US strike a justified response to crimes against humanity

Date: April 7 2017

The unilateral attack by the US against the regime of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad was a justified, proportionate and carefully targeted response to the latest in a series of crimes against humanity. The Age believes the Australian government is right to strongly support the move, designed to prevent further use of chemical weapons, which cause hideous deaths and have long been a war crime. The footage of children dying in the most horrific circumstances shows just why.

The US move comes after many failed efforts by the international community to broker a political end to the six-year Syrian civil war – during which as many as 400,000 people have died and millions more have been displaced, driving the biggest refugee crisis the world has experienced since the Second World War.

The unilateral missile attack by the US against the airbase was a humanitarian strike – a moral act, not one of war. There were no comfortable options; the retaliation, though, was the least bad one. The forces of Dr Assad, it is all but certain, launched a chemical attack that killed close to 100 innocent children, women and men. Dr Assad's brutal attack was the latest in a long series of such atrocities. While it would have been better for this to have been handled by the United Nations, the reality is Russia and China have continually blocked any UN intervention in Syria.

The previous US administration had warned that Dr Assad could no longer act with impunity, could not cross what it called "the red line", but it failed to carry out the threat, and Dr Assad seemed to believe there would be no retaliation. This swift and unexpected action from President Donald Trump – he had long opposed striking the Assad regime – might be a circuit-breaker and is certainly an unambiguous statement that the use of chemical weapons will not be tolerated. He is rightly calling on all civilised nations to support this message, as Australia and others have. The US, Britain and France have proposed a UN Security Council resolution to condemn a suspected deadly chemical weapons attack in Syria.

The situation is unpredictable. Mr Trump and the Pentagon are stressing the strike was designed to be a one-off, specific reaction to the use of chemical weapons. So, unless Dr Assad persists with their use, it would appear unlikely there would be a repeat use of US force. 

At the time of writing, Dr Assad had made no response. Russian President Vladimir Putin should cut Dr Assad loose, as he is globally viewed with opprobrium that will have grown as a result of this latest chemical attack, one of the most lethal in the long-running strife. Russia's overriding desire is to maintain its strategic alliance with Syria, rather than supporting its leader per se. But President Putin has been intransigent to date, and his bellicose initial response to the attack augurs poorly.

While this dramatic event will heighten anxiety throughout the world that the situation might escalate, pitting nuclear superpowers Russia and the US against each other, we fervently hope the stark change of tactics might end the use of chemical weapons, and even help end the wretched tragedy in Syria by catalysing the fall of Dr Assad.

What should be Australia's position beyond Mr Turnbull's staunch support of the strike, to which our government and others, including Russia's, had been alerted by the Trump administration? As part of the coalition seeking to destroy the Islamic State terrorist organisation, Australia has war planes in Syria and Iraq. But, as Mr Turnbull underscored, we are not at war with Syria. Were Mr Trump to request Australia to use those planes in a further attack, we would urge that our Parliament has the chance to debate and extremely carefully consider the response. Being dragged into a war with Syria would be an alarming escalation of our engagement in the Middle East.