World reaction to airstrike on Syria differs from that in US

The April 4 chemical weapons attack in Syria that killed many civilians, including children, was an atrocity that shocked the world. Many United Nations members, China included, have called for an independent investigation into who the perpetrator was.

But before such an investigation could be carried out, the White House quickly decided by itself that it was the Syrian government army that carried out the attack. On Thursday night, US President Donald Trump ordered the launch of 59 Tomahawk missiles at the Syrian Sharat air force base.

While destroying military jets, an air defense system and other logistics facilities, the bombing killed and injured a number of civilians, the governor of Homs told the news media.

The bombing has received widespread support from US politicians, including many Democrats. Many also wondered about Trump's U-turn in his views on the Syria issue.

In a tweet, Ian Bremmer, a US political scientist and president of the Eurasia Group, called the attack the most popular action Trump has taken to date as president with the US political establishment.

Protests also erupted in at least a dozen US cities on Friday afternoon. I witnessed angry protesters outside the White House condemning the US airstrike and deploring the mess it has made in the Middle East, such as in Iraq and Libya.

Some cited the March 17 US coalition air strike in Iraq's western Mosul, which resulted in the deaths of as many as 200 civilians.

After Thursday's airstrike, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on Friday urged restraint to avoid any escalation of the situation in Syria.

UN members are sharply divided on the issue. While most US allies in NATO have voiced support, the diverse views of the international community are largely missing in mainstream US news media.

Liu Jieyi, China's ambassador to the UN, said at an emergency Security Council meeting on Friday morning that China always stands for dialogue in resolving international conflicts, and all parties must ensure that the situation does not further deteriorate. He called on people to support the UN as the main mediation channel. "Military means will not work," he said.

Mounzer Mounzer, Syria's deputy ambassador to the UN, called the US strike a "barbaric, flagrant act of aggression" that will embolden "terrorist groups" to use chemical weapons in the future. He stressed that the Syrian government doesn't possess chemical weapons and isn't responsible for Tuesday's attack on the town of Khan Sheikhoun.

Russia called the US airstrike as "aggression" that can only strengthen terrorist groups such as ISIS.

In the Friday meeting, Vladimir Safronkov, Russia's deputy ambassador to the UN, traded heated words with his US counterpart Nikki Haley. He criticized the US action and double standards used on the Syrian government, the US and US allies.

Sacha Llorenti, the Bolivian ambassador to the UN, was among the most outspoken on Friday. He held an enlarged photo of Colin Powell, then-US secretary of state, making a case for a war on Iraq in a 2003 presentation at the UN. Powell's argument was later proven to be based on false evidence.

"I believe it's vital for us to remember what history teaches us, and on this occasion (in 2003), the United States did affirm, they affirmed that they had all the proof necessary to show that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction but they were never found … never were they found," Llorenti told the UN meeting on Friday.

Olof Skoog, Sweden's ambassador to the UN, also said the US missile strike "raises questions of compatibility with international law".

Most mainstream US news outlets and pundits, as they did in 2003, ahead of the US invasion of Iraq to deprive Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction, have not questioned whether the chemical weapons attack was indeed conducted by the Syrian army or by other groups.

The only question raised was whether it was legal for Trump to order the attack in terms of international and domestic law.

Of the five Brookings Institution scholars who posted comments on the airstrike on Friday, only one, Chuck Call, raised the issue of legality, saying "the act reflects a disregard for multilateral organizations and approaches, and its international legal basis remains unclear".

Charlie Savage of The New York Times was among the few US journalists to delve into the legality issue. His lengthy article on Friday called the airstrike into question under both international and domestic laws.

But such voices are quite subdued in the US, unlike the UN Security Council session on Friday.

Contact the writer at chenweihua@chinadailyusa.com