I am unconditionally in favour of force being used by external powers to prevent governments brutalizing their own people. The principle of non-intervention is fine, but such a principle cannot be carte blanche for using chemical weapons against civilians. Chemical weapons are illegal and are banned under international law. The US-UK-French airstrikes on Syria were of a limited nature and the Russians were informed beforehand as to where they would strike. They were a warning, no loss of life civilian or military has been reported. The purpose was not to overthrow Bashar Al-Assad. Unsurprisingly, protests from the Bashar Al-Assad regime, Russia, Iran and Hezbollah of Lebanon have been loud and many. “The sovereignty of Syria has been violated”, “international law does not permit such attacks”, and so on. A hue and cry can be heard in Pakistan and India as well. What these chest-beaters are forgetting is that before the strikes took place, a UN Security Council Resolution was tabled by the United States to send an international team of inspectors to investigate charges that Al-Assad had used chemical weapons in Douma. It was supported by 12 of the 15 members of the SC. Only Russia and Bolivia voted against it. China abstained. Russia vetoed the resolution. Common sense tells me that if Syria was not guilty, Russia need not have vetoed the resolution. Of course, I know that many a UN resolution has been vetoed by the US when Israel has used excessive force against the Palestinians, but I am not sure if Israel has used chemical weapons in its attacks. The chest-beating in Pakistan has come from two quarters. On the one hand, there are those who associate themselves emotionally with Iran and on the other, leftists who are habitually prone to react negatively to any action from the West against rogue states. For our pro-Iran critics of the airstrikes, Iran is always right, and for the second the United States (US) is always wrong. Regarding the former; extremism, fanaticism and interference in the affairs of other countries if initiated by Iran is good while that done by Saudi Arabia is bad. We in Pakistan of course have our good and bad Taliban, and in the sectarian contest between Iran and Saudi Arabia our rulers favour the Saudi brand of sectarianism. Former President Obama, who I otherwise admire a lot, disappointed me with his inability to take steps to prevent Al-Assad from continuing with his barbarous regime For our anti-American leftists; a corollary of ‘the United States-is-always-wrong’ knee-jerk reaction a necessary implication is that Russia is always right even when Putin, Yeltsin and others subverted Soviet Communism, captured the state and instead embraced Russian Orthodox Christian nationalism and expansionism. When the Russian military annexed the port city of Sebastopol in Crimea, which is part of Ukraine, it was justified or good aggrandizement, but if the US were to do something similar it is innately bad. That international law was violated was conveniently forgotten. I have remained a leftist all my life, now a left social-democrat, but my reasons for adopting leftist ideas and values have been that I believe that economic exploitation, social degradation, war, oppression of citizens, persecution of minorities and all such evils are morally unacceptable. I have never understood why such a conviction should prevent me from upholding such principles and values always, and always raising a voice of protest whenever they are violated. I fully and unreservedly condemn the excessive use of force by India in the parts of Kashmir they administer. The current rise of Hindu nationalism is the ugly face of a Hindu version of cultural fascism — Dalits, Muslims, Christians and the poor in general are the sufferers. I am equally opposed to the Baloch or Pashtuns, Shias, Ahmadis, Christians, Hindus and others being brutalized in Pakistan. I prefer a peaceful resolution of conflicts. With such a standard of ethics to inform my responses to political situation, I want to argue that although President Trump represents a worldview which clashes directly with mine, I find him courageous enough to have at least twice responded with airstrikes on Syria when the Al-Assad regime used chemical weapons on its own people. Former President Obama, who I otherwise admire a lot, disappointed me with his inability to take steps to prevent Al-Assad from continuing with his barbarous regime. It was American unwillingness to act after first encouraging the Syrian opposition to join the so-called Arab Spring and then letting them down when Al-Assad used excessive force to quell peaceful `. The Russians had heavy investment in Syria and enjoyed military facilities and Obama was not willing to antagonise Putin. He was only concerned about not letting Russia go too far in the Ukrainian conflict, and upsetting the balance of power. Obama’s procrastination and indecision provided space for ISIS to emerge as the new factor in the Syrian crisis with Saudi Arabia trying to draw full capital out of it. The US, Russia, Britain, France and even lesser powers collaborated to destroy ISIS. States can and do act for cynical reasons. That I grant. However, all such vagaries surrounding unethical and inconsistent behaviour of states does not mean that when they do act to deter a rogue state from using banned weapons. I should oppose it because in the past they have not done so. Quite simply, Bashar Al-Assad forfeited his right to rule Syria the day he ordered his gangster security and military forces to attack peaceful protestors who were demanding free and fair elections. Al-Assad represents a mafia constituted by his Alawite sect, which barely constitutes 11 percent of the Syrian population. The majority sect is Sunni, making up more than 70 percent of the population. In Iraq, Saddam Hussain and his regime of barely 20 percent ruled over the Kurds and Shias who formed 80 percent of the population together. Such incongruent state formations and government compositions can be traced to the way Britain and France redrew the map of the Middle East after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire. Both favoured minorities to rule over majorities. Just as in India, to counter the Indian National Congress the British favoured the Muslim League. So long as Arab nationalism represented by the Baath parties was the popular ideology of Iraq and Syria the ethnic-sectarian factor played a minor role. I met many Iraqi Shias and Syrian Sunnis in Sweden who were firm supporters of the Baath Party and Arab nationalism. All that changed when Ayatollah Khomeini and his Shia clergy captured power in Iran and began to export their so-called Islamic revolution. In fact, it was a ploy to promote Shia extremism and Iranian influence in the Middle East. Its vitiating impact was felt in Pakistan as well, where Saudi Arabia through its clients responded with Sunni extremism. Considered in this light, my position is simple and principled. Airstrikes on Syria were perfectly justified if Syria did use chemical weapons. On the other hand, if it did not then the strikes were criminal violation of international law and national sovereignty. Considering that Russia vetoed a resolution to send an international investigating team to Syria, I am inclined to believe that there are strong reasons to believe that Syria did use chemical weapons. The writer is Professor Emeritus of Political Science, Stockholm University; Visiting Professor Government College University; and, Honorary Senior Fellow, Institute of South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore. He has written a number of books and won many awards, he can be reached on billumian@gmail.com Published in Daily Times, April 17th 2018.