12 September 2013. PenzaNews. International observers, politicians and representatives of human rights organizations continue to discuss the situation in Syria where, according to the media reports, a chemical attack took place.

© PenzaNewsBuy the photo

Though the results of the UN experts report on the use of chemical weapons in the country have not been announced yet, Washington insists that the weapons of mass destruction were used against civilians by Syrian government forces – despite the fact that the chemical weapons investigators were invited to the country by the government. However, according to the foreign press, the US intelligence report lacks objective and indisputable evidence, including georeferencing, medical reports, information on sampling and names of witnesses.

At the same time, as reported by a number of foreign media, on 23 August 2013 20 trailer-trucks with carrying capacity of 20 tons each proceeded through the territory of Southern Turkish region in the direction of Syria escorted by Turkish military. According to one of Turkish frontier-guards, three of these trucks carried chemical weapons.

After crossing the border in Idlib city of Syria the convoy was met by militants of Jabhat al Nusra group, which is the leading Islamic organization in a coalition of opponents of President Bashar al-Assad and an Al Qaeda associate operating in Syria. It is possible that such deliveries to the rebels could be carried out in the past, including before the attack on 21 August 2013.

Moreover, Belgian professor of history and political sciences Pierre Piccinin who was kidnapped by rebels in Syria said that President Bashar Al-Assad was not responsible for last month’s chemical weapons attack.

“It is a moral duty to say this. The government of Bashar al-Assad did not use Sarin gas or other types of gas in the outskirts of Damascus. We are sure about this because we overheard a conversation between rebels. It pains me to say it because I’ve been a fierce supporter of the Free Syrian Army in its rightful fight for democracy since 2012,” he said.

In turn, the Deputy Foreign Minister of Syria Fayzal Al Mikdad said that John Kerry’s claim on evidence of the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian army was false.

“This evidence is amusing, and I laugh because when I was an ambassador to the Security Council, Colin Powell held up a bottle, which contained white powder. He said this is the chemical weapon, which the Iraqi regime wants to use to destroy its own people. Later, we found out this allegation was completely false,” he said in an interview to Euronews.

According to the experts, the absence of indisputable evidence and the reluctance to defer a decision on military strike on Syria before the UN official conclusion were the main reasons for the weak global support for the US in this matter. Thus, a few countries supporting the US led call for military action in Syria include France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar; however, Russia, China, India, Germany, Indonesia, Argentina, Italy, Egypt, Mexico, Brazil, Iraq, Lebanon, Tunisia Algeria, South Africa are against the attack.

On Tuesday, September 3, Russian President Vladimir Putin clarified Russia’s position on the Syrian issue in an interview to Channel One and the Associated Press news agency. The President said that the international community should at least wait for the results of the investigation undertaken by the commission of the UN inspectors.

“We have no evidence that these chemical substances – it is not clear yet whether it was a chemical weapon or just some harmful chemical substance – have been used by the Syrian Army,” he said.

Russian President stressed that Russia does not defend the government of Bashar al-Assad.

“We are defending absolutely different things. We are defending the norms and principles of international law. We are defending modern world order. We are defending the possibility, the discussion of a possibility to use force only within the existing international order, international rules and international law. That is what we are defending. That is what represents the absolute value. When issues related to the use of force are dealt with outside the framework of the UN and Security Council, then there’s risk that such unlawful decisions might be applied against anybody and on any pretext,” Vladimir Putin explained.

In turn, Lakhdar Brahimi, Joint Arab League-United Nations Special Representative for Syria said that no country is allowed to take the law into its own hands and urged that any action on Syria be taken to the Security Council.

“International law says that no country is allowed to take the law into their hands; they have to go through the Security Council,” he stressed.

Furthermore, the Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister for Arab and African affairs Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, who met his Russian counterpart Mikhail Bogdanov in Moscow, expressed the hope that the efforts at the highest level in Russia would prevent any military action against Syria.

According to various studies, the intervention is unpopular even in the United States. For example, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed on 3 September 2013 that only 19 percent of Americans supported a limited military strike against Syria in response to a suspected chemical weapons attack by the Syrian government.

