Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
International reactions to the Ghouta chemical attack of 21 August 2013 were widespread. The Ghouta chemical attack was a chemical weapons attack in Damascus, Syria during the Syrian Civil War. United States President Barack Obama said that the U.S. military should strike targets in Syria in retaliation for the government's purported use of chemical weapons—a proposal supported by French President François Hollande but opposed by the Syrian government's closest allies, Iran and Russia.[1][2] Although the Arab League said it would support military action against Syria in the event of U.N. support, league members Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia and Algeria opposed intervention.[3] On 14 September the U.S. and Russia announced an agreement on the Framework for Elimination of Syrian Chemical Weapons to destroy the Syria stockpile of chemical weapons and its production facilities, and Syria agreed to sign the Chemical Weapons Convention. The United Nations Security Council also passed Resolution 2118.
On 23 August, U.S. and European security sources made a preliminary assessment that chemical weapons were used by Syrian forces, probably with high-level approval from the Assad government. The sources cautioned that the assessment was preliminary and they were still seeking conclusive proof, which could take days, weeks, or longer to gather.[77] On 23 August, U.S. officials said that their intelligence detected activity at Syrian chemical-weapons sites before the attack.[78] Citing unidentified sources, Foreign Policy's online Cable channel reported that "U.S. intelligence services" intercepted communications between an official at the Syrian Ministry of Defense and the leader of a chemical-weapons unit, demanding an explanation for a nerve-agent strike hours after the attack. According to the report, American officials believed that the attacks were the work of Assad's regime based on the content of the calls (although they were uncertain who ordered the attacks).[79][80]
Russian President Vladimir Putin[81] told British Prime Minister David Cameron that there was no evidence that the chemical weapons were used by the Syrian government. An Iranian Foreign Ministry official said that Russia submitted evidence to the UN Security Council (including satellite images)[citation needed] allegedly proving that chemical weapons were used by the opposition and not the government.[41]
The government of the United Kingdom proposed military action, which was put to a vote in the House of Commons.[65][82] On 30 August, the House of Commons voted against military action by a 285–272 margin, citing concerns about its justification.[67][83] Although the prime minister does not need parliamentary approval for military action, Cameron said that he would abide by the will of Parliament.[84][85]
The United States reportedly planned to launch up to 100 Tomahawk cruise missiles against the Syrian Army,[86] but after several days of public indecision about how to respond to the attacks, President Obama said on 31 August that he would seek congressional authorization before approving military action (although he thought punitive strikes were warranted).[87] No vote in Congress was held, but the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations did approve the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against the Government of Syria to Respond to Use of Chemical Weapons (S.J.Res 21) on 4 September, which would allow the president to take direct action for up to 90 days, but specifically forbid "boots on the ground".[88] An early 2012 U.S. Department of Defense memorandum estimated that "more than 75,000 ground troops" would be needed for the U.S. to gain control of chemical-weapons factories in Syria.[89]
Under President François Hollande, France also considered military action,[90] and the government of Turkey called for a more-robust effort to not only punish the Syrian government for the chemical attacks but to remove Assad from power.[91]
Iran warned that strikes would be met with retaliation against Israel.[92] French or U.S. action would reportedly be launched without approval from the UN Security Council, with Russian officials saying that international military action without UN authorization would violate international law.[93] China also warned against military intervention in Syria, saying that it would have "catastrophic consequences" for the region.[94]
Former UN inspector Hans Blix wrote in the Swedish newspaper, Aftonbladet, that no one was going to act militarily and the UN sanctions were toothless.[95] Swedish Defense Research Agency Middle East expert Magnus Norell said, "Taking things through the UN Security Council is just an excuse to not do something, because you know that a veto will be passed ... It's clear that Assad doesn't care about the UN".[96]
Public-opinion polls have consistently shown that most Americans do not support military intervention in Syria.[97] A Huffington Post poll found that U.S. public support for military strikes in Syria increased from 19 to 25 percent after the attacks in Ghouta.[98] An ABC News poll found that 50 percent of Americans oppose intervention, while 50 percent support it if it is described as cruise missiles launched from a naval vessel.[99] A Pew poll found that Americans opposed military intervention by a 48-to-29-percent margin.[100] An NBC poll found the margin to be eight percent.[101] A Reuters-Ipsos poll found that 56 percent opposed intervention and 19 percent supported it,[102] A Washington Post-ABC poll found that 59 percent of Americans opposed military action in Syria.[103] A Rasmussen poll found that 37 percent of Americans supported "increased military assistance to protect the citizens of Syria", and 40 percent "do not think the United States should get more involved militarily".[104] Most Americans do not know where Syria is, and only a slim majority of those polled at the Department of Defense know where the country is.[105]
