All pretense at 'legality' has been dropped: White House spokesman, Jay Carney described the UN weapons inspectors as 'redundant' as the US already has all the 'evidence' it needs.
UK and US finalise plans for military strikes against Syrian regime
UK and US finalise plans for military strikes against Syrian regime
Arab
League backs allies' judgment that Bashar al-Assad's regime was
responsible for Damascus chemical attacks
27
January, 2013
Britain
and the US are finalising plans to launch limited punitive military
strikes at the end of the week against the regime of Bashar al-Assad
over the "abhorrent" use of chemical weapons near the
Syrian capital, Damascus, last week.
As
the Arab League threw its weight behind the allies' judgment that the
Assad regime was responsible for the chemical attack, the US and
Britain paved the way for intervention, saying it would be a response
to a violation of international law and not aimed at regime change.
General
Sir Nick Houghton, chief of the defence staff, will outline to a
meeting on Wednesday of the UK's National Security Council (NSC) a
series of arm's-length options for targeted attacks against Syria.
Houghton,
who is expected to reiterate the military's misgivings about entering
the conflict, is expected to tell ministers the UK could assist US
forces with cruise missile strikes launched from submarines, warships
and aircraft against targets such as command and control bunkers.
David
Cameron announced a recall of parliament on Thursday to allow MPs to
formally debate the proposed intervention.
The
Commons is expected to endorse military action – with a handful of
rebels on all sides – after Ed Miliband indicated on Tuesday
evening that Labour will reluctantly support the government motion,
which will closely refer to international law.
Cameron
said any use of chemical weapons was "morally indefensible and
completely wrong," adding that any action taken "would have
to be legal, would have to be proportionate. It would have to be
specifically to deter the future use of chemical weapons".
Without
spelling out any detailed plans, he signalled limited action. "This
is not about getting involved in a Middle Eastern war or changing our
stance in Syria or going further into that conflict. It is nothing to
do with that. It is about chemical weapons. Their use is wrong, and
the world shouldn't stand idly by."
The
next step towards military strikes – which could be launched
between late on Thursday, following the vote at Westminster, and the
end of the weekend – is expected to be taken on Wednesday when John
Kerry, the US secretary of state, releases more information linking
the Assad regime to the chemical weapons attack on the Ghouta area
east of Damascus.
Kerry
is expected to say there is definitive proof linking the regime to
the attack on the basis of "open sources" such as evidence
from international doctors, a judgment that only the regime could
have launched such a large attack, and intercept intelligence of
Syrian communications from, among others, the Israelis.
Kerry's
judgment is expected to be followed by a decision by Barack Obama on
the exact form of a military strike, which will be designed to act as
a deterrent to prevent the future use of chemical weapons by Assad or
any other regime.
The
White House made clear that the action would not be designed to widen
the Syrian conflict or overthrow the regime. Spokesman Jay Carney
said: "The options that we are considering are not about regime
change." He later added: "There has to be a response to
that clear violation of international norms."
Cameron
is expected to be able to brief MPs on a joint British, US and French
decision on military action when he makes a statement to MPs at
2.30pm on Thursday. This will follow a morning meeting of the full
cabinet which is expected to endorse a recommendation from the NSC.
The
White House made clear that Obama is gearing up for a military
response when it said it was "preposterous" to suggest the
Assad regime was not responsible for the attack. British and US
sources say that, in the absence of a UN security council resolution,
the allies need to provide definitive proof of regime involvement to
provide legal cover for a military strike.
Carney
gave a taste of the Kerry statement when he said: "The regime
has already used chemical weapons in this conflict against its own
people on a small scale. It has maintained firm control of the
stockpiles of chemical weapons in Syria.
"It
has the rockets and the rocket capability that were employed in this
chemical weapons attack and it was engaged in an assault against
these neighbourhoods prior to the use of chemical weapons and in the
aftermath of the use of these chemical weapons. You would have to be
credulous indeed to entertain an alternative scenario."
In
a sign that Barack Obama believes he has the legal authority,
independently of Congress, to launch a strike, Carney said that
allowing the chemical weapons attack to go unanswered would be a
"threat to the United States".
The
White House indicated that the allies would sidestep the UN after
Russia, which has the power of veto, denounced the gathering momentum
towards western armed intervention, predicting it would have
disastrous consequences across the region. The deputy prime minister,
Dmitry Rogozin, tweeted that the west was behaving towards the
Islamic world "like a monkey with a grenade".
Russia
began evacuating its nationals wishing to flee Syria on Tuesday in
anticipation of air strikes, providing space on a cargo plane which
had been delivering food aid to the Mediterranean city of Latakia.
Carney
said the work of weapons inspectors now was Damascus was "redundant"
because it has already been established that chemical weapons were
used by Syria on a large scale.
He
declined to say whether the US Congress would be required to
authorise any military strike, or be recalled as has happened in
Britain's parliament, but insisted the White House was consulting
with leaders in the House and Senate and communicating with the
chairmen of relevant congressional committees.
