Svein Melby believes that Donald trump was absolutely right in exposing the attack the airbase shirt in Syria tonight. “The world cannot accept his passivity with the use of chemical weapons, also against its own population”.
Senior researcher Svein Melby (Svein Melby) believes that we are talking about the viability of the United States. In addition, he thinks that the President is Donald trump got an important trump card in negotiations with Russia about Syria.
Next week U.S. Secretary of state Rex Tillerson will go to Russia. If Putin canceled a visit, it would mean that a serious matter.
“We need to get this over with”
Norwegian politicians have also supported the bombing of the airbase.
“There are both security considerations and humanitarian considerations which indicate that it is necessary to put an end to a dictator or other ruler could use chemical weapons against its own population. Chemical weapons should not be used. Especially horrible when chemical weapons are used against its own civilian population in the civil war,” says Svein Melby, a senior researcher at the Center for transatlantic studies at the Institute for defence studies, in an interview with ABC Nyheter.
“If the international community — and in fact means there is only US — you will not set boundaries, it will create a situation where the world will agree that the use of such weapons possible. And this will have consequences extending far beyond Syria,” adds Melby.
There is no turning back
In the night of Friday, the U.S. issued at the air base 59 missiles “Tomahawk”. The purpose of the shelling was the destruction of aircraft used for the chemical attack on the town of Khan Sheyhun earlier in the week.
About 100 Syrian civilians were victims of the use of gas. Monstrous pictures of the victims — among them many children dying an agonizing death, shocked the world.
“Assad used the deadly nerve gas for the destruction of men, women and children. Even babies have become victims of this barbaric attack. In the evening I gave the order to deliberate military attack against an airbase in Syria. This base has been an attack,” said night, Donald trump.
For US it is obvious that behind all this is Syrian government and President Bashar al-Assad.
Svein Melby believes that the U.S. President had no choice after he said Wednesday that Syria crossed the red line, using chemical weapons against the civilian population.
“After what trump said Wednesday that there was no way back. We are talking about wealth and international prestige of the American President and the United States. Because the credibility of the Trump small,” says Melby.
Obama’s policies have been devastating for the US
“When the American President is the most powerful politician in the world — makes the official statement, it is of great importance. And if he’s not doing what warned, it will have huge implications for how the world will perceive,” says Melby.
He refers to the fact that Barack Obama held the same line in 2012, but not backed up his words with deeds.
“His political aims were not backed by force. And it had devastating consequences for the image of the United States and Obama in the middle East and especially in politics,” says Svein Melby.
But Russia reacted sharply. President Vladimir Putin believes that the attack was carried out “in violation of international law, under false pretenses,” according to his press Secretary, Dmitry Peskov, who added that it was an attack on a sovereign state. He also rejected allegations that the Syrian army used chemical weapons.
Rage of the audience?
Svein Melby believes that it is not necessary that such reaction on the part of Russia really mean that much, he believes that it is better to see what official initiatives Russia. Melby recalls coming next week visit Rex Tillerson in Russia.
“Let’s see how Putin will be angry. That from Russia is a variety of angry statements, is one thing. Quite another if they would cancel the upcoming visit to Russia Tillerson. If he’s still in the program, I would take everything so that Russian engaged in a game to the public. But what they are actually interested in a serious dialogue with the Americans on this problem.
Tonight, trump said that “the attack on Syria was necessary for our national security.” It was broadcast from the residence of the Mar-a-Lago in Florida, where he holds a summit meeting with President of China XI Jinping.
But Congress was not informed, informed only si and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. Trump added that he would like to see the allies of the US now also take part in solving the Syrian problem.
The Kosovo precedent for NATO attacks
“Civilized Nations” should work together with USA to take part in what should put an end to the massacres and bloodshed in Syria,” said trump in his speech.
— Should NATO take that as an invitation?
— It is possible. The quote indicates that for a night attack is more long-term plan or strategy. This may indicate that he thought to connect to end the war. Then the US will need allies in the region and around the world.
To that end, need a solution on which they could rely.
Melby absolutely convinced that the UN Security Council to fail if both Russia and China would use its veto power. Thus, NATO is the only alternative for the application of international sanctions and that was when the Alliance decided on the eve of the intervention in Kosovo in 1999, when it participated and Norway. NATO took part in the actions in Libya.
— Is there a risk of conflict between NATO and the United States on the one hand and Russia and Syria on the other?
— I don’t think that Syria will start a direct military confrontation between USA and Russia, — says senior researcher Svein Melby.
Everything points to a long-term operation
He thinks trump instead uses it in order to secure a more advantageous position at negotiations.
“It may be an element of diplomatic operations, to begin the process of negotiations to end the war. We will better understand the situation, judging by the way Tillerson will be in Russia next week, if it will. Quote from trump is talking about something more long term and more than this the only attack, says Svein Melby and emphasizes the following. The main question I ask myself is the following: is this only a demonstration to put an end to the use of chemical weapons, or is it a new direction in American politics? I think that next week we get a clearer signal in this regard. No matter what, it changes ideas about American foreign policy — and those that emerged during the election campaign, and those that evolved on the policies pursued to this day.”
