Trump’s first strike

We condemn outright the use of chemical weapons. For too long, Assad’s regime has been suspected of using this method, propped up by rationalisations and Russian backing.

The Pentagon’s firing of 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at the Shayrat airbase near Homs early yesterday morning (Syria time) represents the first hit against Assad’s regime. In making this move, Trump has cited his changed views on Assad after the atrocious chemical attack.

Critics of the US, however, will note the irony that it is the same Trump who mere weeks ago banned Syrian refugees, some of whom would have been fleeing Assad’s reign. They will also observe that the United Nations (UN) General Assembly voted in a resolution (A/RES/71/248) establishing an International Mechanism of Accountability for crimes committed since 2011 in Syria. They will say the appropriate response was not to engage in force, but to hold Assad to account in a court of law or under some judicial mechanism.

Yet, it is not clear how soon such a mechanism could have been devised and how clear the path to implementation would be given the politics of the UN, which sees several nations holding veto powers at Security Council level. (China and Russia voted against A/RES/71/248.) Sceptics will note that the strikes amounted to a show of force as Trump met with China’s President Xi Jinping at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago, Florida, estate. China stopped short of condemning the action yesterday, as Russia, Iran and Syria decried what they described as a breach of sovereignty.

But those backing the action, including countries such as the UK, Australia, Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, New Zealand and Japan, will note that it is Assad who has apparently breached international rules against the use of chemical weapons.

Presumably these nations, as well as the US, have reliable information about the nature of the facility targeted as well as the veracity of the initial reports which surfaced earlier this week. If the strike will hobble Assad’s ability to use chemical weapons, then it is justifiable.

While action under a judicial mechanism would have been the preferred way to go, the world will nonetheless breathe a sigh of relief that action has been taken against a despot willing to kill his own people. At the same time, we all have good cause to be nervous, mindful of the possible repercussions. A dangerous – even if justified – precedent has been set.

Trump has taken huge risks in this action, especially considering his history. He recently oversaw a disastrous military operation that did not go according to plan. If he proposes to now engage in the use of force for every violation of international law, then we may soon face disaster.

These developments underline the fact that the risks, daily, are rising.

Before Syria, there was an escalation of provocations by North Korea. The US has signalled an intention to tackle that issue alone, without China. Yet there is serious doubt North Korea’s nuclear programme can be stopped completely without Chinese aid.

Ahead of his meeting with Xi yesterday, Trump set himself on a collision course with the Chinese leader, once more taking to Twitter to criticise the impact of global trade on US jobs and blaming China. It is likely that the tensions will remain high between the two most important nations in the world for some time.

If this is not bad enough, other tremors are being felt in relation to the European Union – which was set up to guarantee European peace – and NATO.

While the strike on Syria can be justified – morally if not legally – one thing is clear. The world is now, irreparably, in a dangerous place.