It looks like the international military intervention into Syria’s conflict is unavoidable. The Syrian regime’s chemical attack against the opposition will serve as the incitement. The US President Barack Obama was the first to announce such a scenario. Last year he declared that the use of chemical weapons by Assad’s regime would become a red line. The cup ran full when, on August 21, the world was shocked at the news of a thousand deaths as result of chemical warfare.
“Ten days ago the world was horrified to see a massive killing of men, women, and children in the 21st century’s worst chemical attack… After careful deliberation I have decided that the US should take military action against Syrian regime targets. It should not be an open-ended intervention, we would not put boots on the ground. Instead our action would be designed to be limited in duration and scope,” said Obama in his special statement on Syria. According to him, the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime must be held accountable for their use of chemical weapons, deter this kind of behavior, and degrade their capacity to carry it out. We would like to remind our readers that previously secretary of state John Kerry had published an abridged version of the intelligence report, which points to Assad as the one responsible for the chemical attack near Damascus on August 21. According to American data, at least 1,429 Syrians died in the attack, including 426 children.
At the same time, Obama decided not to assume personal responsibility for sanctioning a strike on Syria. “I have long believed that our power is rooted not only in our military might, but in our example as a power of the people, by the people, and for the people. That is why I have made a second decision. I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people’s representatives in Congress,” said Obama in his statement, made last Saturday. Later on the same day Obama sent the draft law to the speaker of the House and the president of the Senate.
The American president got support in the Syrian question from France’s Francois Hollande and the UK Prime Minister David Cameron. The latter twitted that he understood and shared Obama’s position on Syria.
Paris is also waiting for America’s decision on Syria. France is prepared to support the operation, but it will not act on its own. According to the French Minister of Interior Manuel Valls, an attack on Syria requires a coalition. The media say that France’s Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault is going to deliberate the Syrian issue with the head of the parliament and representatives of the opposition.
Meanwhile, the members of the Arab League, who met in Cairo, addressed the UN Security Council and the international community to take measures against the Syrian regime which, the League believes, is responsible for the use of chemical weapons. The League has passed a resolution, which proposes to condemn the culprits and support the Syrian people.
The US president and his councilors have immediately launched a political campaign which should convince the congressmen to support a military operation against Syria. Even on Sunday briefings and consultations were held with the Senators and Representatives, who had just come back from a vacation.
However, the Republican Party is against such a solution on Syria. “We cannot in good conscience support isolated military strikes in Syria that are not part of an overall strategy that can change the momentum on the battlefield, achieve the president’s stated goal of Assad’s removal from power, and bring an end to this conflict, which is a growing threat to our national security interests,” said Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham. They believe that something smaller will become an inadequate response to the use of chemical weapons and will send a false signal both to the US allies and the Syrian opposition, on the one hand, and the Syrian regime and Iran, on the other. Shortly before that, McCain and Graham called to destroy the military infrastructure of Syria’s government, including airfields, bases, command posts, and storage facilities.
Hennadii LATII: “There exist certain international mechanisms of decision-making, authorized by all the countries. There is no need to invent something new. The UN has all powers and mechanisms to pass relevant decisions. We should just wait for the experts’ conclusion and see if the UN will pass a decision.”
The Syrian government shifts the responsibility on using chemical weapons on the insurgents and says the country is ready for any attack. Meanwhile, Russia’s Vladimir Putin dismissed the allegations of Syria’s government military using chemical weapons as silly talks and provocation.
The Day has asked some experts to comment on the situation around Syria, and particularly on the US president’s decision to ask the Congress for permission to launch a limited strike on Syria.
“LET US WAIT FOR EXPERTS’ CONCLUSIONS AND THE UN RESOLUTION”
Hennadii LATII, Special Representative of Ukraine for the Middle East and Africa:
“This is an absolutely justified stand of a great nation’s president. Although you must know Ukraine’s standpoint: we are against any military intervention without the UN’s sanction, at least, the UN Security Council’s, let alone that of the US Congress.”
But in other cases similar decisions were passed without the UN Security Council’s permission. Say, in Kosovo.
“It was a matter of responsibility of the countries involved. According to international law, any similar operations should be sanctioned by the UN.”
What can we expect now? It is not yet clear if on September 9 the US Congress will allow Obama to strike targets in Syria.
