This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen
on .
It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
Britain Makes Case Against Syria as U.N. Inspects Sites
Britain Rules Out Military Strike on Syria
(about 4 hours later)
LONDON — United Nations inspectors spent a third day in the eastern suburbs of Damascus on Thursday, seeking evidence of chemical weapons attacks, as momentum for Western military strikes against Syria appeared to slow.
LONDON — Prime Minister David Cameron said that Britain would not participate militarily in any strike against Syria after he lost a parliamentary vote by 13 votes on Thursday on an anodyne motion urging an international response.
Britain took the unusual step of publishing an intelligence assessment on Thursday blaming the Syrian government for a deadly chemical onslaught last week that left hundreds of people dead. The British government also laid out legal reasoning arguing that striking Syria would be justified on humanitarian grounds, with or without a mandate from the United Nations Security Council.
It was a stunning defeat for a government that had seemed days away from joining the United States and France in a short, punitive cruise-missile attack on the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad for reportedly using chemical weapons against civilians.
Prime Minister David Cameron, facing dissent among lawmakers, has signaled that Britain would await the inspectors’ findings, though their U.N. mandate is to establish whether and what chemical weapons were used, not to determine who had used them. His government submitted a resolution for debate in Parliament on Thursday that would endorse its tough criticism of the government of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, but would not yet approve military action; Mr. Cameron has indicated that a separate vote would be required to authorize action, possibly next week.
Thursday evening’s vote was nonbinding, but in a short statement to Parliament afterward, Mr. Cameron said that he respected the will of Parliament and that it was clear to him that the British people did not want to see military action over Syria. “I get it,” he said.
Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations secretary general, told reporters in Vienna that the inspectors would complete their work on Friday and report to him on Saturday. The inspectors traveled in a six-car convoy toward the Ghouta neighborhood on Thursday to collect evidence and samples, activists said, and were focusing on the Zamalka area.
The government motion was defeated 285 to 272.
As part of its efforts to win the vote, Britain had taken the unusual step of publishing an intelligence assessment on Thursday blaming the Syrian government for a deadly chemical onslaught last week that left hundreds of people dead. The British government also laid out legal reasoning arguing that striking Syria would be justified on humanitarian grounds, with or without a mandate from the United Nations Security Council.
Mr. Cameron sought to calm the dissent among lawmakers by signaling that Britain would await the findings of United Nations inspectors currently working in Syria, though their mandate is to establish whether and what chemical weapons were used, not to determine who had used them. And the resolution he offered Parliament on Thursday would simply have endorsed tough criticism of the government of Mr. Assad, but would not yet approve military action. But Parliament rejected even that.
Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations secretary general, told reporters in Vienna that the inspectors would complete their work on Friday and report to him on Saturday. On Thursday, the inspectors traveled in a six-car convoy toward the Ghouta neighborhood for a third day of collecting evidence and samples, activists said, and were focusing on the Zamalka area.
In its intelligence document, the British government gave its reasons for concluding that the Syrian government was responsible for the chemical attacks last week, citing an attached assessment by its Joint Intelligence Committee.
In its intelligence document, the British government gave its reasons for concluding that the Syrian government was responsible for the chemical attacks last week, citing an attached assessment by its Joint Intelligence Committee.
“It is not possible for the opposition to have carried out a CW attack on this scale,” said the document, referring to chemical weapons. “The regime has used CW on a smaller scale on at least 14 occasions in the past. There is some intelligence to suggest regime culpability in this attack. These factors make it highly likely that the Syrian regime was responsible.”
“It is not possible for the opposition to have carried out a CW attack on this scale,” said the document, referring to chemical weapons. “The regime has used CW on a smaller scale on at least 14 occasions in the past. There is some intelligence to suggest regime culpability in this attack. These factors make it highly likely that the Syrian regime was responsible.”
