Home Opinion and Features Hypocrisy of Syrian Strike

Hypocrisy of Syrian Strike

176
SHARE

The argument of humanitarian intervention was notoriously used for the US and British occupation of Iraq

Picture: Alkis Konstantinidis/ REUTERS

THE MISSILE strike on Syria was another embarrassing phase in a tragic episode that started in 2011. The joint operation by the US, UK, and France was a sheer show of power – nothing more, nothing less.

What’s worse is their use of humanitarian language for such actions. It tarnishes international humanism.

The history of “humanitarian intervention” goes back to the 19thcentury and was a term invented to legitimise colonialism by the British. It was revived after 9/11 to justify military intervention in Afghanistan.

The argument of humanitarian intervention was notoriously used for the US and British occupation of Iraq.

Despite that, the invasion of Iraq not only led to a great tragedy of war, political chaos, and total devastation, but also proved to be based on lies.

Humanitarian intervention also did not stop the politics of military intervention in the name of humanity in Libya.

In all cases, the humanitarian interventions led to disaster and proved to be utter forms of hypocrisy. The same argument that the US, the UK and France are “punishing Syria for its use of chemical weapons in Ghouta” sounds even less convincing than ever.

Again, it is not the first time that Western liberals have not only supported the so-called “humanitarian military measures” but have indulged in warmongering.

The liberals, who despise Trump otherwise, not only cherished him for the military attack but have also put pressure on him to be on this track since he came to power. The Syrian affair has a dark story to unfold sometime, but the war is inflamed by Western powers, their regional allies and their proxies in order to achieve regime change.

The hostility against the Assad regime has much less to do with his authoritarianism than his alliance with Iran. Trump’s predecessor, Barack Obama, came to the understanding that the best way out was to make a deal with Iran. It was the only hope for peace in Syria, but that is over now.

A “humanitarian military intervention” is a contradiction of terms. Those who believe in humanitarianism should oppose all military aggression and stand up against those disguised as humanitarian interventions. It has huge importance, not only in the name of peaceful politics, but also in the name of the credibility of international humanitarianism.

The Hürriyet Daily News (Turkey)