- The Guardian thinks the House of Commons vote against strikes 'raises the prospect of a redefinition of the Anglo-American "special relationship"'.
- According to the NY Times, the US will go ahead without Britain.
- 'France, which opposed the Iraq War but acted unilaterally in Mali earlier this year, is preparing its military to attack the Assad regime in Syria. What a role reversal. The British are the French, and the French are the British.'
- Opposition Leader Tony Abbott joins the Government in saying Australia should take no part in military action against Syria. He seems very cool on the idea of strikes.
- The Weekly Standard assembles sixty notable Americans to put their name to an open letter advocating military action against Syria.
- Seven scenarios for Syria's future.
- Political science research shows why 'credibility' is a terrible reason to go to war.
- The Middle East explained in one only slightly simplified map. (Thanks Fergus.)
- The FT has a huge collection of background reading.
- The US says the norm against chemical weapons must be enforced, but 'there are very few states that might consider using chemical weapons; and the conditions under which they would use them are very limited — and that’s despite the lack of norm enforcement.'
- Gareth Evans on the legalities of military intervention: 'The trouble is that even the most extreme breach of international law does not in itself legally authorise a coercive military response.'
Syria links: House of Commons, credibility, France-UK swap and more
Published 30 Aug 2013
Follow @SamRoggeveen
You may also be interested in
AUKUS was a blow to Australia’s French romance but the Pacific region needs the two regional powers to kiss and make up.
How development professionals think Mark Zuckerberg should direct his charity dollars, the latest foreign aid stats and sweatshops: a road to nowhere.