UN Security Council trio: The false license to invade
In reality, Trump, Macron and May are, however, the three rogue stooges that are committing a crime by violating the UN Charter and trashing international norms in a sad spectacle of neo-colonialism, and endangering international peace and security.
All three countries recently played host to the Saudi Crown Prince, without any qualm about the endless suffering of millions of civilians in Yemen, as they competed with each other in selling billions in arms to the country that is waging a genocidal war. But they claim to be rightfully outraged by the horrific images of women and children that were allegdly gassed in eastern Ghouta, so much so that they have taken upon themselves the moral task of punishing Assad and initiating their bombing campaign in an awe-inspiring show of force.
And yet, with the similar false pretext for the 2003 Iraq war still fresh in our minds, the mask has already fallen for our new ‘three musketeers.’ A rogue does not behave in the same way that an honest man does, they shed the tears of a hypocrite. Imagine this: they use their paid proxies to stage a false flag, inflame emotions with their 'wag the dog' video going viral on social media, thwart a UN-led fact-finding and then attempt to preempt the responsible authorities, in this case, the OPCW experts from properly doing their job, by unleashing their cruise missiles as their military chiefs stood tall in their press briefs, congratulating the heroic men and women of their armed services. In their mind, they deserve full applause from the global audience, yet they should think of the prospect that the truth about the alleged gas attack will eventually come out and it is only a matter of time before their naked aggression is fully exposed.
But, maybe not - and these three Western powers count on the ability of their own complacent media to continue to paint a rosy picture of their behavior, and thereby escape the unwanted repercussion of being viewed as international criminals violating the sovereignty of another nation with their unprovoked attack that lacks the minutest justification from the standpoint of international norms and principles. Substituting their own arbitrary standards for international standards, they have become self-referential, in light of Nikki Haley's statement that all three "believe" there is evidence of Assad's use of chemical weapons. In other words, they sincerely believe in their own created lies and arrogantly expect the rest of the world to sheepishly toe the line and abstain from any criticism. After all, they have wrapped themselves in the veneer of humanitarian care for the others, the innocent victims of gas attacks, immunized from the complaint that they lack authorization by either the world forums or their own representative bodies to initiate an act of war on Syria. Also, they depict their actions as a collective security good bringing "stability."
Of course, all this must make George Orwell shiver in his grave. These three stooges of war have nothing in common with Dumas' heroes, who were united to do good, not evil in the world. Their action has made a mockery of international law, adding a dark new chapter to Western neo-colonialism and its long history of meddling, disrupting, and distorting Middle Eastern affairs. A big question is, however, what they can possibly gain at a time when they are essentially the losing party. Their missile strikes on Syria are not a game-changer but rather a fresh reminder of a lost cause that cannot be reversed, short of risking World War Three. As a result, they may have inflicted some minor damage, but the damage to their own global legitimacy is deeper and longer-lasting.
Kaveh L. Afrasiabi for RT
Kaveh L. Afrasiabi has taught international relations at Tehran University. He is a former adviser to Iran’s nuclear negotiators and a former UN consultant on "Dialogue Among Civilizations." Afrasiabi is an author of several books on Iran, the Middle East, and UN reform. His articles have appeared in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Guardian, the UN Chronicle, Der Tagesspiegel, Harvard International Review, the Columbia Journal of International Affairs, Brown's Journal of International Affairs, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, among others.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.