A NON-UN BACKED ATTACK AGAINST SYRIA AHEAD

A NON-UN BACKED ATTACK AGAINST SYRIA AHEAD

POSTED BY BRUSSELSDIPLOMATIC ⋅ 28 AUGUST 2013 ⋅ LEAVE A COMMENT

from our security and international affairs editor Marie-Chantal UWITONZE

The governments of the United States, France and Britain have declared having intention to move towards a military intervention in Syria, even beyond a UN mandate.

What is at stake?

The declaration from the US and its allies came after a suspected chemical attack last week on a rebel-held suburb of Damascus, which reportedly killed more than 1,000 people.

On Sunday, the French Government reported that there is “a body of evidence indicating that the 21 August attack was chemical in nature, and that everything led to the belief that the Syrian regime was responsible for this unspeakable act”, Hollande said in a press statement released by his office.

The rhetoric increased last night with a speech by the US Secretary of State, John Kerry, who described the attack as “cowardly” and “morally obscene” and said that there seemed little doubt that it was carried out by the forces of Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad. He made the remarks as the U.S. moves naval forces closer to Syria in preparation for a potential missile attack against Syrian President’s regime.

Many US Government officials made similar declarations. Speaking during an annual convention in Houston, the US Vice President Joe Biden said “There’s no doubt who is responsible for this heinous use of chemical weapons in Syria: the Syrian regime”.

Contacted by BBC yesterday,US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel confirmed that the American forces are “ready” to launch strikes: ”we have moved assets in place to be able to fulfill and comply with whatever option the president wishes to take,” he said.

This Wednesday, Britain has drafted a resolution condemning the attack by Assad’s regime, and authorising all necessary measures under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter to protect civilians from chemical weapons. The resolution will be put forward at a meeting of the five permanent members of the Security Council later today in New York. On the other side, British MPs will meet on Thursday to discuss the country’s response.

Syria and its allies reject the accusations

Reacting to the accusations, the Syrian Government denies:

Monday, in an interview with a Russian newspaper, Bashar al-Assad has dismissed the accusations qualifying them of politically motivated western allegations and warned Washington that any US military intervention would fail. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem has also said that he rejects “utterly and completely” that Syrian government forces used chemical weapons.

While the US and its allies claim to have evidence of the use of chemical weapons by the regime of Assad, a fierce opposition from many countries emerged mainly from Russia and Iran.

Moscow and Teheran declared that these claims are a pre-planned scenario and fabricated accusations against Syria.

After a phone conversation with John Kerry, the Russian Foreign Ministry, Sergei Lavrov criticized the US for allegedly using “unproven excuses” to justify military action in Syria and said Moscow was “seriously disappointed” by Washington’s decision to put off a bilateral meeting to discuss the crisis.

On the Iran’s side,the leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei as well as the Iranian Defence Minister Brigadier General Hossein Dehqan have warned against a military intervention by foreign powers in Syria. “The consequences of such a military strike against Damascus would be not foreseeable and a war against Syria will only increase the suffering of the Syrian people and the violence in the Arab nation”, warned Ali Knamenei.

What do other countries think?

Many other Government officials have qualified this intervention of “reckless and able to lead to serious consequences including a possible extension of the conflict to regional and international levels”

The Belgian authorities argue for intervention under a mandate from the UN Security Council. “Above all, the government wants to have evidence of the responsibility of Syrian regime in recent chemical attacks before committing”, said Didier Reynders, the Belgian Minister of Foreign affairs. ”What we request (and we are 37 States to ask that) to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, is a report of UN experts on the use of chemical weapons” Didier Reynders added in an interview with RTBF.

Interviewed by the same TV channel, the two Vice-Presidents of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Belgian Senate, Armand De Decker (Liberal- MR) and Marie Arena (Socialist –PS) declared sharing the line of the Minister of Foreign affairs.

“The position of Belgium should remain under the UN mandate, that is what Belgium has always defended,” said Marie Arena.

The military intervention without a UN mandate is “a very bad idea.” This can lead to an “extension of the conflict” and to “a regional war” as it can take larger proportions, “almost global”, Armand de Decker warned.

Sunday, Germany’s government has supported, in a statement, Russia’s position for a political and diplomatic solution, implicitly opposing the initiative by the US, Britain and France. The German Chancellor Angela Merkel has stated that the civil war in Syria must be resolved with political means, opposing suggestions for international military intervention.

What about EU and UN?

Last Friday, the EU High Representative Catherine Ashton, declared that she fully supports the UN’s call for a thorough, impartial and prompt investigation into these alleged chemical attacks. “The international community must now urgently show a united face and ensure that a credible and thorough investigation can be carried out.” Said Baroness Ashton in an official statement.

The President of the Liberal Group (ALDE) in the European Parliament, Guy Verhofstadt called for a “strong cooperation between the United States, EU, ​​Turkey and the majority of Arab countries.”

The issue is on the agenda of today’s NATO meeting of ambassadors.

On the United Nations side, the Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon pleaded for a diplomatic solution to the Syrian conflict, even as world powers appeared to be moving towards punitive military strikes against President Bashar Assad’s regime. He said that a United Nations team of experts investigating the alleged chemical attack must be given time to establish the facts.

Without explicitly referring to moves apparently preparing for military action by the US and its allies, Ban Ki-moon urged a peaceful resolution to Syria’s civil war while delivering a speech during the ceremony of the 100th anniversary of the Peace Palace in The Hague.

“Here in the Peace Palace, let us say: Give peace a chance. Give diplomacy a chance. Stop fighting and start talking,” He said.

Clearly, this intervention and its real motivations are the subject of a great debate as it has been the case in 1999 and 2003, concerning, respectively, the war in Kosovo and Iraq. For both cases, based on casus belli the United States and NATO members (not all) have taken the lead for attacks without UN mandate. These two cases have broadly divided the international political opinion. Are we facing the same scenario?

Marie-Chantal UWITONZE