Prime Minister Theresa May’s amnesia

Theresa May

by Rajeewa Jayaweera-April 21, 2018, 6:14 pm 

On Saturday, April 07, a suspected chemical gas attack killed 75 people including young children in Douma, a city around 10 km from Damascus with as many as 500 other causalities.

US, UK, France, European Union and GCC members blamed the Russian backed Syrian regime of Present Bashar al-Assad for the atrocity.

In the early hours of April 14, US warships and jets, accompanied by British and French air force jets launched a total of 105 missiles. They hit three chemical research and storage facilities in suburban Baghdad and Homs. Three Syrians deaths resulted from the bombings.

The need for those responsible for this horrific and cowardly act to be prosecuted must be stated at the outset, regardless if they belong to the Syrian regime, Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) or one of the other actors involved in the civil war.

UK Prime Minister Theresa May (TM), having agreed to Britain’s participation without sanction from British Parliament, on April 16 made a detailed statement in the House of Commons.

She justified Britain’s involvement as; "Actions we have taken with our American and French allies to degrade the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons capabilities and to deter their future use." She stated; "A significant body of information including intelligence indicates the Syrian regime is responsible for this latest attack."

Referring to previous occasions of suspected use of sarin gas, TM stated, "We needed to intervene rapidly to alleviate further indiscriminate humanitarian suffering. We have explored every possible diplomatic channel to do so, but our efforts have repeatedly been thwarted." She referred to the Syrian regime’s failure to honor its undertaking in August 2013 to dismantle its chemical weapons program and Russia’s failure to ensure Syria did so and stated the agreed process had not worked. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) had confirmed in March 2018, dismantling of Syria’s chemical weapons program was incomplete. Referring to numerous Russian vetoes in the Security Council of Resolutions against Syria, she said "Regrettably, we had no choice but to conclude that diplomatic action on its own is not going to work" as it would mean "a Russian veto on our foreign policy."

Based on the Attorney General’s advice, the cabinet had concluded that "action was not only morally right but legally right to take military action together with our closest allies to alleviate further humanitarian suffering." She denied it was an intervention in a civil war and it was about regime change. It was about a limited, targeted and effective strike that sought to alleviate the humanitarian suffering of the Syrian people by degrading the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons capability and deterring their use.

Three conditions had formed the legal basis for intervention. (a) Convincing evidence accepted by the International community, of extreme humanitarian distress on a large scale, requiring immediate and urgent relief. (b) must be objectively clear that there is no practicable alternative to the use of force for lives to be saved. (c) the proposed use of force must be necessary and proportionate to the aim of relief of humanitarian suffering and must be strictly limited in time and scope.

She claimed, the criteria were similar to those of previous interventions. (i) UK’s role in the NATO intervention in Kosovo (ii) Intervention in 1991 with US and France (iii) In 1992 with the US to create safe heavens and enforce a ‘no fly zone’ in Iraq following the Gulf war, were also justified by humanitarian intervention. TM theorized; governments have long considered proportionate military action on an exceptional basis was necessary as a last resort to avert an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe and was permissible under international law. According to her, "Careful scientific analysis was used to determine where best to target these missiles and maximize destruction of chemical stockpiles and to minimize any risks to the surrounding areas. Selected sites had been some distance from known population centers."

Three factors contributed for not awaiting the OPCW investigation. Firstly, United Nations Security Council (UNSC) mandated investigation teams to investigate previous incidents had indicated the Syrian regime’s culpability. Therefore, it was "highly likely" they were responsible for this attack and "highly likely" to continue using chemical weapons. Secondly, OPCW was only a fact-finding exercise but could not attribute responsibility due to the Russian veto to establish a Joint Investigatory Mechanism in the UNSC in November 2017 and once again last week. Thirdly, even if UNSC had established such a mechanism, it would not be able to act due to Russia vetoing any such action. She also gave her reasons for not awaiting Parliamentary sanction. The triumvirate could not wait to alleviate further humanitarian suffering caused by chemical weapons attacks. The UK was not just following orders from America. Preventing further use of chemical weapons by Syria was in Britain’s national interest. She insisted, "Britain could not allow the use of chemical weapons to become normalized either in Syria, on the streets of UK or elsewhere." She boasted of "broad-based international support for the action we have taken including by NATO, GCC and some countries in the region." Not recalling Parliament was due to the need for speed, essential to cooperate with partners to "alleviate further humanitarian suffering and maintain the vital security of the operation." She claimed it was a limited, targeted strike on a legal basis which has been used before and was a decision which required the evaluation of intelligence and information, not meant for sharing with parliament. She concluded stating, "We cannot go back to a world where the use of chemical weapons becomes normalized."

