Noam Chomsky, the antiwar activist and author, in his latest piece stated: “A US-led attack on Syria without the permission of the United Nations would be a war crime certainly, regardless of congressional approval.” Then why does the US plan to go for war when Syria has not violated any international law? It seems that the US is unwilling to learn from so many unsuccessful wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and is now all set to take limited action against President Bashar al-Assad’s regime. Protests against President al-Assad broke out in March 2011. Similar to other Arab spring movements, they peacefully demanded removal of an autocratic ruler and greater freedoms. Here, I would like to say that some leading economically sound countries have decided and voiced that this time they do not want to be part of any military intervention against Syria along with the US. If we look at continental Europe we will come to know that the leading countries of Europe do not want to be part of a military intervention in Syria, except for France. The failure to agree on a course of action among key European countries, and between Europe and the United States, emphasises the degree to which opinion is divided on intervention and poses questions about the potential for future cooperation between European states in this contentious area of foreign and security policy. France is firmly committed to taking part in a war along with the US while the rest of Europe remains deeply divided over the issue. The other ally of the US in Europe — Britain — will not have a direct role to play in the limited action against President al-Assad because Prime Minister David Cameron lost a vote endorsing military action by 13 votes in the House of Commons. This disunity was pointedly underlined by the rejection of military action by the House of Commons, the first time a British prime minister has lost such a vote since 1782. In contrast, the view of France, and in particular President François Hollande, has been clear. Insisting that the rejection of the UK government’s position in Parliament would have no effect on France, the president stated, “France will be part of it. France is ready.” This follows a recent pattern of French interventionism, including in Libya and Mali. However, the splintering of a coalescing group of countries willing to support military action seems to have had unexpected consequences on both sides of the Atlantic. In the US, President Barack Obama announced his intent to seek authorisation from Congress to pursue military action, which he said would make the US “stronger, and our actions will be even more effective.” The difference between war against Iraq and Syria is that in 2003 Europe was united and committed to take a part in a war against Saddam Hussein’s regime. Now, the scene seems different. Most European countries have decided not to take part in any military action against President al-Assad as there is no evidence that suggests that his regime has used chemical weapons against its people. For instance, Italian Foreign Minister Emma Bonino has clearly mentioned on several occasions that Italy would only take part in limited action against the regime led by President al-Assad if authorised by the UN Security Council. The German stance is similar to the Italian standpoint. Chancellor Angela Merkel is facing upcoming elections and has been extremely cautious in expressing any support for military action against Syria. She expressed her views in an interview when she described the use of chemical weapons as breaking “a taboo…which cannot remain without consequence.” Germany stayed out of military action in Libya, and now it is fair to say that Germany would not go for war against Syria too. Merkel is highly unlikely to commit Germany to any kind of military action. In Europe, among the largest countries we see polarisation between those that support a limited military action without the UN mandate and those that do not support military action at all. Thus, albeit there is a broad agreement that the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable, some common ground on taking action against Syria is difficult to find. In the post-9/11 era, Britain has required a UN Security Council mandate before going to take part in military intervention against any country along with the US on the basis of ‘coalitions of the willing’ and often without independently verified evidence from impartial sources, such as UN weapons inspectors. Spain’s foreign affairs minister, on several occasions, voiced that Spain does not want to be a part of any military intervention against Syria. Furthermore, military action against any country is unjustifiable and conflict between the west and Syria should be resolved through a series of dialogues. From Spain’s point of view, the solution is through negotiations between the regime and the opposition to guarantee a new Syria that would produce a transitional government. A western military strike against Syria would only create more problems not only in Syria but in the region, leading to bloodshed and resulting in the same sort of catastrophic scenario as previous interventions in Libya and Iraq. The United States of America and its European allies have condemned President al-Assad without any evidence that he actually used chemical weapons against his own people. Turkey and Britain will not directly play a military role if the US goes for war but France indicated that it would back the Obama administration if it decided to act against Syria in response to the alleged chemical weapons attack, even without a mandate from the United Nations. Continental Europe is divided over the Syria crisis but the largest countries of Europe staying away from military intervention in Syria seems justified as the US has not presented any evidence against President al-Assad’s alleged usage of chemical weapons. As a permanent member of the Security Council, Russia holds the power to veto any decision that comes before the UN body. Russia has been a stalwart ally of President al-Assad and condemned the US plan to go for military intervention in Syria without the approval of the UN Security Council. It is also believable that if chemical weapons were used by President al-Assad, it may have been a provocation by rebel forces. If NATO attacked Syria without UN sanction — in a rerun of the air war over Kosovo in 1999, which Russia strongly opposed — it would be a “severe violation of international law” that served merely to aggravate, not solve, the conflict. The writer is an attorney and lecturer in Law of International Trade. He can be reached at greenlaw123@hotmail.com