The negative effects of potential intervention were also described by some Western media. Thus, The Washington Post indicates that the strikes could result in heavy civilian casualties, and reminds when the US by mistake bombed the pharmaceutical plant in Sudan and the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. Moreover, the journalists reasonably assume that Assad may be replaced by chaos; the chemical weapons may end up in the wrong hands; and conflict may be escalated.

At the same time journalists’ and human rights activists’ concerns are connected not only with the potential military operation, but with the Western support of Syrian opposition, which has lately actually discredited itself, including by the videos where some of its representatives cut off heads of unarmed people or eat up their internal organs.

German Society for Threatened Peoples (STP) addressed the US secretary of state John Kerry with a call to “act immediately to stop all political and financial support for the Syrian Islamist opposition to prevent a humanitarian disaster in the form of genocide.”

The representatives of the organization said that violent incidents and crimes by the radical Islamist al-Nusra Front against minority settlements in Syria had increased. Human rights activists believe that Syria needs stability and peace which can be “achieved only if the minorities’ right to exists is respected and their physical inviolability is not threatened.”

Today, representatives of the international community actively discuss a new initiative on Syria, voiced on September 9 by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov who called on Syrian authorities to put chemical weapons under international control and then join the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

Official Damascus indicated agreement to the Russian proposal.

“I have attentively listened to Mr Lavrov’s statement. I state that the Syrian Arab Republic welcomes the Russian initiative, motivated by the Syrian leadership's concern for the lives of our citizens and the security of our country, and also motivated by our confidence in the wisdom of the Russian leadership, which is attempting to prevent American aggression against our people,” Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem said.

However, opposition forces in Syria have rejected the initiative of Russia, once again stressing that they want the West to “respond to the actions of the regime of Bashar al-Assad.”

Meanwhile, on 11 September 2013it became clear that the US President Barack Obama changed his intention to attack Syria in the near future thanks to the Russian proposal.

“This initiative has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force, particularly because Russia is one of Assad’s strongest allies,” the US President said addressing the nation on Syria.

“I have, therefore, asked the leaders of Congress to postpone a vote to authorize the use of force while we pursue this diplomatic path. I’m sending Secretary of State John Kerry to meet his Russian counterpart on Thursday, and I will continue my own discussions with President Putin. I’ve spoken to the leaders of two of our closest allies, France and the United Kingdom, and we will work together in consultation with Russia and China to put forward a resolution at the U.N. Security Council requiring Assad to give up his chemical weapons, and to ultimately destroy them under international control. We’ll also give U.N. inspectors the opportunity to report their findings about what happened on August 21st,” Barack Obama said and added that the US, however, still do not exclude the possibility of the use of force against Syria.

“After careful deliberation, I determined that it is in the national security interests of the United States to respond to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike,” the US President stressed.

“I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria. I will not pursue an open-ended action like Iraq or Afghanistan. I will not pursue a prolonged air campaign like Libya or Kosovo. This would be a targeted strike to achieve a clear objective: deterring the use of chemical weapons, and degrading Assad’s capabilities,” Barack Obama added.

Commenting on the situation, Vladimir Kozin, a member of an interagency working group attached to the Russian presidential administration discussing missile defense issues with NATO, a leading researcher with the Russian Institute of Strategic Studies, acorresponding member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, noted that under the new conditions Syria should take a clear position on the issue of chemical weapons.
“In light of statements by Barack Obama about the possibility of pinpoint strikes on Syria even after its refusal of chemical weapons, the Syrian leadership should adjust its position, saying that it is ready to put chemical weapons under international control and eventually destruct it only after the United States takes a firm commitment not to attack Syria in any form – including in the form of limited strikes – and refuses to supply anti-government armed groups operating on Syrian territory with any kinds of weapons, and to provide them moral and financial support,” the expert said in an interview with news agency “PenzaNews.”

Otherwise, according to him, Washington will continue to put strong military and political pressure on Damascus and keep it under the threat of military action.

