When the United States launched cruise missiles to bomb a Syrian airport, there were legitimate questions raised whether the action was in conformity with international law.
According to the United Nations Charter, the use of armed force is permitted only in self defense (which has been interpreted to also include defense of an ally), or pursuant to a resolution by the UN Security Council.
Neither of these conditions applied with respect to the U.S. attack on the Syrian airport. This raises questions regarding Canada’s fulsome praise for the U.S. attacks.
Did Canada support the U.S. even though the attacks violated international law?
Or is there some interpretation of the law that led Canadian officials to presume that the U.S. attacks were legal?
Whatever the interpretation(s) of the appropriateness of armed intervention in Syria, do they also pertain to Canadian forces deployed in neighbouring Iraq?
What you can do
Ask Prime Minister Trudeau to clarify Canada’s approach to international law and intervention in Syria.