Excerpt
President Barack Obama is certain that a chemical-weapons attack by the regime of Syria's President Bashar al-Assad caused the deaths of hundreds of civilians on the outskirts of Damascus last week, and warned that "international consequences" were required for such an act. But he also gave strong signals that any military action he might take as a result would be limited in scope, its purpose being to warn the Syrian regime "that it better not do it again."
In an interview with "PBS NewsHour" that aired Wednesday evening, Obama emphasized that he has not yet made a decision on military action in Syria, but made it absolutely clear who he believes is responsible.
"We have looked at all the evidence and we do not believe the opposition possessed nuclear weapons on – or chemical weapons of that sort," Obama said. "We do not believe, given the delivery systems using rockets, that the opposition could have carried out these attacks. We have concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried these out, and if so, then there need to be international consequences."
Obama's interview coincided with efforts by Britain to win U.N. Security Council authorization for military intervention to protect Syrian civilians -- an effort that appeared unlikely to avoid the Russian and Chinese vetoes that stopped three previous, less muscular resolutions.
Even as it grapples with how to respond forcefully but not too forcefully to last week's events in Syria, the Administration remains unsure of whether a chemical-weapons attack was ordered from the top of the Assad regime, Foreign Policy magazine has reported. Still, it is holding President Assad responsible for what it believes are the actions of his armed forces. U.N. inspectors continue to probe the incident, and Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said Wednesday they'd need at least another four days to finish gathering evidence, and more time to analyze it.
Even if the administration has no doubt that Assad's forces launched a chemical-weapons attack against civilians last week, it remains leery of being drawn into action to shape the outcome of Syria's civil war, but added that when "countries break international norms on weapons, like chemical weapons, that can threaten us, that they are held accountable."
Obama, at the same time, appears inclined to limit the impact of any military action, as suggested by his description of it as a "shot across the bow" -- an 18th century nautical term for a warning shot that does no harm but underscores a demand for compliance.
"Former UN weapons inspector: West has 'no authority' in Syria" Al Jazeera America 8/28/2013
Excerpt
Amb. Richard Butler, an Australian national and expert in nuclear disarmament, was the chief U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq during the 1990s. He also served as deputy representative at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), chairman of the Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, and executive chairman of the U.N. Special Commission to Disarm Iraq (UNSCOM).
Butler spoke with Al Jazeera about the suspected chemical weapons attack near Damascus last week that left hundreds dead. Both the Syrian opposition and President Bashar al-Assad have denied responsibility for the attack, which crossed what President Barack Obama has called a "red line" that would necessitate a direct response from the U.S. The U.N. on Monday sent its weapons inspectors to examine the site of the alleged attack in Damascus, about which Butler is uniquely qualified to comment.
These interview highlights were edited for length.
Butler on whether U.N. weapons inspectors will be able to produce a comprehensive report on the suspected chemical weapons attack in Damascus:
"It will be difficult, because they were kept away from the site for five days. … And the chemicals involved degrade fairly rapidly … although they leave traces of having been there … but those five days make it difficult.
"Secondly, they would best have tissue samples … and the reports are Syrian authorities would not let them exhume bodies. … They were only allowed to take away limited quantities of blood and urine, so I’m a little bit pessimistic about the possibility the U.N. team will be able to bring back as detailed and as exclusive a report as we would have hoped.
"I know the leader of the team very well, and we worked together in the past. The inspectors who were there in Iraq with me were men and women of extraordinary ability and integrity … but no matter how good they are, they need proper access in a timely fashion, and I think they have been denied of that, so I am not terribly optimistic that the report will be as comprehensive as we would like it to be."
No comments:
Post a Comment