Tag Archives: Chemical warfare

Britain, France, Government, Russia, Syria, United States

Lord Hague: We must act now to stop chemical warfare

SYRIA

Intro: Lord Hague, the former foreign secretary, says we must hold Assad to account with force to prevent future suffering

CHEMICAL weapons will become “legitimised” and used in future wars if the West fails to take military action against the regime of Bashar al-Assad. That’s the view of Lord Hague, the former foreign secretary, who says that he is in “little doubt” that if he were still in office today, he would recommend military intervention in Syria.

He also adds: “The world has succeeded for nearly a century in preventing the use of chemical weapons on the battlefield. Once we accept that it is just another aspect of war that is what it will become in the conflicts of coming decades, with an arms race in chemical agents steadily expanded and legitimised.”

Theresa May has suggested that Britain was prepared to join any action by the US and France, warning that the Syrian government “must be held to account” for the “barbaric” attack on eastern Ghouta.

It is understood that Cabinet ministers are urging the Prime Minister to avoid the potential “fiasco” of a Commons defeat on military action, such as that suffered by David Cameron in 2013, and instead take direct measures.

Mrs May has been warned that failure to join a coalition with the US and France could diminish Britain’s international standing.

President Donald Trump has said that he would come to a decision on the American response to the chemical weapons attacks within the “next 24 to 48 hours”. Mr Trump who has liaised with Emmanuel Macron, the French president, has pledged a “strong, joint response”.

Potential British action could involve cruise missiles being launched from the Mediterranean or sorties flown by RAF Tornado fighter jets.

Lord (William) Hague was foreign secretary when the government lost its vote for action in Syria, which is widely considered to have emboldened the Assad regime. Recalling the aftermath of the defeat, Lord Hague says the UK became “enfeebled spectators of one of the most destructive conflagrations of our time.”

“We were left with only words, and compared to other nations financing armies or sending forces, words count for very little… We should have learnt from the fiasco of 2013 that abdication of the responsibility and right to act doesn’t make war go away.”

 

AT LEAST 70 people were killed in the attack on the rebel-held town of Douma. A US navy destroyer appeared to be getting into position to attack in the eastern Mediterranean yesterday in what is being viewed as a sign of potential cruise missile strikes. Tensions have been further heightened by a reported Israeli attack on a Syrian air base.

UK ministers are particularly concerned that Jeremy Corbyn is likely to oppose any direct military intervention in a Commons vote. The Labour leader has been criticised by his MPs for failing to single out the Assad regime, instead condemning “all violence” and “all killings”.

Many on the Conservative benches will hold the view as to why would we want to open that Pandora’s box again? They will suggest, rightly, that there’s no need to go there, and that the Prime Minister should take direct action then go to Parliament afterwards. The Government has no obligation to call a Commons vote on military action, but in recent years it has become more of a convention in doing so.

One government minister said that the chemical weapons attack was “another consequence of blinking” in the 2013 vote, and warned: “We must stand up to Syria”.

In a warning to Syria and Russia, Mrs May said: “This is about the brutal actions of Assad and his regime, but it is also about the backers of that regime.”

 

Standard
Britain, European Union, Government, Middle East, Politics, Syria, United Nations, United States

Syria, chemical weapons and direct intervention…

SYRIA

Television and media images from Syria have been truly horrendous. Pictures have been depicted showing dozens of bodies laid out in rows, many of them children. Others, including very young infants, are seen suffering convulsions and spasms – symptoms that are typical of a major gas attack.

Ghastly as the images are, however, is all as clear cut as it seems? Photographs and video productions have been circulated by Syrian opposition activists; their release, as a UN team arrived to investigate the reported use of chemical weapons, maybe perceived as being opportunistic with powerful propaganda value.

The conundrum here is whether any leader, even one as beleaguered and brutal in defence of his presidency as Bashar al-Assad, be so heedless and perverse of the consequences as to launch such an attack just as the UN inspectors were arriving. Assad has denied he did it, but many say he would have if he had done it.

The alternative is even less plausible – that the Syrian rebels staged, exaggerated or even manipulated an attack on areas they hold with the intention of persuading both the UN inspectors and international opinion towards a Western intervention.

Whichever it is, we should constantly bear in mind the barbaric and brutal lengths to which a desperate regime will go to keep power.

Whilst the response from most international leaders has been one of outrage, comments have been tempered, rightly, with a measure of caution. ‘If proven’ is the crucial phrase that has emanated from Britain, France, and from others who are calling for more direct action. Legally, it is also a pointer as to what the priority should now be: to establish, so far as is possible, the truth of what happened. To fulfil that end, the UN inspectors must be granted immediate and unfettered access to the area of the alleged atrocity.

Establishing the truth is vital because the stakes are so high. The use of chemical weapons in the Syrian conflict was defined by President Obama as a ‘red line’ when he said almost a year ago that if the Assad regime deployed chemical weapons, ‘the whole calculus would change’. This was widely interpreted as a condition for the U.S. to intervene, either directly or by arming the rebels.

Yet, nor can it be excluded that the rebels have attempted to orchestrate something in which they might force America’s hand. So far, an EU investigation has only reported small scale use of sarin nerve gas on both sides. But if such an extensive attack, as seems to have taken place this week, is found to be the work of Syrian government forces, that could not but ‘change the calculus’.

Crucially, though, would it (or should it) prompt Western intervention? Intervention can take various forms, from air strikes targeting Syrian weapons, cruise missile launches from the naval fleet operating in the region, or a full ground incursion with boots on the ground. But as we know from Iraq and Afghanistan, even limited intervention tends to produce perverse and unwieldy results. In Syria it could be even more riskier, given the regional complexity and its ever more volatile neighbourhood.

At the present moment, doing nothing seems less perilous than direct intervention. Being sucked into a bloody civil war that is increasingly sectarian with regional alliances taking hold – Iran and Hezbollah siding with the Assad regime, and Saudi Arabia arming the rebels – direct intervention would certainly appear the worse of two evils. But even now the case has still not been made for direct intervention in Syria.

Standard