8/24/2013

According to the French papers, Le Figaro of 23 August 2013, Assad’s regime has very likely used chemical attack killing 1300 people with chemical weapons on last Wednesday. The attack was against the two armed groups around Damascus who were ready for anti-Assad operations. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/171141#.UhVfy9KTTE1

Use of chemical weapon against own people by the phoney regime of Syria that is a bastion of Mullins’s Shiite Islam and an oasis of their mafia in the region is not unlikely. Likely a government attack on a large scale and precise target would cause such big casualties in such a sensitive opposition area. It has been reported, “In Eastern Gota and Mou’adamieh in Western Gota were bombed with dozens of rockets loaded with toxic agents, which claimed the lives of hundreds, mostly women and children” http://www.vdc-sy.info/index.php/en/reports//chemicaldamascussuburbs

Regarding the plight of Syrian people, France proposed military intervention if the chemical attack were really committed by the Assad’s army. Well-funded by the human rights standard, the UN and most western countries react by accusing Bashar-al Assad’s regime of being very likely responsible for the massacre. Only Russia had backed up the Assad regime’s denials of crimes.

Since the advent of the Islamic regime, the shocking footages appearing of such massacres in Iran and the region are tied to the Islamic regime. In the case of Syria, the growing consensus is that chemical weapons might be used with the logistical support and presence of Mullahs’ troops and its Lebanese protégé Hezbollah in Syria.

The question remains to know what to do against such criminal regimes that massacre their own people?

To safeguard oppressed peoples against a totalitarian regime or a foreign force of occupation, we have had efficient helps and military interventions from outside. In my view, if the helps do not aim to reoccupy or install a proxy regime, then can be justified as “right of intervention”. The expression « Le droit d’ingérence » was first proposed by the French philosopher Jean-François Revel in 1979 and therefore a moral justification for the French socialist government proposing it in Syria.

The idea is backed up by freedom of many European countries during the World War II from the Nazi regime. It also refers to the imposition of  no-fly zones over Shiites in Iraq before the 2003 invasion, release of Cambodia from the Pol Pot’s terror regime in 1978, and recently release of Libya from lunatic Ghaddafi. These are some examples of military intervention with humanitarian goals inspired from Jean-François Revel.

In his view, military intervention can be deployed to help a subjugated nation to free themselves from their yoke on the condition that all military actions and presence of the foreign forces will be limited to a period of time and to precise aims proposed by the UN Security Council.

It is to debate if a military intervention can become a legitimate option when human catastrophes like Holocaust, ethic and political massacre are committed by a regime or foreign force of occupation. Needless to mention that peoples of the world must map a bigger solidarity together to legitimise such an intervention, without that, the intervention is not trusted as a humanitarian action of the international community. Popularity of humanitarian intervention can considerably rise when the international solidarity take over the sceptical misunderstandings due to the geological ambitions of key powers and their lucrative handles with totalitarian regimes or the new regimes after the intervention.

The 2003 controversial US intervention on Iraq aside, the NATO’s interventions in Kosovo in 1999 and in Libya in 2011 were the two exemplary interventions permitted by the UN. They have ignited pragmatic debates over the philosophy of right of intervention mostly debated in French media as “le droit d’ingérence”.

The very humanitarian point of the post-intervention appears when the UN can closely check whether the mandated intervention is strictly respected in favour of people or ends up with lucrative contracts with new “installed” regimes.

Needless to mention because of colonial and imperialistic ambitions of key powers, most opposition milieus are pessimistic and reject a UN mandated intervention as an eventual complot of key powers. In this perspective, the legality of using military force to respond to human rights violations in Syria remains a controversial issue among both the oppressed people and the various opposition groups.

The negative experience of Iraqi intervention can be gradually overshadowed by the 2011 contingency model of Libya. Iraqi predicaments of intervention are actually worsened by political Islam led by the Islamic regime and do not forcibly justify the preference of non-intervention. The anti-interventionists focus on wars from outside, but never the wars infected by the regimes like those of Ghaddafi, Assad, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Mullahs, on their own peoples.

In my view, under imposed wars on own peoples by the totalitarian regimes, an immediate UN mandated military intervention can match a humanitarian and relatively less damaging solution if the post-intervention is planned and only controlled by the UN.