French President Francois Hollande, who was the loudest voice for punishing Syria’s alleged use of chemical weapons, may have to settle for a compromise with those who say it is too late for missile strikes.
Ahead of a debate in French Parliament tomorrow (Wednesday), the argument gaining ground is that the only military choice now available to the West is preventing turmoil from infecting Syrian neighbors, including Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Turkey.
Some French legislators said today Hollande is likely to follow the examples of President Barack Obama and Britain’s David Cameron in asking for a parliamentary vote but he has not yet taken that decision. Unlike Cameron, Hollande is not obliged to do so but his officials are girding up to try to win a vote in parliament.
Positive moves in the US Senate today towards a deal giving Obama a limited 60 to 90 day authority for military strikes on Syria could greatly help the debate although a large swathe of French public and parliamentary opinion is against the attacks, as in Britain. Like Cameron, Hollande might lose the vote if it happens.
In any case, the strikes would have to go far beyond just a rap on the knuckles, to be punitive and enforce credibility for Western red lines. Such deep and devastating attacks are not on the cards even for Obama because of their uncertain outcomes at this late stage in Syria’s civil wars.
A defiant Assad army could unleash greater chaos by deploying more nerve toxins, if Western strikes push its back to the wall by severely weakening its conventional fighting capacities. Assad’s fundamentalist Islamic opponents may also use more such weapons to draw the West further into Syria to destroy Assad’s army, enabling them to win a previously unwinnable war.
United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon added to Hollande’s discomfiture by insisting at a press conference today that military strikes without UN Security Council approval would be illegal under international law and might worsen the bloodshed and humanitarian crises.
“The use of force is lawful only when in exercise of self-defense in accordance with article 51 of the United Nations Charter and or when the Security Council approves such action,” he said.
He acknowledged the urgent need to prevent the use of chemical weapons but added, “At the same time, we must consider the impact of any punitive measure on efforts to prevent further bloodshed and facilitate the political resolution of the conflict.”
Russia and China are making similar arguments, so getting Security Council approval is out of the question at this time.
UN investigators, who recently returned from Syria, have yet to provide detailed reports. In any case, their mandate is limited to verifying the nature of chemical weapons. They are not required to finger the perpetrators, so they cannot be useful for deciding whether to hit only Assad.
A stalemate among all warring factions will surely widen and deepen the humanitarian catastrophe through endless attrition. But Western military strikes that tilt the balance of forces, or cause greater use of unconventional weapons by weakened factions, will have equally horrendous impacts.
Therefore, a limited military option will have to be accompanied by greatly increased humanitarian aid for refugees outside Syria and much more determined attempts to deliver medicines, food and other relief to the wounded and displaced inside Syria.
Despite the widespread violence, significant means are available for deliveries inside Syria since all its surrounding borders are porous enough for the currently huge traffic and safe transit of weapons, fighters, refugees, and couriers, spies and other people.
Hollande took the lead against Assad to get in there first, remembering the “American poodle” sarcasm that dogged former British Prime Minister Tony Blair for playing second fiddle to President George Bush over Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. But he felt undermined by Obama’s sudden shifting of the burden of decision onto Congress.
He also seemed nonplussed when Assad retorted aggressively to French muscle flexing instead of being intimidated or contrite. In statements and interviews, Assad insists that France has presented no concrete evidence that his soldiers fired the nerve toxins and has threatened dire consequences for French interests.
He said it defied common sense that his soldiers would explode chemical weapons near Damascus, in areas where they were themselves present.
French commentators say Hollande’s justifications for striking Assad are well argued but lack hard evidence. Similar comments appeared in Britain in and the US about evidence presented by governments there.