Legally,
the UK and the US indicated they were relying on the Geneva protocol
of 1925 which banned the use of chemical weapons after their
deployment in the first world war.
Using
similar language to Cameron, Nick Clegg said: "If we stand idly
by we set a very dangerous precedent indeed where brutal dictators
and brutal rulers will feel they can get away with using chemical
weapons. What we are considering is a serious response to that. What
we are not considering is regime change, trying to topple the Assad
regime, trying to settle the civil war in Syria one way or another."
Miliband
indicated that, in the light of the careful wording by the prime
minister and his deputy, Labour could support a government motion. He
said: "The use of chemical weapons on innocent civilians is
abhorrent and cannot be ignored. When I saw the prime minister this
afternoon I said to him the Labour party would consider supporting
international action, but only on the basis that it was legal, that
it was specifically limited to deterring the future use of chemical
weapons and that any action contemplated had clear and achievable
military goals. We will be scrutinising any action contemplated on
that basis."
Although
the White House has not formally announced it is planning military
action, administration officials appear to have been sanctioned to
brief on the types of military force being contemplated. Reports
citing unnamed figures administration indicate the US is
contemplating an attacks, which could occur as soon as Thursday, and
are likely to be limited missile or long-range air strikes.
The
chairman of the Joints Chief of Staff of the US military, General
Martin Dempsey, told Congress last month that even "limited
standoff strikes" against Syria would require hundreds of
aircraft, ships and submarines and could cost billions of dollars.
While
such action would "degrade regime capabilities" and lead to
defections, Dempsey told the House Foreign Affairs committee, there
was a risk of retaliatory attacks and "collateral damage
impacting civilians". He also warned of "unintended
consequences" of any military intervention in the complex civil
war.
Obama
reportedly considering two-day strike on Syria
White
House officials say the United States may launch a limited military
strike on Syria as early as this Thursday as the intelligence
community prepares to release
RT,
27
January, 2013
Senior
officials in the Obama administration told the Washington Post for an
article published on Tuesday that the White House is weighing a
limited strike on Syria and said on condition of anonymity that
“We’re actively looking at the various legal angles that would
inform a decision.”
According
to the Post, the likely response from Washington would be a
sea-to-land strike from the Mediterranean that would last no longer
than two days and would not be directed towards targets where the
chemical weapons arsenal is believed to be stored.
But
while an attack is all but imminent and will likely be launched from
warships already mobilized in the Mediterranean by the week’s end,
public support in the US has teetered towards nil as of late. The
Obama administration says there is undeniable proof that chemical
weapons were used on civilians outside of Damascus on August 21, but
a five-day-long Reuters poll taken during that time concluded only
nine percent of Americans favor intervention.
Notwithstanding
that lack of support, US Secretary of State John Kerry hinted Monday
at a response which will jolt Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and
ideally worsen the odds that his regime will implement chemical
warheads again.
An image grab taken from a video uploaded on YouTube on August 26, 2013 allegedly shows a UN inspectors (C) visiting a hospital in the Damascus suburb of Moadamiyet al-Sham. (AFP Photo)An image grab taken from a video uploaded on YouTube on August 26, 2013 allegedly shows a UN inspectors (C) visiting a hospital in the Damascus suburb of Moadamiyet al-Sham. (AFP Photo)
Despite
insistence from Assad and allies in Russia that the Syrian government
is not guilty of using chemical weapons, Sec. Kerry said during a
press conference on Monday that “our understanding of what has
already happened in Syria is grounded in facts, informed by conscious
and guided by common sense.” Kerry called Assad’s reported
attempt to cover-up the alleged use of chemical weapons “cynical”
and said, “President Obama believes there must be accountability
for those who would use the world’s heinous weapons against the
world’s most vulnerable people.”
One
day earlier, Sec. Kerry admitted that Pres. Obama was considering his
options with regards to a strike and was to meet with lawmakers in
Congress as well as with international leaders. According to the Post
article, however, the president may forego getting approval from
Capitol Hill and will instead rely on striking Syria due to
“undeniable,” as the White House puts it, war crimes.
“The
administration has said that it will follow international law in
shaping its response,” Karen DeYoung and Anne Gearan wrote for the
Post, adding, “But much of international law is untested, and
administration lawyers are also examining possible legal
justifications based on a violation of international prohibitions on
chemical weapons use, or on an appeal for assistance from a
neighboring nation such as Turkey.” Additionally, the US has
already received assurance of support from Britain, France and
Turkey.
(FILE
PHOTO) The guided-missile cruiser USS Gettysburg (CG 64) (L) and the
aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) transiting the Strait
of Gibraltar on their way to the Mediterranean Sea. (AFP Photo /
Jamie Cosby)(FILE PHOTO) The guided-missile cruiser USS Gettysburg
(CG 64) (L) and the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75)
transiting the Strait of Gibraltar on their way to the Mediterranean
Sea. (AFP Photo / Jamie Cosby)
According
to senior administration officials who spoke to CBS News on condition
of anonymity, Pres. Obama met with his national security team this
past weekend and has ordered that a declassified intelligence report
showing the rationale for any attack on Syria be released before it
occurs.
