Despite mixed political and public support at home, London and Paris act to uphold international norm against the use of chemical weapons
Britain and France on Saturday joined the United States in conducting air strikes against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s chemical weapons infrastructure, in an operation that raised comparisons to Western coalition strikes on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq a decade and a half ago (albeit Paris did not partake in that military intervention as then-president Jacques Chirac maintained that the United Nations-initiated chemical weapons inspection process had not yet run its course or produced sufficient evidence to warrant an attack).
In this respect, U.S. leader George W. Bush and former British prime minister Tony Blair came under significant fire as the two nations became entangled in the Iraq War quagmire. London, in particular, has since been extremely reticent to engage in any conflicts abroad, especially in the Middle East.
Accordingly, British premier Theresa May had to tread lightly and thus made certain to convey her belief the assault on Syria was “the right thing to do” and “absolutely in Britain’s national interest.” Nevertheless, that she did not receive the approval of parliament—which currently is in recess—for the limited intervention stirred controversy at home. A poll on Sunday commissioned by the Daily Mail found that six out of ten Brits oppose further strikes unless May wins the backing of parliamentarians, whereas only one in five were in favor of the premier using executive powers to launch more raids; this, despite purported confirmation that the Assad regime had, in fact, used non-conventional arms.
Despite the reservations of the public, British Political Analyst Jonathan Sacerdoti stressed to The Media Line that May abided by the law in green-lighting the mission. “She most likely chose not to consult parliament,” he contended to The Media Line, “as it seems unlikely that the premier would have got any bill that permitted action in Syria to pass. This is especially true when considering [her predecessor] David Cameron was unable to gain support for the authorization of a similar offensive in 2013 despite his more powerful political standing.”
In this respect, British Opposition head Jeremy Corbyn expressed his dissatisfaction with the “legally questionable air strikes,” adding that “parliament should have been consulted and voted on the matter. [May] is accountable to parliament, not the whims of a U.S. president.”
By contrast, the French population appears more supportive of the military action, according to Avi Pazner, former Israeli ambassador to France. “I don’t think there has been much backlash against [President Emmanuel Macron,” he contended to The Media Line. “The people aren’t in favor of Assad and watched in horror as he used chemical weapons, so they see France’s participation as a positive thing.
“Macron wanted to show that he’s a man of his word,” Pazner elaborated. “He said in the past that he won’t allow the use of chemical warfare, so he must uphold his threat.… Macron’s relations with Trump are good and that means France can afford to demonstrate some strength.”
According to Brig. Gen. (res.) Michael Herzog, former head of the Israeli army’s Strategic Planning Division and currently an International Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Britain and France were motivated to act in conjunction with Washington out of a genuine desire to uphold longstanding international norms against the use of chemical weapons. “This combined trans-Atlantic attack is certainly not a one-off,” he explained to The Media Line. “If Syria continues to use chemical weapons, then the three nations are on the same page in their willingness to carry out additional strikes.”
Moreover, Herzog continued, “[Britain and France] are highly concerned with Russia’s actions, with May having directly referenced the [alleged] chemical attack by Moscow against a former spy on British soil. Russia will have to respond,” he submitted, “and this could be by providing more sophisticated weapons to the Syrian regime, another source of global concern.”
When asked why other European nations did not contribute to the operation, Herzog concluded that “Germany, by nature, tries not to participate in military offensives around the globe and other NATO members do not seem willing to commit to the potential cost of continued attacks on Syria.”
All factors considered, many analysts view the European response to the deployment of chemical weapons by Assad as measured. And while the potential for escalation remains should the message not be received in Damascus, for the time being it seems that for London and Paris it is, in President Trump’s words, “mission accomplished.”
(Benji Flacks is a Student Intern in The Media Line’s Press and Policy Student Program)