Vladimir Kozin also drew attention to the fact that the case of chemical weapons use in Syria on August 21 was not the first one.

“The same actions were previously recorded in April and three times in the second half of August. Syrian leadership claims that all the attacks were carried out by the armed anti-government groups. Damascus and Moscow strongly believe that the chemical weapons with the primitive means of delivery were only used by armed groups operating on Syrian territory with full military-technical, financial and moral support from the United States and its closest NATO partners,” he said.

According to him, overemphasizing the “problem of chemical weapons in Syria,” as well as “the need for humanitarian assistance,” Washington tries to mask its aggression being prepared against Syria with all sorts of conversations about what was not backed up by any evidence.

“The US attempts to turn the proxy war to a full-scale aggression set a dangerous precedent in international politics, and this should become the subject of serious discussion. There are too many examples of unauthorized use of brute military force by the United States against sovereign states: Vietnam, Cuba, Yugoslavia, Iraq, and now Syria. We must put a decisive end to such practices,” said Vladimir Kozin.

Alastair Hay, Professor of Environmental Toxicology at Leeds Institute of Genetics, Health and Therapeutics stressed that the fact of chemical agents use in Syria is almost certain.

“I viewed many videos from Syria and came to the conclusion that the signs people were displaying and the symptoms they reported suggested that they had been exposed to some kind of organophosphate compound and possibly something like sarin or some other chemical weapon,” he explained.

However, in his opinion, it is also important to ensure that we have sound evidence before taking action that might involve attacks on another country and loss of life.

“I would like all countries that have signed the Chemical Weapons Convention (and that includes all members of the Security Council) to be part of the solution. The world needs to be rid of chemical weapons. I would like this to happen in the most efficient, and, if possible, peaceful way. If the proposal from the Russian Foreign Minister to have Syria hand over its chemical weapons stocks can be made to work that would be an ideal outcome in my view,” Alastair Hay said.

Yezid Sayigh, Senior Associate at Carnegie Middle East Center, also noted that the UN experts opinion is of great importance.

“For the UN to act requires waiting for the full report of the inspectors. It is not entirely clear why the US administration is arguing that it does not need to wait, when in fact the report might help it make its case for action stronger,” he said.

At the same time, the analyst expressed the view that the attack was carried out by the government forces of the country.

“The likelihood is that the Syrian regime was responsible, despite its attempts to argue that this was an attack by the rebels. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has said that "it goes against common sense" for the regime to attack civilians with chemical weapons just as the UN inspectors arrived in the country. This is true, but I suspect it was not intended as an attack on civilians. What may have happened is that regime forces were using chemical weapons as part of a military operation and caused unexpected and unplanned mass casualties among civilians,” he explained.

Though the crisis over the chemical weapons use may escalate and drag in both sides and regional powers – Iran, Israel, as well as Turkey and the Arab neighbours, we will not witness a massive escalation, the expert believes.

“More likely is a somewhat limited US strike, followed by some further exchanges or a resort to the UN Security Council. The US does not have an interest in getting more involved militarily, and the Assad regime have an interest in absorbing the first blow and then returning to the status quo ante, i.e. continue the conflict in the same ways and at the same level of violence as before the chemical attack,” Yezid Sayigh added.

Meanwhile, Nikolay Pakhomov, the expert at the Institute for Democracy and Cooperation in New York, stressed that this military operation cannot be legitimate without broad international consensus on its necessity.

“Today the countries do not share a unified view on the events in Syria, and more importantly, the UN did not voiced any decision that would provide for military intervention. Moreover, the adoption of such decisions in the near future is almost impossible,” the analyst said.

In his opinion, decisiveness of Barack Obama and his administration may be explained by the presence of additional US interest in the attack on Syria.

“The White House could have other reasons for the attack in addition to the official goals, though the US President could not convince even many prominent figures of his party, Congress and Democratic senators in the need for the strike. It could be, for example, a stubborn desire of Barack Obama to fulfill his threat to attack Syria in the case of use of chemical weapons to demonstrate the US strength and determination,” the expert said.