While
only nine percent of the respondents polled in the Reuters survey
between August 19 and 23 said they want the White House to respond to
Assad’s reported use of chemical weapons immediately, 25 percent
said they would favor intervention if the US concludes with certainty
that those warheads were illegally used. A Reuters/Ipsos poll from
earlier in the month found that 30.2 percent of Americans would
support intervention if Assad is linked to using chemical weapons.
Sec.
Kerry said the indiscriminate slaughter of women and children
apparently being carried out by the Assad regime constitutes a “moral
obscenity.”
Muscle-Flexing:
UK deploys warplanes in Cyprus, 100km from Syria
Russia
‘regrets’ US decision to shelve Syria talks
Moscow
has voiced “regret” over a US decision to put off bilateral talks
over Syria. Russia has sought to placate calls for military action
over the alleged use of chemical weapons, saying there is no evidence
of the Assad regime’s complicity.
RT,
27
January, 2013
The
US government announced it was postponing bilateral talks with Russia
late Monday, citing “ongoing consultations” over the Syrian
government’s alleged use of chemical weapons.
Russian
and American officials had been scheduled to meet in The Hague on
Wednesday for bilateral talks on the Syrian conflict.
Russian
Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov tweeted a response to the
move Tuesday morning, expressing concern over Washington’s
decision.
“It
is a pity that our western partners have decided to cancel the
bilateral US-Russian meeting to discuss calls for an international
conference on Syria,” Gatilov wrote on Twitter. He added in a later
post that discussing terms for a political solution were needed now
more than ever in the face of possible military intervention in
Syria.
Russia
on Tuesday warned a military intervention in Syria could have
"catastrophic consequences" for the whole region and called
on the international community to show "prudence."
"Attempts
to bypass the Security Council, once again to create artificial
groundless excuses for a military intervention in the region are
fraught with new suffering in Syria and catastrophic consequences for
other countries of the Middle East and North Africa," foreign
ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said in a statement. "We
are calling on our American partners and all members of the world
community to demonstrate prudence (and) strict observance of
international law, especially the fundamental principles of the UN
Charter," he added.
Deputy
Minister of Foreign Affairs Gennady Gatilov (RIA Novosti / Vladimir
Fedorenko)Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Gennady Gatilov (RIA
Novosti / Vladimir Fedorenko)
Foreign
Affairs Committee chairman of the Russian Duma, Aleksey Pushkov also
posted on his Twitter, alleging the US had already made the decision
to strike Syria and they had gone too far.
Russia
has no plans to strengthen its fleet in the region at the
Mediterranean sea facility, the naval base at Tartus, a source from
Russia’s Defense Ministry told Itar-Tass news agency, adding that
withdrawal plans have also not been considered. However , the source
did not exclude the possibility that one more military vessel might
be transferred to the region from Russia’s Black Sea fleet and one
nuclear submarine added from the North Sea fleet.
A
number of western countries including France, the US and the UK have
condemned President Bashar Assad’s government for last week’s
alleged chemical weapons attack in a Damascus suburb and called for a
response, hinting at possible military action. On Monday, Russian
President Vladimir Putin told British Prime Minster David Cameron in
a phone conversation that there was still no evidence the Assad
government was behind the attack.
However,
Cameron insisted that Assad’s forces were behind the “chemical
weapons” attack, saying that the Syrian opposition did not have the
facilities to orchestrate such an attack. Cameron also cited the
Syrian government’s delay in allowing a team of UN experts to
examine the site as an indication that it had something to hide.
Washington
has also seen an increase in rhetoric, urging action against the
Assad government. Samantha Power, the US Ambassador to the UN,
decried the Assad government for the attack on her Twitter account,
and demanded accountability.
Haunting images of entire families dead in their beds. Verdict is clear: Assad has used CWs against civilians in violation of int'l norm.
— Samantha Power (@AmbassadorPower) August 27, 2013
Meanwhile,
the UN weapons inspectors are due to start their second day of
investigations in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta, where the toxic
attack happened last Wednesday. The team’s convoy of vehicles came
under fire from unknown assailants Monday as they visited the area.
In
spite of the sniper attack, the team managed to collect samples for
analysis and gather witness testimonies at a local hospital.
Contradicting claims from the US and UK that the probe was too late
to yield accurate results, the UN stressed the mission was still
valid, although almost a week has passed since the supposed attack.
The
alleged attack took place last Wednesday in an eastern suburb of
Syria’s capital. Media published conflicting reports on the death
toll, ranging from “dozens” to over 1,300 dead. French charity
Medecins sans Frontieres (Doctors without Borders) put the death toll
at about 355
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mYx9UTV-QWw
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.