Sir, – You suggest unilateral western action against Syria without UN Security Council assent would be illegal and that the International Criminal Court (ICC) is the appropriate forum to judge such a war crime.
Use of chemical weapons against civilians is a war crime, and what good does it do to permit a tyrant to gas his people until such a tyrant gets to the ICC, if ever. It is also overdue to consider whether it is appropriate to allow the UN Security Council – based on post second World War global power structures – to block actions based on a sole veto within it. Should Russia be allowed to hold a global veto over Syria using poison gas or genocide in the Balkans? Or allowing China to be such an arbiter of human rights? What should be important is stopping atrocities and eradicating WMD. If Obama forced the hand to get Syrian poison gas under control then that is what truly matters and should be supported. – Yours, etc,
PETER J McHUGH,
Whitford Hills Road,
Exton, Pennsylvania, US.
Sir, – It is very heartening to learn that Germany has accepted an initial group of refugees from Syria. Germany will welcome 5,000 refugees in total. What a contrast between this quiet humanitarian gesture of the dignified Mrs Merkel and the posturing of the “little Napoleon” in Paris, who seems hell-bent on bombing Syria. – Yours, etc,
ALAN Mc PARTLAND,
Grange Court,
Rathfarnham, Dublin 16.
Sir, – With reference to your Editorial (September 11th): there was something almost grimly amusing in observing the gyrations of the US administration following Secretary of State John Kerry’s statement that if Syria were to hand over its stockpile of chemical weapons within a week it could avert a military strike by the US.
When Russia and Syria responded positively to this proposal the US replied that Mr Kerry’s remarks were merely rhetorical rather than a serious proposal. However, there was a quick about-face by the White House, faced with probable disapproval by Congress and strong disapproval by the American public to military action action against Syria.
The result was that the White House, as reported by Simon Carswell (September 11th), “Responded to the possibility of a political solution to the Syrian crisis by offering the Assad regime the chance to avoid military action by handing over his chemical weapons”.
Thus was President Obama relieved of his rash statement of 2011 that “Assad must go”. Much is now being made of the fact that Assad has now finally admitted, for the first time, that Syria possesses chemical weapons. It would be nice if the US’s ally in the Middle East,Israel, would now also admit openly that it possesses nuclear weapons. – Yours, etc,
ALBERT COLLINS,
Bishopscourt Road, Cork.