why not saber-rattle on Syria. Both dislike and are aggressive against Russia so suddenly with Bolton behind him POTUS is threatening Russia.


Teresa May has been exposed as a false prophet and the girl that cried wolf to the assembly of her peers, on the issue of Russia using chemical weapons.  She has been unable to present credible and immediate evidence that the Russians were really behind the spy poisoning affair. To date no credible evidence has been provided. Shame-faced, May has grabbed the next big thing on the horizon and also is looking for a chance to reconfirm and strengthen the “special relationship” with the USA (which seemed to be off kilter lately) – she decides to back the POTUS on his bid to bomb Syria. Britain has even more to loose and May more to gain to show herself boxing in the big leagues. This measure for UK is also imperative to keep blood flowing to its armed forces which have felt very marginalized in the BREXIT frenzy. May has no relationship with the security services and she really needs them all to vote for her. Frankly May is the worst representation of governance in Britain in a long time. She is a liar, a cheat and totally without integrity. Ergo, logical to follow her master USA into bombing a people that cannot defend themselves and yes, May has a choice. She could concentrate on BREXIT maths which is really going to cost the UK. Perhaps that is also why she is going to war to support an already suffering economy?


Well apparently Macron cannot face the rioters at home so he is dumping on Syria? Where is this evidence that he claims exists that the Asad regime used chemical weapons? Why not share this info in public – please present it. Fact is they are not sure and no one has any real evidence whether chemical weapons were used and who they were used by. Macron needs a distraction and a victory just like Teresa May to distract from disaster at home so why not go to war?

Finally there is little evidence and no real reason to take  military action in Syria now when all the innocent civilians have been killed or have fled. Only reason is really only to distract from national events. Secondly, what USA, UK and France could not do over 9 years of war, they are now trying to do by bombing Damascus and Asad? Fact is that the ASAD regime is stronger today than 9 years ago. Any removal of the regime now is in fact a huge breach of international law.


1 thought on “Syria: Ingenuine Motives Behind USA, UK and France Willingness to Adopt Military Response”

  1. It is commonly believed by the media in the West, that ‘Animal Assad” (Trump coined this appellation) is attacking his citizens with chemical weapons. But in February 2018, following another story of a chemical attack, ” Defense Secretary Mattis said that ‘The U.S. has no evidence to confirm reports from aid groups and others that the Syrian government has used the deadly chemical sarin on its citizens.” (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

    Who should find evidence and adjudicate on this event? The UN has investigative capabilities and can report to the UN Security Council, which can vote. Russia will vote against a UN led war with Syria, China will probably abstain.

    Some analysts argue that in a civil war, a chemical attack is classified as a war crime and therefore should be tried in the International Criminal Court.

    There is no current adjudication method for chemical weapons, despite the fact that they are illegal under jus cogens. However, an amendment of the ICC explicitly making it a war crime to use WMD weapons in a conflict, has not been ratified by the member states of the ICC. Non-ratification was to avoid having the adjudication apply to nuclear weapons at the ICC. Even if it were ratified, the nuclear and chemical armed states could opt out because amendments don’t require a majority vote. But the idea of making state or non state leaders who detonate WMDs, personally accountable should in my view, remain alive.

    Source: Dapo Akande (23 August 2013). “Can the ICC Prosecute for Use of Chemical Weapons in Syria?” European Journal of International Law. Retrieved 8 September 2013.

    A broader question is, why are external countries intervening in a civil war ? Under international law, only Russia can legally participate in the Syrian conflict, because it has set up a military alliance with Syria. All other countries involved in the dispute are doing so illegally under international law.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s