In the last few days, in Syria, another, atrocious episode of a war took place which, which began in November 2011, caused a huge number of deaths, especially among the civilian population, and which aroused the indignation of the international community for the consequences that, in this case, have occurred: the reference is to the air raid that the Syrian aviation would have conducted against the rebels on the city of Khan Sheikhun, in the north-western province of Idlib, in which the use of chemical weapons, causing the death of more than eighty people and the wounding, even serious, of numerous other victims, including many children.
The conditional is a must, at the moment, given the contrasting versions that have followed, especially on the dynamics of events (deliberate use of chemical weapons by the Syrian aviation, on the one hand, side effect of the raid, which would have destroyed a warehouse destined to chemical weapons, on the other): despite this uncertainty, while the present contribution was being drafted, the US unilaterally decided to attack the Syrian military base in Shayrat, in the province of Homs, from where the incriminated raids would leave, launching an attack in the night, with fifty-nine Tomahawk missiles departing from some of their ships in the Mediterranean.
On this point, it must be said that not even the statements made by the various Heads of State and Government in the aftermath of the massacre in question, which led to the urgent call of the UN Security Council, as well as those immediately following the rejection of the motion for a resolution (see, for example, what was stated by the American ambassador Nikki Haley during the last emergency Council specifically convoked urgently, according to which "When the UN fails to carry out its duty to act collectively, there are times when states are forced to act on their own", Or, again, the statements of the French one, François Delattre, according to whom"We are talking about war crimes with chemical weapons: let's be clear, the attack in the province of Idlib took place in an area where the Syrian army and air force operate; even those who support the Assad regime cannot prevent these barbaric attacks", Adding that"Lack of action is not an option, our credibility as member states is at stake", is that "the time has come to act collectively in the Security Council"), Advanced by the United States, France and Great Britain, with which an" ad hoc "commission would be set up to investigate the incident (through a request for precise information on the operations of the incriminated day, the plans of flight of the Syrian Air Force, including the names of military pilots involved in the operations, access to the air bases from which they would have departed and a series of meetings with the Syrian generals and the leadership of Damascus, also providing for the possibility of some certain sanctions against Assad who, since the beginning of the conflict in Syria in 2011, has been accused several times for the use of chemical weapons, despite the 1993 Paris Convention - which entered into force in 1997 - prevents their storage, manufacture and use by establishing preventive control procedures.
But the US attack last night is now a fact and, to tell the truth, has already caused two consequences with uncertain results: a) the suspension, by the government of Putin, of the memorandum of cooperation that, in force with the US, to avert the risk of accidents in Syria, it will now allow Moscow to react against the various threats coming from the American forces (such as just another possible missile bombardment); b) the sending, by Putin, of the Russian frigate Admiral Grigorovich RFS-494, armed with cruise missiles Kalibr, in the eastern Mediterranean (where there are also two US ships from which the attack in question would have started), to the Syrian port of Tartus, where there is a Kremlin military base.
In addition to the increasingly marked and now undeniable internationalization of the conflict, from a strictly juridical point of view, although in recent years no more or less declared alliances with one or other of the other international actors have ever been a mystery (Iran and Saudi Arabia among all, in addition to the aforementioned Russia and the United States).
Excluding these considerations, there are two aspects of which, now, or tomorrow, we must necessarily take into account and here we want to mention: in order of time, what happened in Syria about the chemical weapons and, later, the reaction American.
With some due premises:
1) a technical analysis (legal, military, political or otherwise), sometimes risks becoming cold, apparently far from the tragedy of certain facts, such as those in question: but this does not mean that they should not be condemned, however they are things, abominable acts that harm the human person, especially when it is incarnated in the image of struggled children and unarmed civilians;
2) does not currently have a version of the facts that is third and impartial, and therefore what we will try to do is try to offer some additional food for thought that, starting from the official statements of the actors involved, can be useful to a discussion - we hope - more aware, at least from the standpoint of the two general categories concerning armed conflicts, namely that of the "ius in bello" (to be understood as respect for the rules of law during, in fact, a conflict) and "ius ad bellum" (pertaining to the legitimacy or otherwise of the use of force by one or more States in the international context).
Let's proceed with order.
The Syrian bombing: was the "ius in bello" respected?
