The British Parliament voted against military intervention in Syria, do you think this has affected their relations with the United States? SL: No --- had the Obama Administration been united and decisive for intervention, there might have been some effect. But the Obama Administration's divisions mean its first priority is getting some coherence in Washington, rather than blaming London. MR: I don't think so. I believe that [the] UK has been [the] staunchest ally of the United States for decades. One instance of opposing parliamentary vote will not have impact on US-UK relations. EZ: Maybe. But Britain is not an important power any more, so the affect will be only in the symbolic field. Russian President Vladimir Putin has said Russia could back Syrian intervention if there was conclusive proof of regime guilt. What sort of evidence would be needed and can this level of assurance be given? SL: This is not a scientific question --- we already have extensive evidence establishing the near-certainty of major regime attacks with chemical weapons on 7 towns on August 21. Putin's statement was a political move: it ostensibly re-confirmed the Russian opposition to US intervention while giving Moscow a way to step back if the UN inspectors return a damning report. MR: It is difficult, if not impossible, to provide Moscow with the evidence that they are looking for. In order to provide that specific information several criterions should be met. First of all, the soil of the location where the alleged chemical weapons are used, should immediately be examined after the incident. The Syrian government has not allowed immediate access to these places and usually reports come out days after. Second, and more fundamentally, a concrete and observable evidence is needed for Russia showing that Assad's government has used it as opposed to the rebels. EZ: No the Russians are not after the truth but after their interests even if Assad admits that he used such weapon the Russians will be against any intervention. Bombed out vehicles in during the Syrian civil war. Would US military intervention on Syria be a violation of International law? SL: This is a grey area, especially as there will not be an endorsement by the United Nations Security Council. Supporters of the action say it can be justified under the recent doctrine of humanitarian intervention, but that is more a political rather than legal judgement. MR: Legally speaking, it is [in] violation of [the] United Nations Charter. According to [the] , use of force is permitted only in case of self-defense or UNSC's [United Nations Security Council] approval. Neither of these two cases apply for US use of military force against Syria. However, this does not mean that our current international law is devoid of any shortcomings. The International system has some shortcomings because of the structure of the UNSC, where one member can veto a resolution and block actions. EZ: Technically - yes because they did not get an approval from the UN. Does the United States seem to be wanting to engage in regime change in Syria as opposed to preventing further chemical attacks? SL: No, the Obama Administration has been uncertain about --- and many of its members opposed to — regime change, and that is still the situation. The military, in particular, is opposed to significant, long-term intervention because of its concerns over a fragmented, diverse opposition and what happens if Assad falls. MR: If there was an efficient alternative to Assad, US would have seen the regime change to its political benefits and interests. However, United States does not seem to have articulated any precise agenda towards Syria yet. The policy is more " Wait and See" policy; observing and reacting as things unfold in Syria and the region. EZ: No Obama does not want it, he finds himself being dragged into a war he has no interest in.
The British Parliament voted against military intervention in Syria, do you think this has affected their relations with the United States? SL: No — had the Obama Administration been united and decisive for intervention, there might have been some effect. But the Obama Administration's divisions mean its first priority is getting some coherence in Washington, rather than blaming London. MR: I don't think so. I believe that [the] UK has been [the] staunchest ally of the United States for decades. One instance of opposing parliamentary vote will not have impact on US-UK relations. EZ: Maybe. But Britain is not an important power any more, so the affect will be only in the symbolic field. Russian President Vladimir Putin has said Russia could back Syrian intervention if there was conclusive proof of regime guilt. What sort of evidence would be needed and can this level of assurance be given? SL: This is not a scientific question — we already have extensive evidence establishing the near-certainty of major regime attacks with chemical weapons on 7 towns on August 21. Putin's statement was a political move: it ostensibly re-confirmed the Russian opposition to US intervention while giving Moscow a way to step back if the UN inspectors return a damning report. MR: It is difficult, if not impossible, to provide Moscow with the evidence that they are looking for. In order to provide that specific information several criterions should be met. First of all, the soil of the location where the alleged chemical weapons are used, should immediately be examined after the incident. The Syrian government has not allowed immediate access to these places and usually reports come out days after. Second, and more fundamentally, a concrete and observable evidence is needed for Russia showing that Assad's government has used it as opposed to the rebels. EZ: No the Russians are not after the truth but after their interests even if Assad admits that he used such weapon the Russians will be against any intervention. Bombed out vehicles in during the Syrian civil war. Would US military intervention on Syria be a violation of International law? SL: This is a grey area, especially as there will not be an endorsement by the United Nations Security Council. Supporters of the action say it can be justified under the recent doctrine of humanitarian intervention, but that is more a political rather than legal judgement. MR: Legally speaking, it is [in] violation of [the] United Nations Charter. According to [the] , use of force is permitted only in case of self-defense or UNSC's [United Nations Security Council] approval. Neither of these two cases apply for US use of military force against Syria. However, this does not mean that our current international law is devoid of any shortcomings. The International system has some shortcomings because of the structure of the UNSC, where one member can veto a resolution and block actions. EZ: Technically — yes because they did not get an approval from the UN. Does the United States seem to be wanting to engage in regime change in Syria as opposed to preventing further chemical attacks? SL: No, the Obama Administration has been uncertain about — and many of its members opposed to — regime change, and that is still the situation. The military, in particular, is opposed to significant, long-term intervention because of its concerns over a fragmented, diverse opposition and what happens if Assad falls. MR: If there was an efficient alternative to Assad, US would have seen the regime change to its political benefits and interests. However, United States does not seem to have articulated any precise agenda towards Syria yet. The policy is more " Wait and See" policy; observing and reacting as things unfold in Syria and the region. EZ: No Obama does not want it, he finds himself being dragged into a war he has no interest in.
R
---
—
R
---
—
R
-
—
R
---
—