Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has taken a firm stand on the crisis in Syria. He is against military strikes and has stressed that any action against Damascus should be authorized by the UN. UN intervention should come after all facts relating to the alleged use of chemical weapons are ascertained. The Syrian situation dominated discussions at the G-20 summit. Singh is of the view that the action should not be aimed at a regime change in Syria. Many leaders at the summit expressed doubt about whether Assad’s regime was behind the chemical attack. Lakhdar Brahimi, UN envoy to Syria met foreign ministers attending the summit and emphasized that it was necessary to wait until UN inspectors completed their analysis of the chemical attack in conformity with scientific standards. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon briefed G-20 leaders and indicated that UN inspectors were expected to submit their work within a few days.
The Syrian situation therefore still remains pretty cloudy. It is generally admitted that there was a chemical attack but if the Assad government did not do it, who did? If there was no chemical attack, it flies in the face of regime that UN inspectors are taking so long to submit their report. There is ambivalence on intervention in London and Washington. Can the US have the face to be vehement about the use of chemical weapons after what it did in Vietnam decades ago? The UN’s decision depends on Russia’s attitude. Russia has been vetoing intervention so far, with China abstaining. Manmohan Singh has taken a somewhat passive attitude. How can the Syrian crisis be resolved unless President Assad is removed or the rebels are put down? A change in the regime has to be targeted for a political solution.
