WHEN does a civil war reach a point where the international community has to take military action to save the lives of civilians and stop a growing humanitarian crisis?
In Libya the West intervened when it became clear that rebel forces were about to be defeated, a controversial move which removed a dictator but answered no questions about why and when foreign forces should take sides in a civil war.
There is no clarity yet on who was responsible for the atrocity in Syria this week. But the death toll continues to rise, with more than 1 000 men, women and children slain in what appears to be a chemical weapons attack in a rebel-held area. Reports backed by photographs and videos show evidence that a number of rockets carrying chemical warheads hit several towns, in the world’s worst chemical attack since the 1980s.
The Syrian government denies responsibility and allegations that it has engaged in chemical warfare against its own people.
Accusations of the use of weapons of mass destruction have previously been levelled against both sides in the conflict and a UN team is already in the country to investigate other claims of the use of such weapons, although not on the scale of this atrocity.
US President Barack Obama said earlier in the two-and-a-half year conflict that the use of chemical weapons was a “red line” which could not be crossed without consequences. He may well have come to regret that as an empty threat as reports of small-scale attacks have gone unpunished.
But now action is unavoidable should the present accusations prove to be true.
The UN should investigate the atrocity without delay, and the truth behind this grotesque act must be proven.
Then it will be up to the world body to decide how to pressure the culprits, whoever they are, into surrender and bring them before the International Criminal Court.