Even so, Mr. Cameron told lawmakers during the parliamentary debate that there was “no smoking piece of intelligence” proving culpability.
But Mr. Cameron had to admit to lawmakers during the parliamentary debate that there was “no smoking piece of intelligence” proving culpability.
The intelligence assessment said that “there is no obvious political or military trigger for regime use of CW on an apparently larger scale now, particularly given the current presence in Syria of the U.N. investigation team.” It added that permission to authorize the use of chemical weapons “has probably been delegated by President Assad to senior regime commanders” but that “any deliberate change in the scale and nature of use would require his authorization.”
The intelligence assessment said that “there is no obvious political or military trigger for regime use of CW on an apparently larger scale now, particularly given the current presence in Syria of the U.N. investigation team.” It added that permission to authorize the use of chemical weapons “has probably been delegated by President Assad to senior regime commanders” but that “any deliberate change in the scale and nature of use would require his authorization.”
It was unclear whether the intelligence assessment and legal reasoning would persuade British lawmakers to endorse the government’s position on Syria, even though the parliamentary motion under discussion does not specifically authorize military action.
Mr. Cameron insisted in the debate that if there was no response to the use of chemical weapons, there would be “nothing to stop Assad and other dictators from using these weapons again and again.” The Syrian leader was “testing the boundaries,” he added, while stressing that he was not pressing for full military intervention.
Mr. Cameron insisted in the debate that if there was no response to the use of chemical weapons, there would be “nothing to stop Assad and other dictators from using these weapons again and again.” The Syrian leader was “testing the boundaries,” he added, while stressing that he was not pressing for full military intervention.
The coalition government Mr. Cameron leads is facing political difficulties from legislators mindful of events in 2003, when assurances from Prime Minister Tony Blair and President George W. Bush that Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi dictator, had weapons of mass destruction proved to be inaccurate and a false pretext for war.
One obstacle he faced was the shadow of events in 2003, when assurances from Prime Minister Tony Blair and President George W. Bush that Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi dictator, had weapons of mass destruction proved to be inaccurate and a false pretext for war.
The leader of the opposition Labour Party, Ed Miliband, argued in the debate that the country should “learn the lessons of Iraq, because people remember the mistakes that were made in Iraq.” Mr. Miliband said his party would vote against the government’s resolution because, while he did not oppose military action against Syria, he had yet to be persuaded by the evidence provided. That led one of Mr. Cameron’s officials to accuse Mr. Miliband of “flipping and flopping,” a charge rejected by a Labour spokesman as “frankly insulting.”
The leader of the opposition Labour Party, Ed Miliband, argued in the debate that the country should “learn the lessons of Iraq, because people remember the mistakes that were made in Iraq.” Mr. Miliband said his party would vote against the government’s resolution because, while he did not oppose military action against Syria, he had yet to be persuaded by the evidence provided. That led one of Mr. Cameron’s officials to accuse Mr. Miliband of “flipping and flopping,” a charge rejected by a Labour spokesman as “frankly insulting.”
In Damascus, the Syrian capital, President Assad said Thursday that his country “will defend itself against any aggression,” and that threats of military action would only increase its resolve, according to a report by SANA, the state news agency. In statements released after a meeting with a Yemeni delegation, Mr. Assad said, “Syria, with its steadfast people and brave army, will continue eliminating terrorism, which is utilized by Israel and the Western countries to serve their interests in fragmenting the region.” He routinely refers to armed insurgents and rebels as “terrorists.”
Scott
Sayare contributed reporting from Paris.
The Syrian Parliament sent an open letter to the British Parliament, warning that an international military strike on Syria would push Syria and the region “into a cataclysm of sectarian mass murder.” The Parliament speaker, John Bercow, declined to have the letter read at Parliament, as Syrian lawmakers had requested, but “deposited it in the library of the House of Commons” where it would be accessible to members of Parliament, according to a spokeswoman.