A day later, her own Foreign Secretary, speaking in Brussels at the EU stated, "these strikes would have no bearing on the civil war."

Theresa May’s statement contains several contradictions and at least one severe case of amnesia.

Members of Parliament, including those belonging to various interest groups, vociferous in their criticism and condemnation of other countries for acts of impunity related to human rights and similar issues cheered British impunity and jingoism during the Prime Minister’s statement.

Western leaders and governments mired in tricky personal and domestic political issues, habitually divert attention by involving their nations in trouble spots overseas. They are ideal diversions of public opinion, especially on matters of national security and a country’s military involved. President Trump is currently involved in multiple domestic issues. Critical among them is the investigation into possible Trump campaigners being complicit with alleged Russian interference in the US presidential election and buying the silence of an Adult film star before 2016 Presidential elections. TM and her Brexit Minister are facing exceedingly tricky negotiations in Brussels with just eleven months to Brexit with signs of a hard rather than a soft exit. President Macron in France is facing massive opposition to his labor reforms with regular work and train stoppages.

First and foremost, unilateral action by any one single or group of nations against another nation is a violation of the UN Charter which defines the principle of sovereign equality of member states. Syria is a member of the UN. Secretary-General of UN stated as much when he declared; "Action must be in self-defense or authorized by UN."

Even if Syria is guilty as accused, punitive action, collective or otherwise, for culpability deemed "highly likely," based on "a significant body of information including intelligence" is unacceptable as a justification for the bombings. After all, is it not the same intelligence agencies who ‘very carefully analyzed’ and provided ‘proof’ of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq for the US/British adventure in 2003 and the lack of such weapons was subsequently attributed to ‘faulty intelligence?’ Tony Blair’s purported justification, of WMDs in possession of the Iraqi regime capable of reaching London in less than 45 minutes proved to be the biggest lie of the decade. No investigative mechanism has been called to investigate this lie of Himalayan proportion.

As customary for world powers, TM displayed abject contempt for the UN process when she stated diplomatic action on its own would not work as it would mean a Russian veto "on our foreign policy." She made the UN irrelevant by implying UN could be bypassed in the decision-making process when it suits different agendas of superpowers. The moral and legal right to any intervention can only be a mandate sanctioned by the UN.

It is Britain, together with US, Russia, France, and China who thwart all attempts to reform UN procedures and do away with the veto power exercised by the five permanent members. Each time the US on its own or US, UK French combine makes use of this hegemonistic tool, it is a veto of Russian and occasionally, Chinese forging policy. The remaining 188 UN member states have no choice but to support one of the two factions or abstain.

Diplomacy, both bilateral and multilateral, works but at snail’s pace. Collective action by the three super powers with impunity and total disregard for laid down UN procedures is an act of terrorism, little different to the brand of terrorism unleashed by Daesh. The bombings deserve total condemnation.

Reference was made by TM to similar interventions in the past in Iraq in 1991 and 1992 and Kosovo in 1999. They were UN mandated operations. However, suffering from a sudden bout of amnesia, she made no mention of the unilateral intervention by US and UK in Iraq in 2003 despite objections from UN member states including France with a ‘we don’t give a damn’ attitude. Neither did she refer to the Libyan intervention in 2011 when the triumvirate exceeded the UN resolution sanctioning military action to take all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack’ into a regime change project. Ousting Muammar Gaddafi from power was never a part of the UN mandate.

While accusing Syria of using banned chemical weapons on civilians, TM remained silent on the use of banned cluster bombs and white phosphorus by Saudi Arabia in Yemen, a leading arms buyer from the UK, maiming thousands including children. As questioned by Jeremy Corbyn, would it justify a group of nations bombing Saudi airfields?

Having developed necessary technology, UK, and its allies are now able to carry out surgical strikes with deadly accuracy.

In the not too distant past, US and UK developed ‘carpet bombing’ into a fine art. RAF and USAF aircraft incinerated Dresden in Germany between February 13 and 15, 1945. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were devastated with atomic bombs on August 6 and 9, 1945.

These are examples of not alleviation but the aggravation of humanitarian suffering despite it being abundantly clear, the war was nearing its end in Europe (ended on May 04, 1945) and the Pacific (ended on September 02, 1945)

Such is the evil of nations who pontificate to small, powerless and economically backward countries at international forums such as UN[G1], UNHRC, and ICJ.