It seems that the past has no impact for American Administration on foreign affairs policies. An airstrike – in this case- in Syria shows it clearly.
Donald Trump has promised to change complete and make of America a great Nation “again”. However there are doing the same as in the past. George W. Bush has done it before in Irak, appealing to the same humanitarian goals. Paradoxically the response from Trump was: “that’s not keeping us safe” *. As well as this airstrike “that´s not keeping us safe”, neither to the Syrian population nor the international community.
Is it true, a chemical attack from Assad is an unacceptable and outrageous act of violation of human rights that goes against Syrian civilian population, but an airstrike goes against world peace and balance. Indeed the alarm that a military attack spreads around the world is of equal threat as a chemical attack.
An act of this nature coming from a dictator is absolutely foreseeable, that sees in cruelty and submission their only goal of its mandate. Although this is not a matter of American decision to resolve it, in case it could resolve anything at all. I have my serious doubts that America intervention could make any difference on Assad´s strategy; by the contrary it´d generate more resistance and less room for dialogue.
This is a matter of the global community in particular global diplomacy. Success will come from the implementation of a focused strategy from the Security Council in the context of a democratic and open consensus of Nations united around a goal of peace. Deploying the art of diplomacy: open room for negotiation, dialogue and showing strength to apply sanctions or military intervention as the last resource within a legal process.
U.S. or Russia does not represent the “police of the world”, and along history it gets exposure that it hasn’t brought peace or seed roots for a sustainable world counterbalance. By the contrary, it was a “generator” of more violence and division.
There is a lack of coherency on nationalist/isolationist Trump´s speech: one of the main goals of his campaign was to transform American foreign affairs on an agenda of bilateral agreements and the destruction of a global model. This decision goes against those principles and makes reflect that pretend to be an isolationist is only with migrants not with military interventions.
U.S. should make of any military intervention a master of national and international approval not of anarchic moves of power that tend to keep an old model of exercising power. This chaotic situation is also consequence of UN leadership and institutional crisis that through the Security Council is blocking any attempt for a global and democratic consensus to stop this massacre created by Assad´s and feeding by Russia first and now for America.
Being against a dictatorship or chemical attacks is legitimate and act to stop it is only an institutional global decision not a national political biased decision (that it does not even has the consent of the Congress).
Global peace comes from a safe, strong and solid Security Council not America/Russia airstrikes.
The attack over civilian population is an attempt to human rights that under any circumstances helps on the road to counterbalance a world of violence. Just struggling for holding a political parcel of power.
US airstrike in Syria: no lessons learned
*Sculpture” Anxious participation” Aaron Tilley.