On the latter attack, the Syrian government has put forward the justification that a deposit of chemical weapons in the hands of the rebels has been hit by its own aviation, finding support, in this version, in Russia which, through the spokesperson of its Foreign Ministry , Maria Zakharova, stated that "The US presented a resolution based on false reports; the draft resolution complicates the attempts at a political solution to the crisis, is anti-Syrian and can lead to an escalation in Syria and in the entire region". The Moscow Defense Ministry itself explained, also through its spokesman, Igor Konoshenkov, that the contamination with chemicals was indeed the consequence of an air raid by government forces, but conducted on a chemical weapons depot controlled by the rebels (see his statements launched on YouTube: "Yesterday, from 11.30 to 12.30 local time, the Syrian air force conducted an attack on a large ammunition depot of terrorists and a concentration of military material on the eastern outskirts of Khan Sheikhoun. On the territory of the depot there were workshops that produced ammunition for chemical weapons")
That version, even if true, would not suffice to justify automatically the work of the Syrian Government, since, in the present case, certain aspects should be analyzed in the light of the criteria established by international humanitarian law, the application of which in the present conflict, it is very difficult to doubt: the latter, in fact, in the conduct of military operations, establishes not only that the civilian population must be kept unscathed by any attack, but also that a hypothetical action, for the which assumes military necessity subsistent and, consequently, a possible derogation from the laws, must in any case be proportionally carried out and that any side effects (among which, as in the case in question, the accidental killing of civilians) must be justified by the tactical advantage obtained, which must be precise, concrete and, above all, current, to nothing by detecting possible implications on future policies.
In this case, immediately eliminated the hypothesis of an accidental bombing of the arms storage by the government of Damascus, and going to think about that, more likely (at least we hope, in some ways), a targeted attack, we should to understand if the military advantage thus obtained from the destruction of the warehouse and its contents could somehow justify the side effects that could have occurred (assuming that they were foreseen) as, in fact, they occurred (ie the death of more eighty people and the injury - even serious - of many other people).
In light of the above, there are many questions that could arise and responding to which we could try to understand if, legally speaking, the action of the Syrian forces was all in all legitimate, provided that always a war is discussed and that unfortunately, civilians (including many children) died or were seriously injured: was this attack preceded by intelligence work? Were the weapons deposited therein of a nature and quantity such as to accept, as a counterpart to their destruction, any human losses among the civilian population? Was it really necessary to bomb that warehouse? Has a concrete and current military advantage been obtained in proportion to the action taken?
The American attack: has the "ius ad bellum" been respected?
As for the American missile attack against the Syrian base from which the incriminated air raid started, however, there is doubt about its legal legitimacy, given the fact that it took place in the absence of one of the requirements set out in the United Nations Charter. (i.e .: defense of international peace and security - in which case, however, it would be necessary - or, in the present case, it would be necessary - the mandate of the Security Council and self-defense, one's own or of a State party to the United Nations itself) .
The reasons given by the American President, Donald Trump, in reality, according to which the attack would have occurred to defend the international community - and above all the United States - by the Syrian threat of the use of chemical weapons, are inserted in the wake of the doctrine already implemented by the US government in war on terrorism
If it could (and may) result in a forcing (but that could find its raison d'etre - and therefore a sort of justification - in the objective asymmetry of the clash with terrorists), it can be even more extending this concept intervention in Syria, and because, at the moment of the facts, there is no evidence of the use of chemical weapons by Assad (if there were, then they could be shown to world opinion: otherwise, accept an attack on one Whether or not it is sovereign, it would mean admitting arbitrary aggression towards anyone, and accepting, in this way, the vision of some, according to which international law is, at the end of the day, the right of most strong and nothing more), and because, in doing so, it would risk weakening the government of that country precisely in its fight against terrorist groups.
On the one hand, if it is not a mystery that the number one in the White House has never had sympathy for the United Nations itself, which, as you recall, were defined by itself, the day after its inauguration to the American Presidency, "just a club for people who find themselves, chat and have fun", on the other hand, the economic interests underlying the Syrian crisis can not be underestimated - they contribute - and not only - to casting so many shadows (and not only) on the facts in question. Kennedy junior, from the same issued to the magazine "Politico" in February 2016, according to which "The American decision to organize a campaign against Assad did not start following the peaceful protests of the 2011 Arab Spring, but in the 2009, when Qatar offered to build a ten billion euro pipeline that would have to cross Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Turkey".
Of course, the events of these days - but not only - demonstrate once again, on the one hand, the need for a reform of the United Nations, which takes into account the changed needs and a reality that, from the years of its creation, has undoubtedly changed; on the other, the total absence of the European Union, devoid of its own identity, of its common defense system (often announced but still far from being established and put into service) and, above all, of its foreign policy , left to the declaration of individuals who, as in this case, allow us to glimpse a disarming flattening towards the US, of whose importance nobody doubts, but of which also, in many respects, the terms of the alliance should probably be renegotiated, not in unilaterally (as Trump himself would like to do, eager to disengage some US funding currently engaged in NATO and UN, to apply tariffs to goods of European origin and, in general, to review trade agreements with partners of all time ) but according to parity: doing otherwise, it would mean to remain for a long time at the mercy of others' choices, ending up being victims or sometimes accomplices. We hope that Syria is not a sad example.
(photo: US Navy)
