Chivalrous hero or uninvited guest?

(Baonghean) - On Wednesday, September 24, the United Nations held a meeting to discuss measures against the extremist Islamic organization IS. The airstrikes by the US and five Arab allies in Syria have opened a new question, a new context about the legality of regional and international interventions.

On the night of September 22 and early morning of September 23, the US and five allied Arab countries carried out airstrikes against IS targets in Syria. With powerful firepower, this attack was considered and also intended to be a "preemptive strike" against IS, eliminating the capabilities and key components to operate the organization such as command, control, training and reinforcement. Of course, this is not the first time US aircraft have taken off in the Middle East: the US has carried out a series of airstrikes against IS in Iraq, and later France joined in the attack. The problem is that the political contexts of Iraq and Syria are not the same, which leads to the same military intervention, but the meaning, nature and even legality are not the same.

US Air Force in port in the Persian Gulf.

In Iraq, the Baghdad government is the internationally recognized government, and its rights, obligations, and legitimacy do not encounter any domestic or foreign obstacles. Therefore, when Iraqi President Haider al-Abadi called on the international community to help in the fight against the terrorist group that is raging and occupying Iraqi territory, the legal corridor was opened for foreign military intervention.

The international community has also received a similar call from the Syrian National Coalition. But the question is: is this a legitimate representative of the country and its people? The civil war in Syria has lasted for more than 3 years and has not yet ended. The Syrian state, the government of Bashar al-Assad, is still nominally a legitimate state. Whether you like it or not, no one can completely deny this, nor can it be affirmed that the Syrian National Coalition's call is a passport to intervention in this country. In fact, the al-Assad government has rejected the idea of ​​resorting to foreign military intervention. In response, the US has repeatedly ruled out the possibility of receiving support from Bashar al-Assad. It is not difficult to understand why the US and Europe are behind the opposition in the civil war in Syria.

Thus, there is only one option left to intervene in Syria: accepting the mission from the United Nations Security Council. This last move has been blocked by Russia since 2011. The US and its allies have no choice but to interpret the military campaign in Syria as an extension, a continuation of the campaign in Iraq: a rather clumsy and unconvincing "fire-fighting" reason. Perhaps the US is trying to play the role of a very generous and enthusiastic savior, when declaring that because the main bases of IS are in Syrian territory, the US organizes a military campaign in Syria simply to complete the mission that Iraq entrusted. In an interview with the American television channel ABC, US Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power also affirmed that Iraq calls for the intervention of the international community "not only in Iraq but also in the IS lairs in other countries". If that's really the case, Iraq is the "indecent" guest and America is just "blindly following"...

Is it that simple? Looking back at the airstrikes in Syria, it can be seen that the US did not only target IS but also many other targets. The New York Times reported that the US also targeted Khorasan, a jihadist organization linked to al-Qaeda. Thus, perhaps the real goal of this airstrike was to destroy the seeds of threats to the safety of the US and Europe, not purely to protect Iraq as the US generously declared.

The US has also considered using the threat posed by IS as an excuse for its actions. In its letter of explanation to the United Nations, the US cited Article 51 of the UN Charter, which allows military intervention "in the face of an immediate and present threat". The question is who is threatened? The US is not a country directly within the IS's sphere of influence; instead, Article 51 of the UN Charter could legitimize military intervention by countries bordering IS territory, such as Jordan.

Finally, humanitarian reasons - a lifeline often used to salvage the legality of a controversial move. The US can cite the "responsibility to protect" the Syrian community from the brutality of IS, which is clearly beyond the capabilities of the al-Assad regime. But let me ask, after 3 and a half years of civil war in this country, why has no one spoken up to protect Syrian civilians? Moreover, without the consent of the host state, it is necessary to have a UN mandate to intervene in this way.

These are the reasons why, apart from Arab countries, America's Western allies are still determined to stop at the Syrian border in the fight against IS. France, the pioneer in the fight against IS, has also announced that it will only participate in airstrikes in Iraq, stating that there is no political or legal context to legitimize military intervention in Syria. The British are even so cautious that it was not until Friday, September 26, that the UK's readiness to participate in airstrikes in Iraq was approved. However, it is impossible to say in advance whether Western leaders will change their minds on the Syria issue. As for France, this is worth thinking about, because Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius himself announced that he is "analyzing the act of legitimate self-defense in the name of Article 51 of the United Nations Charter". The death of French hostage Herve Gourdel, combined with pressure from the opposition party, could very well push France to the other side of the Syrian border. Perhaps America will be the most satisfied, because acting alone may be wrong, but the majority is always right...

Ganoderma

(According to Le monde, CNN)