Chinese Warnings Over Global Impact Of U.S. Attack On Syria

Xinhua News Agency
September 4, 2013

Commentary: U.S. planned military action against Syria runs grave risks

BEIJING: The U.S. military action against Syria loomed larger as President Barack Obama on Tuesday secured the key backing of House leaders in his push for military action in Syria.

Though the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has, in a draft authorization for the use of military force in Syria, set a time limit and barred U.S. ground troops in the war-torn country, there seems to be every indication that the war, once breaking out, might well slip out of White House’s control and put Washington again in hot water.

Destitute of support and concerted action from any allies, uncertainty, on the other hand, has been growing over Washington’s capability to properly wind up the war as Britain’s House of Commons has rejected a government attack plan. France has yet to make a decision and NATO has ruled out the possibility of any role in any possible military strikes.

The issue of chemical weapons could hardly be solved by military strikes against Syria, which will more likely present new threats. With the U.S. armed intervention, there will be chances that chemical weapons will fall into terrorists’ hands and thus proliferate in the Middle East and even the whole world at large. And this is not in the U.S. interest.

To make things even worse, there is a strong presence of Islamic extremists and al-Qaida militants in Syria’s opposition troops. A rise in extremist force is bound to lead Syria astray onto a more dangerous path and will, in turn, undermine the U.S. strategic interests.

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Tuesday that any military attack on Syria must have Security Council approval and and a U.S. attack could lead to further turmoil in the conflict-ravaged country.

Ban’s remarks, which mirrored the common view of the international community, expressed disapproval of the U.S. endeavor to take unilateral action without the U.N. authorization.

Military intervention in Syria will have a major impact on the geopolitics of the region as well as exert a spillover effect on a number of countries in the Middle East and the rest of the world at large.

Given the painful lessons from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, whose repercussions are still being felt across the world, it is believed that a political solution will be a best and ultimate approach to end the Syrian crisis.

———————————————————————–

Xinhua News Agency
September 5, 2013

Commentary: Derailment of G20 summit violates int’l community’s hope
By Wu Liming

ST. PETERSBURG, Russia: The threatened U.S. military strike against Syria has increased the risk of derailing the upcoming G20 summit, which should be focused on the global economy.

It is apparent summit host Russia has set fostering economic growth and job creation as the primary objectives, but U.S. President Barack Obama is bound to make use of this chance to bring the Syria issue to the summit, seeking support for Washington’s military plans for Syria.

Firstly, Obama has to persuade his war-weary alliance to support his decision. And he is facing a tough job.

The British parliament decided not to join the United States in military moves against Syria, a big blow for Obama. French President Francois Hollande, who had supported military actions, changed his mind and said French lawmakers should be consulted before an attack.

As to Germany, its leaders remain prudent ahead of the upcoming Sept. 22 general election.

Secondly, Obama has to overcome embarrassment in order to talk with his Russian counterpart over Syria.

Obama had snubbed Putin by refusing a bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the summit following Putin’s decision to grant former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden temporary sanctuary.
The president has to make a “U-turn” at the summit and seek an opportunity to talk with the Russian leader.

Taking into account Putin’s clear policy on Syria and strong opposition to U.S.-led military action, Obama will have a tough job explaining why Washington should take the action and risk jihadists taking control of Syria.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said Tuesday: “Let’s hope that at the summit (they) might have some change of heart,” implying a softened signal for Russia.

Thirdly, Obama is bound to talk with other leaders from the international community at the summit.

U.S.-led unilateral military action could send a dangerous signal to the world, since it sidelines the UN Security Council.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has made it clear an authorization from UN Security Council is a must, announcing it will be several weeks before UN investigators can identify the perpetrators of the Damascus chemical weapons attack which prompted the current U.S. plans.

It is well established the G20 summit is a vital forum for leaders to seek more measures to boost the world economy, at a time when global economic growth lacks momentum and the deep-seated impact of the international financial crisis goes on unabated.

Therefore, it would be a pity if the United States tries to derail the summit to suit its own interests, when the international community is looking forward to a successful and effective economic response from major economies.