However, according to him, the lack of significant international support for such a decision greatly reduces the likelihood of attack on Damascus.

“We hope that Washington will listen to numerous foreign and domestic critics of the attack on Syria and, most importantly, listen to the opinion of the Americans who are for the most part opposed to military action in Syria,” said Nikolay Pakhomov.

In turn, Markus Mayr, Researcher and Program Manager, Brussels office of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, noted that the armed conflict in Syria undoubtedly has serious destabilizing effects on regional peace.

“Refugee streams, political polarization, proliferation of weapons are just some of the manifold dynamics that create a threat to international peace and security. […] The “Responsibility to Protect” redefines state sovereignty as including the state obligation to protect its citizens from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. The international community is to support states in fulfilling this responsibility and has a responsibility to intervene as a last resort. It surely can be legitimate to intervene for the protection of Syrian civilians from the consequences of the ongoing crimes committed in the course of the conflict, including the targeting of civilians by means of chemical weapons. Legally speaking, however, a UN Security Council authorization is – unlike claimed by the UK – still necessary,” the German expert said.

Nonetheless, according to him, an intervention’s normative justification does actually depend, amongst other aspects, on whether it actually tries to achieve the protective goal to prevent further international crimes and whether it is likely that it can achieve that goal.

According to an Istanbul-based analyst Iason Athanasiadis, there is evidence pointing towards the fact that this latest in a series of military interventions that were launched on the basis of the “responsibility to protect” doctrine also targets the regional power that is Iran, primarily, and intends to weaken Russia and China secondarily.

“The support provided by US allies such as Saudi, Israel, Qatar, Jordan and Turkey to the rebels has likely been coordinated with Washington, suggesting that the correct way to read the situation is more as a confrontation between two regional alignments: the aforementioned regional actors led by America on one side and another coalition of interests bringing together Russia, China, Iran and Hizbullah on the other,” the expert added.

In his opinion, for the sake of preserving the imperfect international system that was developed after two extremely destructive world wars, there must first be conclusive proof by independent observers that it was the Syrian government that used WMD, and it must then be followed by a UN Security Council resolution authorizing an attack on Damascus.

“However, the current UN chemical team is not charged with proving who was to blame for the possible chemical weapons attack,” the analyst stressed.

Meanwhile, according to him, America’s moral standing and its capacity to argue powerfully for a role as a global cop is reduced by its selective interventions: speaking out during the 2009 Iranian election unrest and the 2011 Egyptian revolution but remaining quiet on the civil society movement in Bahrain.

In turn, Hugh Lovatt, expert working on the European Council of Foreign Relations’ Middle East and North Africa Program suggested that the UN report will do very little to change the conclusions of either Russia or the US as it will not answer the question which side perpetrated the chemical attack.

“However, with memories of the US’ 2003 invasion of Iraq and its use of faulty evidence still strong, awaiting the publication of the UN report would send an important message in terms of US signaling that it is prepared to work within multilateral mechanism,” the expert noted and added, however, that indirect evidence seems to indicate regime culpability.

Nevertheless, according to him, US airstrikes will achieve very little, other than further destabilizing Syria and the region.

“A US-led airstrike was seemingly inevitable, but the last-minute Russian initiative to place Syria’s chemical weapons under international control could offer a mechanism for avoiding military action. While one should not doubt US seriousness of intention about striking Syria, Obama would be prepared and probably prefer to back a diplomatic initiative if this proves to be a serious and effective plan to limit Syria’s chemical weapons,” the analyst noted.

Moreover, such a diplomatic initiative would have the added advantage of providing badly needed confidence building measures and perhaps a segue into a resumed diplomatic process around Geneva II, he believes.

“More than ever, the current stand-off highlights the necessity of all sides undertaking immediate measures to de-escalate the conflict, reduce levels of violence, and protect civilians. To do so requires that the US and Russia re-invest themselves in a diplomatic process that is inclusive of regional states (including Iran) which seeks to achieve a negotiated transition and national reconciliation, even if this means Bashar al-Assad has to stay on during the transitional phase,” Hugh Lovatt concluded.