“We would like the situation to develop in a peaceful manner. Just as our president said: we are against a military intervention, and we support a peaceful settling of the matter. That is to say, the situation should be solved via negotiations.”
Is Russia’s standpoint constructive in the matter of settling this problem? Russia supports Assad and says he did not use chemical weapons.
“At the moment international experts are doing their job. That is why we should wait at least till they are done. And then the UN should analyze the situation, draw a conclusion, and pass a decision.”
If the Security Council turns out incapable of passing a decision even after Assad’s guilt is proven, what can happen then?
“There exist certain international mechanisms of decision-making, authorized by all the countries. There is no need to invent something new. The UN has all powers and mechanisms to pass relevant decisions. We should just wait for the experts’ conclusion and see if the UN will pass a decision.”
“IF THE USA DOES NOT ACT PROMPTLY, IT WILL DESTROY ITS PUBLIC IMAGE”
Oleksandr BOHOMOLOV, president, Center for Middle East Studies (Kyiv):
“Obama acts this way because there is already a motion from certain congressmen (first of all, his opponents from the Republican Party) to consider this question in the Congress. He must seek a consensus with them because the Republican lobby is very strong now. It can use this situation in its long-lasting war with Obama. The Republicans turned to the Constitution and said that, according to their interpretation, this is in fact a declaration of war. Which is the prerogative of the Congress, and not of the president. Obama, a man of compromise, who has built his public image on a contrast with Bush, cannot avoid negotiations. However, many in the Administration believe that in this case Obama could act on his own.”
Some American media write that by shifting the responsibility to the Congress, Obama does not know what he should do.
“It is so, in part. Obama looks an indecisive president, first of all in the Middle East agenda. On the other hand, Obama has passed numerous secret decisions. First and foremost, this is the operation against Bin Laden. Truth be told, this is not so much about Obama’s personality as about a certain crisis in America’s policy in the Middle East.”
Will Obama’s decision to hit Syria be effective, considering that its realization is being put off, since the Congress will gather only on September 9, and it is still unknown if it passes a positive decision on the matter?
“This disrupts Obama’s authority. Practically, he fell in a trap which he had set for himself. Obama promised a ‘red’ line, and the Syrian regime has crossed it by using chemical weapon. Perhaps, he had hoped for some rational behavior on the part of Assad, who would be afraid of this threat. But Assad did not take it into consideration and acted just the opposite of the way he was expected to. Now Obama is forced to do something. The situation undermines the United States’ international and regional authority, and also has an impact on Iran. If there is no firm action about keeping the promises, it will only lead to Iran’s more reactionary policy. All this will rebound on the US, if Obama’s initiative is not supported by the Congress.”
It is known that the Arab League and Turkey insist on actions being taken against the Syrian regime. Can they, as regional players, interfere in the situation, if the US confronts Syria?
“The situation in Libya shows, perhaps, for the first time in history, that some other country can become an initiator and leader of some coalition. And in the Libyan scenario, it was France. Such situation may arise in this case as well: if the US is passive, France can act again. There is a probability that Turkey might act as such a leader as well. But it is more likely that France leads the anti-Syrian coalition.”
And will Russia support Assad and consistently block the UN’s decision on Syria?
“There are no signs of Russia changing its policy towards Syria. On the other hand, it can be said that it is too late to change the standpoint in the current situation. If, perhaps, they could negotiate or receive some kind of advantage before, it would be hard to do that now.”
What is your forecast of the oncoming events: will the Congress support Obama or not?
“The situation here is more likely to resemble the one with healthcare. This is a long-term process when a president has a hostile Congress. I have no idea how he is going to get out of the situation. But he must find a way out. Perhaps, some kind of agreement will be reached. It is obvious that the Republicans are determined to gain certain political capital here.”
And in what way do Obama’s statement and the international community’s general reaction on the use of chemical weapons influence Assad himself?
“Thanks to the Al Jazeera channel, I had an opportunity to watch Assad’s long speech, which he recently delivered before his followers. I think that judging by his behavior, the way he formulates and asks questions, the way he behaves, and also by his body language, he has acquired a Napoleon complex. He thinks that he really rules the world and carries out some great mission. And it seems to me that it is too late now to count on his rational behavior.”
And is it reasonable to expect a strike against Assad’s regime before this new deadline of September 9?
“If this is not done now, then the US is in for some serious problems, if not a political catastrophe. If the US does not act quickly, it will disrupt its political image.”
