Gabriel Helou

It seems that threatening to use force against other sovereign States has become "normal" for Western Governments and part of their foreign policies. Although the US and Russia reached an agreement on stripping Syria of its chemical weapons, and Syria acceded to the Chemical Weapons Convention (it will enter into force for it on 14 October 2013), the US said that “military option remains on the table”. Also, France’s Hollande stated that “the use of force against Syria is critical”. So, how could the US and France talk about international peace and security when they both say that “using force against Syria is still an option”? The threat of force against another State itself threatens international peace and security, and also violates international law, particularly Article 2(4) of the UN Charter.

Notice how the “war coalition” against Syria has been invoking “conscience”, which is nothing but a pretext to justify military action. But let’s ask an innocent question: where has this “conscience” been as regards the 65-year old Palestinian tragedy? Israel has persistently and systematically violated international law, including the UN Charter and the fourth Geneva Convention of 1949.   Israel has used internationally banned weapons. It has breached almost every provision of International Humanitarian Law. But Israel’s acts haven’t so far shocked the “world conscience”. And it continues to violate international law, with complete impunity. Therefore, it’s a selective   “conscience”   - a   “conscience”   à la carte.

“Because whatever Congress may decide, a US military strike against Syria will still be illegal, immoral and dangerous, even reckless in the region and around the world. Congress needs to say no . ”

US Administration should realize that it's easier to abide by international law than to try to find "justifications" to violate it. 

“ The amendments to the Rome Statute on the crime of aggression were adopted by consensus at the Kampala Review Conference in June 2010. The British and French were part of that consensus. The definition of the crime of aggression is as follows ”

"When the president reaches a determination about the appropriate response ... and a legal justification is required to substantiate or to back up that decision, we'll produce one on our  own ." So basically the US will invent new “legal rules” to justify illegal action.

“ Russia on Wednesday called  the Arab League's decision to award Syria's seat at the organisation to the anti-regime National Coalition"illegal and indefensible".  "In terms of international law,  the League's decision on Syria is illegal and indefensible because the government of the Syrian Arab Republic was and is the legitimate representative member-state at the United Nations," the Russian foreign ministry said in a  statement .”

“Photoshop and the Syrian crisis: One of the most famous examples of photoshopping during the ongoing foreign-orchastrated Syrian crisis is the photo which appeared in Austria’s largest newspaper Kronen Zeitung on July 28 (first photo below) when readers were treated to the image on the left of bombed out Aleppo. The original photo on the right came from the European Pressphoto Agency and shows a Syrian family that was or wasn’t fleeing for the violence …”