On Sunday, April 8th, Bashar al Assad the Dictator of Syria, launched another horrifyingly brutal chemical weapons attack on his own population in the city of Doura with a mixture of chlorine gas and Sarin, a neurotoxin. The poison was delivered by helicopters dropping a number of barrel bombs. According to international observers, 43 persons died immediately and hundreds more were gravely injured. International condemnation was immediate with only the Russians first denying that anything had occurred at all and then accusing Great Britain of having staged the attack. Being a compulsive television watcher, Donald Trump was outraged by the images of convulsing and dying children. He demanded an emergency session of the U.N. Security Council for the purpose of passing a resolution to investigate the attack. Predictably, Russia, as a permanent member of the Council, on Monday April the 9th used its veto for the 6th time in the past 12 months to protect Bashar al Assad. Even more furious now, Trump pressured Theresa May, Prime Minister of Great Britain, and Emmanuel Macron, President of France to join him in a coordinated air attack on the Syrian chemical weapons infrastructure. The attack was executed during the night of Friday, April 13th in total violation of international law!
Article 2, Section 4 of the United Nations Charter strictly forbids the use of force in international relations and Article 51 which grants the right of legitimate self defense by a nation which has been attacked by another nation. That clearly is not the case here, since Syria had neither attacked the U.S., nor Britain or France. Obviously, in its heinous act, Syria had violated the 1925 Chemical Weapons Protocol to the Geneva Treaty which prohibits the use of chemical weapons, as well as the 1993 Chemical Weapons Treaty which prohibits the manufacture and storage of these weapons. Syria had signed and ratified both treaties. But that does not justify the reprisal visited upon Syria by Trump, May and Macron. Neither requested authorization for an armed strike from the Security Council by way of a Resolution which would have had the force of obligatory international law – they did not even request authorization from their own respective parliaments or congress in the case of Trump. Well, they are now saying that “humanitarian intervention” was necessary – unfortunately that is not a norm of international law and the use of military force is strictly limited to self-defense. As far as Trump’s involvement is concerned, his criminal act of military aggression under the Statute of the International Criminal Court will never be prosecuted against him because the U.S. is not a signatory to the Statute of the International Criminal Court. In order to go after Donald Trump the Court would need a resolution from the Security Council which would certainly be blocked by a veto from the United States!
The proper way to proceed in this controversy would have been for the U.S., Britain and France to summon the U.N. General Assembly, invoke Resolution 377 (the Uniting-for-Peace Resolution) and then call for authorization for the use of force by a simple majority vote. The Uniting-for-Peace-Resolution was designed in 1950 precisely to resolve a veto deadlock in a paralyzed Security Council.
The tragedy, we are now witness to, is the utter disregard by the heads of the major powers in the U.N. for the rule of law in international relations! The fact is that international leaders make decisions to safeguard their own interests without considering the implications that result from this as the beginning of an international political crisis that can lead to a world war. Russia has raised its hand, saying that the attack of the three nations will not go unanswered. The answer is likely to come after the soccer world cup!!!
Dr. Juan Carlos Botello
Profesor – Investigador
Escuela de Comercio Internacional
Dr. Werner Gerhard Christian Voigt Hummel
independent external contributor
