The Syria Attack Signals a Change in the Direction of the US Administration
Published in Nikkei
(Japan) on 8 April 2017
by (link to original)
(Japan) on 8 April 2017
by (link to original)
Translated from
by Deborah Chapin.
Edited by Christine Murrison.
In what direction is the world being led? A comprehensive strategy cannot be discerned from the attack on Syria by the Trump administration. This course of action is the opposite of the conventional plans one would expect in order to bring peace to the Middle East in cooperation with Russia. Such a sharp turn in a superpower can hasten disorder in the world.
President Trump has emphasized that the change in policy came about because President Bashar Assad used chemical weapons to slaughter innocent civilians. Syria is part of the Chemical Weapons Convention. Therefore, if Assad genuinely used chemical weapons, the United States’ retaliation is justified.
Nevertheless, using military force without presenting clear proof to organizations like the U.N. Security Council is going too far. In 2003, the United States invaded Iraq, thinking that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. However, the U.S. could not find any.
Did President Trump act in this way because he wanted to be different from Obama, who was constantly hesitant to use military force? If so, this is not consistent with remarks he made during the presidential election campaign, when he claimed that America would not be the world’s policeman. It would be a grave issue if the aim were to conceal uncertain relations between political leaders and Russia.
Russia has continuously adopted a supportive stance with regard to President Assad. It is quite possible that the United States’ anti-Assad actions could further prolong the civil war. Is the U.S. considering preparations for a case in which refugees once again are roused in great numbers to crowd into Europe? At a summit with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Trump would not even shake her hand. Leaving the rest up to the European Union is too irresponsible.
Iran’s condition has also become uncertain. Russia and the United States have become the proponents of restricting the development of nuclear weapons, but the agreement may have to be sent back to the drawing board.
The condition of Asia’s security cannot yet be discerned. President Trump will not hesitate to use military force. This kind of impression might have the result of putting pressure on North Korea. However, there is still fear that this will trigger violence instead.
Meanwhile, North Korea’s relationship with China is also sensitive. The only thing that is certain is that the strategy of isolating China by joining with Russia is no longer useful.
At the White House, there are various power struggles, and, as usual, it is difficult to tell who is in control. The situation in which the world is manipulated by Trump’s administration is unlikely to end. It is vital to prepare for such a circumstance.
President Trump has emphasized that the change in policy came about because President Bashar Assad used chemical weapons to slaughter innocent civilians. Syria is part of the Chemical Weapons Convention. Therefore, if Assad genuinely used chemical weapons, the United States’ retaliation is justified.
Nevertheless, using military force without presenting clear proof to organizations like the U.N. Security Council is going too far. In 2003, the United States invaded Iraq, thinking that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. However, the U.S. could not find any.
Did President Trump act in this way because he wanted to be different from Obama, who was constantly hesitant to use military force? If so, this is not consistent with remarks he made during the presidential election campaign, when he claimed that America would not be the world’s policeman. It would be a grave issue if the aim were to conceal uncertain relations between political leaders and Russia.
Russia has continuously adopted a supportive stance with regard to President Assad. It is quite possible that the United States’ anti-Assad actions could further prolong the civil war. Is the U.S. considering preparations for a case in which refugees once again are roused in great numbers to crowd into Europe? At a summit with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Trump would not even shake her hand. Leaving the rest up to the European Union is too irresponsible.
Iran’s condition has also become uncertain. Russia and the United States have become the proponents of restricting the development of nuclear weapons, but the agreement may have to be sent back to the drawing board.
The condition of Asia’s security cannot yet be discerned. President Trump will not hesitate to use military force. This kind of impression might have the result of putting pressure on North Korea. However, there is still fear that this will trigger violence instead.
Meanwhile, North Korea’s relationship with China is also sensitive. The only thing that is certain is that the strategy of isolating China by joining with Russia is no longer useful.
At the White House, there are various power struggles, and, as usual, it is difficult to tell who is in control. The situation in which the world is manipulated by Trump’s administration is unlikely to end. It is vital to prepare for such a circumstance.
Previous article![]( "There Will Not Be a Bargain: How Trump Engaged in Foreign Policy and Upset Moscow")
Next article![]( "The End of American Exceptionalism")
