Post a Comment Print Share on Facebook

Nor is it multilateralism, nor is there a strategy

The attack on Syria will not be the beginning of a great friendship between Europeans and Washington to win the battle for Putin

- 16 reads.

Nor is it multilateralism, nor is there a strategy

aseptic operation of punishment of chemical-military objectives of regime of El Asad — without casualties, but without appreciable results — by United States, United Kingdom and France has created Mirage that international liberal order is back. But none of that. Neir Trump will return to fold of multilateralism, nor will this be beginning of a great friendship between Europeans and Washington to win battle for Putin.

More information
  • May defends participation in Syrian attack on Corbyn's criticism
  • America and its allies launch diplomatic offensive following Syrian attack

Firstly, let us be very clear that this is not multilateralism, that is, coordinated action under international law and under umbrella of a multilateral institution, in this case United Nations. Recent examples of multilateralism success are nuclear pact with Iran or Paris climate Agreement; Just two deals that Trump has boycotted. As much as French President Emmanuel Macron is strive, even if we consider this kind of lightning operations as legitimate, even inevitable, y are simply illegal, or at least legal. Unless we Westerners think that Russia and China, contrary to this intervention, do not count for anything.

In reality this is an ad hoc coalition, something practiced by Presidents Clinton, Bush far and son and Barack Obama, usually with France, United Kingdom and a long list of allies: campaigns of selective bombardment and media pyrotechnics, sometimes forcing a Regime change (Iraq, Libya), but in end leaving things mired and "side effects" along way. Ideally, Europeans should tend to multilateralism, because we know that it gives better results: Isn't this why Europe is opposed to trade war?

This marriage to three cannot go very far: each one has different and even divergent interests. For his part, Trump wins in several lands that have nothing to do with humanitarian cause. For example, he hits Obama's head with his "red lines" he couldn't defend in summer of 2013; counteracts its isolationist image; It exhibits muscle with allies of Israel and Saudi Arabia in front of Iran and continues its rhetorical pantomime with Putin's Russia, with which it practices a comfortable bilateralism of letter-sharing and influences. On or hand, UK attack, deranged as its Prime Minister Theresa May — in drift of Brexit and without unconditional support of European Union — is clearly directed not to Assad, but to Putin, as revenge on poisoning of spy Sergey Skripal . As for Macron, this display of grandeur without victims serves to show that it has easy trigger, like Sarkozy and Hollande, and that France can lead.

With se premises, European Union will hardly move forward in a political solution for Syria, nor in transformation of international order. Not in hands of a negationist administration of liberal order, completely schizophrenic, who despises multilateralism and lacks a strategy. By that way Europe could end up making a useful fool of ' America first ' wielded by presidenteTrump.

Obviously, macron and EU would have gained political capital if France had consulted in earnest with or European partners besides Germany before bombing, and not later. For that, Europe of defence was made last November, with 23 countries on board. Do Mogherini and EU foreign ministers really believe that bombing will relaunch Geneva process by itself? It seems that in Tehran, Moscow or Damascus y don't think alike. From here re is no or way than to recognize that Europe is alone, but that it could unite, and that we have to invent way.


You have to login for comment. If you are not a member? Register now.

Login Sign Up