When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Geopolitics

Syria, Why The West Can't Turn Back Now

After the chemical attacks, military intervention is a question of humanity, but also of realpolitik. That does not, however, mean it will resolve the situation in Syria.

A mother and father weep over the body of their child, killed in a suspected chemical weapons attack on Damascus
A mother and father weep over the body of their child, killed in a suspected chemical weapons attack on Damascus
Laurent Joffrin*

-OpEd-

PARIS — Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s latest crime changes everything. This time, a Western intervention is not a possibility, a hazardous temptation or a more or less justified imperative. It is something obvious.

Apart from Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, it has been almost a century since any country has used chemical weapons in combat. An international convention bans its use, and it is one of the rare ones that is properly respected — although it bears reminding that Syria did not sign it. But can we do nothing and tolerate such an exception that contradicts all these nations’ tacit agreement?

Alongside his allies, President Barack Obama had solemnly declared that the use of gases was the red line not to cross. What would his word be worth — and democracies’ words in general — if he remained inert when the evidence of such a monstrosity is piling up? And how would we put pressure on Iran on the nuclear question if we left the use of a forbidden weapon in Damascus unpunished? Western abstention would open a highway to barbarity for all the dictators in the world. It would largely ruin the democracies’ credibility on the international scene. It is not only a question of humanity, but also of realpolitik.

A warning to tyrants

Let’s say the interventions in Iraq and in Afghanistan were unsuccessful and the operations in Libya have led to a dangerous mess. And let’s say we’re right. Each intervention is conditional, and here’s the main reason why: If the country in question cannot rapidly set up acceptable political institutions and local armed forces that guarantee public order and ensure compromises between factions, any foreign intervention, however technically perfect, is bound to fail.

In other words, any large-scale offensive, which would include the use of ground troops and bombings, involves major risks. Bringing Western armies into Syria would amount to walking around a powder keg carrying a lit torch. The civil war would also be unlikely to end, and an extended intervention would soon turn a large part of the region’s population against the Western countries.

In these circumstances, there is only one solution: issue a severe warning to this senseless and barbaric regime that gases its own people, and bring more efficient help to the non-Islamist opposition. These policies, which should have prevailed from the beginning, are now essential. They will not solve the Syrian crisis, and they will certainly not bring harmony to the region. But they will issue a salutary warning to tyrants.

*Laurent Joffrin is the editor-in-chief of Nouvel Observateur.

You've reached your monthly limit of free articles.
To read the full article, please subscribe.
Get unlimited access. Support Worldcrunch's unique mission:
  • Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.
  • Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries
  • $2.90/month or $19.90/year. No hidden charges. Cancel anytime.
Already a subscriber? Log in

When the world gets closer, we help you see farther

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!
Coronavirus

Will China's Zero COVID Ever End?

Too much has been put in to the state-sponsored truth that minimal spread of the virus is the at-all-cost objective. But if the Chinese economy continues to suffer, Xi Jinping may have no choice but to second guess himself.

COVID testing in Guiyang, China

Cfoto/DDP via ZUMA
Deng Yuwen

The tragic bus accident in Guiyang last month — in which 27 people being sent to quarantine were killed — was one of the worst examples of collateral damage since the COVID-19 pandemic began in China nearly three years ago. While the crash can ultimately be traced back to bad government policy, the local authorities did not register it as a Zero COVID related casualty. It was, for them, a simple traffic accident.

The officials in the southern Chinese province of Guizhou, of course, had no alternative. Drawing a link between the deadly crash and the strict policy of Zero COVID, touted by President Xi Jinping, would have revealed the absurdity of the government's choices.

Keep reading...Show less

When the world gets closer, we help you see farther

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!
You've reached your monthly limit of free articles.
To read the full article, please subscribe.
Get unlimited access. Support Worldcrunch's unique mission:
  • Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.
  • Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries
  • $2.90/month or $19.90/year. No hidden charges. Cancel anytime.
Already a subscriber? Log in
THE LATEST
FOCUS
TRENDING TOPICS

Central to the tragic absurdity of this war is the question of language. Vladimir Putin has repeated that protecting ethnic Russians and the Russian-speaking populations of Ukraine was a driving motivation for his invasion.

Yet one month on, a quick look at the map shows that many of the worst-hit cities are those where Russian is the predominant language: Kharkiv, Odesa, Kherson.

Watch VideoShow less
MOST READ