The Hindu EDITORIAL :- US missile attack on Syria: A reckless intervention (सीरिया पर मिसाइल हमला: एक लापरवाह हस्तक्षेप) - APRIL 10, 2017

The Hindu Editorial

The American air strikes (हवाई हमला) on Syria raise questions of legality (वैद्यता) and purpose (उद्देश्य)

The U.S. missile attack on a Syrian airbase, which President Donald Trump ordered after civilians in the rebel (विद्रोह)-held Idlib province (प्रांत) were hit with chemical weapons (रसायनिक हथियार) causing the deaths of at least 80 people, marks a departure in American policy towards the war-ravaged country.(युद्ध-तबाह देश) Though President Barack Obama had repeatedly said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad should go, he resisted calls for military action in this regard, primarily for two reasons: he wanted the U.S. to stay focussed (ध्यान केंद्रित किये रहना) on the campaign against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, and was wary of dragging (खींचे) the U.S. into a direct confrontation (सामना) with Russia, which is backing the regime (शासन पद्धत्ति). Even Mr. Trump’s Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, had said that Mr. Assad’s future was up to the Syrians. But then came the chemical attack on Khan Shaykhun, leading Mr. Trump to launch Tomahawk cruise missiles on the al-Shayrat airbase in Homs. On the face of it, it appears to be a bold move intended to take Mr. Assad to task for his actions. But in truth, the Trump administration has risked escalating the Syrian crisis to far more (बढ़ते हुए जोखिम में डाल दिया) dangerous levels. Once the brouhaha (हो हल्ला) over the attack settles, Mr. Trump will face the question of what he really achieved from the missile strike. Did it establish any deterrence (शक्ति संतुलन) in Syria? Will it help in the long run to mitigate (कम करना) the suffering of the Syrians or bring the civil war to an end?

The strike also raises questions about its legality (वैधता). The UN Charter clearly states that any attack on another country needs Security Council approval (अनुमति) unless it is an act in self-defence. On the ground, the U.S. action seems to have cemented (पुख्ता हुआ) the alliance between Moscow and Damascus further, with the former sending a warship to the Mediterranean (भूमध्यसागरीय) and threatening (धमकी भरा) to halt a “deconfliction” (बिना कोई विरोधाभास) channel, a hot line between the Russian and U.S. defence ministries to avoid direct confrontation (सामना) in Syria. Mr. Trump could have waited for the UN to complete its probe (जांच) into the chemical attack in Khan Shaykhun before initiating (शुरुआत}) military action, while simultaneously (एक साथ) working to build a consensus (आम सहमति) on Syria at the UN Security Council. The U.S. and other countries could also have put more pressure on Moscow to rein in Mr. Assad, and offered support to the peace process backed by Russia and Turkey. If the last six years of the deadly civil war in Syria offer a concrete lesson (कठोर सबक), it is that there are no quick fixes (जल्द सुधार) to this crisis that has political, sectarian (सांप्रदायिक) and geopolitical (भू राजनीतिक) dimensions (विस्तार). Removing Mr. Assad forcibly (जबरन )may sound purposeful,(उद्देश्यपूर्ण) but it risks (जोखिम) a direct confrontation (टकराव) between the U.S. and Russia and could result in the deaths and displacement (विस्थापन) of many more Syrian, striggering another  wave of refugees (शरणार्थी). The primary focus of the international community (समुदाय) should be on ending this war, not on lighting new fires.(नई आग लगाना)