The delay in Britain sharpened the focus on France, a European rival for influence, where President François Hollande met Thursday with Ahmad al-Jarba, the president of the fractured Syrian opposition coalition, which is seeking the overthrow of Mr. Assad. Mr. Hollande’s government was the first in the West to offer formal recognition of the coalition.
In an interview published before the meeting, Mr. Jarba displayed growing impatience with the pace of Western moves toward a military strike and with the level of support for insurgents.
Asked in the newspaper Le Parisien what he expected of Western military intervention, he replied: “First of all, a punitive strike against the regime. Then political and military support for the Free Syrian Army. For the Assad regime enjoys total support from Russia, Hezbollah and Iran. We lack everything. Our allies have given us nothing of what we want.”
After the meeting, though, Mr. Hollande sounded a cautious tone, saying, “Everything must be done for a political solution, but it will only happen if the coalition is able to appear as an alternative with the necessary force, notably from its army.”
“We will only manage this,” Mr. Hollande said, “if the international community can put a temporary stop to this escalation in violence, of which the chemical attack is just one example.”
The French foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, told a gathering of French diplomats in Paris on Thursday that the chemical attacks near Damascus “will not go unpunished” and that the response will be “considered, commensurate, and firm.” In keeping with other French officials but in contrast to British officials, Mr. Fabius offered no legal justification for intervention and made no mention of the United Nations Security Council, though he did note that Mr. Ban had qualified the use of chemical weapons in Syria as a possible crime against humanity.
In Tehran, President Hassan Rouhani was quoted as saying that Iran, Syria’s most powerful regional backer, believed that it was necessary to “apply all efforts to prevent” military action against the authorities in Damascus. “Military action will have a big amount of costs for the region,” Iranian state television quoted Mr. Rouhani as telling President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia in a telephone conversation late Wednesday.
His language seemed outstripped, however, by remarks from Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari, the commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, who was quoted by the Tasnim news agency as saying an attack on Syria “will mean the imminent destruction of Israel,” Reuters reported. “Syria will become the second Vietnam for the United States,” he said.
Though Mr. Rouhani condemned any use of chemical weapons, he also said that Iran and Russia would work to prevent any military action against Syria, which he called an “open violation” of international law, The Associated Press reported.
“Early judgment can be dangerous, before clarification” he said, referring to Western assertions that the Syrian authorities had used chemical weapons.
As regional powers maneuvered, there were media reports that warships were being deployed in the Mediterranean by Russia and France, but no immediate confirmation of those accounts. The United States Navy has four destroyers within striking range of Syria in the Mediterranean, all of them carrying Tomahawk cruise missiles. Attack submarines also carry Tomahawks and are assumed to be on station in the Mediterranean.
In Moscow, the news agency Interfax quoted an unidentified military source as saying Russia planned to send two warships to the Mediterranean — an antisubmarine vessel and a missile cruiser — because of the “well-known situation.” A French frigate was reported on Thursday to have left the naval base at Toulon on the Mediterranean, but its destination was not immediately clear.
Britain said Thursday that its air force had sent six Typhoon warplanes to a British base at Akrotiri on the Mediterranean island of Cyprus. But, given the government’s promise to delay direct military action, a spokesman for the Ministry of Defense said, the warplanes “are not deploying to take part in any military action against Syria.”
“This is purely a prudent and precautionary measure to ensure the protection of U.K. interests” and the security of the base at Akrotiri, the spokesman said, speaking in return for anonymity under departmental rules. He added that nine Royal Navy vessels were in the Mediterranean as part of an exercise planned before the Syria crisis.
Reporting was contributed by Steven Erlanger from London, Rick Gladstone from New York, Michael R. Gordon from Washington, Steven Lee Myers from Moscow, Nick Cumming-Bruce from Geneva, Marlise Simons from The Hague, Scott Sayare from Paris, and Anne Barnard and an employee of The New York Times from Beirut, Lebanon.
