Barend Vlaardingerbroek: The insidious ‘normalisation’ of chemical and nuclear weapons

Last month saw the US, UK and France reacting to the use of chemical weapons in Syria. In her defence of her decision to launch a strike against Syria, British PM Theresa May stressed that the objective of the joint military action was to send a clear warning that the ‘normalisation’ of the use of chemical weapons would not be tolerated.

I am not going to get into the ‘whodunit’ debate. I have argued earlier in these annals (“Syria chemical weapons attacks – we still don’t know who is responsible”, Breaking Views 31 August 2013 - see HERE) that the evidence linking that particular Sarin attack to the Assad government was scanty, and my position on the incident that prompted the Western strike will depend on the outcome of the OPCW investigation. But there is no denying that chemical weapons have been used in the Syrian conflict – repeatedly.

Melanie Phillips: The weekend bombing of the Syrian chemical facilities

So what did the weekend bombing of three chemical weapons facilities inside Syria achieve?

Well, if what we are being told is true, it knocked out three Syrian chemical weapons facilities. That’s good. This may have set back, maybe seriously, Syria’s capacity to use chemical weapons.That’s good, maybe very good.

So is that good enough? No way.

Ron Smith: Tacking and Jibing with Chemical Weapons

For sports fans, events in San Francisco Bay over the last few weeks have been absolutely riveting, with every tack and jibe analysed.  For political junkies, the public sparring between Presidents Putin and Obama has been equally compelling.  The jaunt has been especially interesting of late for a sequence of completely unpredicted moves.  After a longish period of studied insults and put-downs from Putin, which were only feebly defended by Obama, we suddenly had the totally unexpected: the impossible tack!

Barend Vlaardingerbroek: Syria chemical weapons attacks – we still don’t know who is responsible

Thank goodness for the House of Commons, and especially those Conservative members who broke ranks with the government over a military strike on Syria. The US could still go it alone. It would be a punitive strike, which is in breach of international law, but the US has never cared much for international law. They have said that a strike would be ‘specific’ and that its function would be to deter Damascus from using chemical weapons again – clearly an attempt to don the ‘R2P’ (responsibility to protect) mantle. 

What utter bunkum – all it will achieve if it goes ahead is to weaken the regime’s ability to deal with the insurrection. Perhaps al-Qaida will send a thank-you postcard to the White House afterwards.

Ron Smith: Dresden and Damascus - Making hard decisions

A few days ago, the Dresden (Germany) authorities opened a new four-lane bridge across the Elbe into the historic city.  In building this bridge, which will significantly improve traffic flows, they have now lost their world heritage status.  This was made plain in June, when the chairman of the United Nations Educational Social and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), World Heritage Committee Chairperson, Spaniard Maria Jésus San Segundo, denounced this as an unacceptable assault on a ‘cultural landscape’.  So that’s it.  Dresden is no longer a World Heritage site.  It is now an ancient city, full of wonderful buildings (many, for reasons that we well appreciate, lovingly restored) and a nasty modern bridge.  How easy it all is.

Ron Smith: Syria and President Obama - why intervene now?

Sometimes international developments, and the political decisions that lie behind them, are hard to explain.  On the other hand, there are occasions when there seem to be too many plausible explanations, and that can be a worry as well!  This latter seems to be the case with the recent announcement from the Obama Whitehouse that America will now supply ‘military assistance’ to the Syrian opposition.  So, given the widely acknowledged ‘war weariness’ of the US population, why has this decision been taken, and why now?  The civil war in Syria has been going on for more than two years, and with much of the character that it now displays, so what explain the decision?