Polls have found that most British and French people oppose strikes without UN approval, and a parliamentary motion supporting military intervention failed in the British House of Commons on 31 August[67][106][107] (making David Cameron the first British prime minister in over 150 years to be prevented from going to war by Parliament).[108] UK government policy subsequently focused on providing humanitarian assistance in Syria and to refugees in neighboring countries.[109][110]
United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon said, "The use of force is lawful only when in exercise of self-defense, or when the Security Council approves such action".[111] According to Lakhdar Brahimi (UN and Arab League Special Envoy to Syria since August 2012), "I think international law is clear on this. International law says that military action must be taken after a decision by the Security Council ... certainly international law is very clear – the Security Council has to be brought in."[112]
The UK government published its legal position on the legality of military action. It stated it was seeking a resolution from the United Nations Security Council that would, among other things, authorize member states to take measures (which could include military action) to protect civilians in Syria from the use of chemical weapons and prevent the future use of Syria's stockpile of chemical weapons. If a Security Council resolution was blocked, the UK stated it would still be permitted under international law to take military action on humanitarian grounds if certain conditions are met, and that all three conditions were clearly met in this case.[113][114]
Members of the United States Congress, including Lynn Jenkins, said that President Obama required "consent from Congress as prescribed in the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973" to carry out military strikes in Syria.[115] Obama announced on 31 August that he would seek congressional approval for military strikes: "While I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective. We should have this debate".[116] Congress was on recess at the time of the announcement, and was scheduled to return on 9 September.[116] In connection with an alleged Israeli strike in April 2013 on a Syrian chemical-weapons site, US Ambassador to Israel Michael Oren said that removing chemical weapons by military force was potentially difficult: " ... under international law, if you strike a chemical weapons base and there is collateral damage to civilians it is as if you, the attacker, used chemical weapons."[117]
The United States Navy deployed ships to the eastern Mediterranean and the Red Sea in the days after the attacks. Five Arleigh Burke-class destroyers were initially deployed to the eastern Mediterranean: USS Barry, Stout, Ramage, Mahan and Gravely.[118] The USS Harry S. Truman carrier strike group including the Ticonderoga-class cruisers Gettysburg and San Jacinto and the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers Bulkeley and Mason transited the Suez Canal on 18 August on their way to the Indian Ocean,[119] where they relieved the USS Nimitz carrier strike group (which moved into the Red Sea on 1 September, placing it within easy deployment range of the eastern Mediterranean). The other ships in the Nimitz carrier strike group were the Ticonderoga-class cruiser Princeton and the three Arleigh Burke-class destroyers Shoup, Stockdale and William P. Lawrence.[120][121]
On 29 August the French Navy Horizon-class frigate Chevalier Paul left its home port of Toulon for the eastern Mediterranean.[122] The United Kingdom deployed a Royal Navy Trafalgar-class submarine equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles to the Mediterranean.[86] On 29 August, the Royal Air Force deployed six Typhoon fighter jets from RAF Coningsby to RAF Akrotiri on Cyprus as a precautionary measure.[123][124] The Typhoon deployment followed the arrival of two Tristar air-to-air refuelling aircraft and one E3D Sentry airborne early warning and control aircraft at Akrotiri two days earlier.[125] The Royal Navy Type 23 frigate HMS Westminster, part of a larger Royal Navy battle group, was deployed to the Mediterranean for the annual Cougar 13 exercise. The other ships in the battle group were the helicopter carrier Illustrious, the amphibious transport dock ship Bulwark, the frigate Montrose and six Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships: RFA Lyme Bay, Mounts Bay, Cardigan Bay, Fort Austin, Fort Victoria and Diligence. Bulwark and the three Bay-class landing ships carried elements of the Royal Marines 3 Commando Brigade.[126]
On 30 August the amphibious transport dock USS San Antonio arrived in the eastern Mediterranean to join the five destroyers there, carrying elements of the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit.[127] The Wasp-class amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge moved to the Red Sea with more of the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit.[128][129] On 3 September, Mahan left the eastern Mediterranean to return to its home port of Norfolk.[130] On 4 September the Italian Navy Orizzonte-class frigate Andrea Doria and the Maestrale-class frigate Maestrale left their home port of Taranto for the eastern Mediterranean,[131] and the Italian Navy Durand de la Penne-class destroyer Francesco Mimbelli and the Sauro-class submarine Salvatore Pelosi were deployed to the Ionian Sea.[132]
Russia maintains a naval facility in Tartus. On 5 September several vessels were on their way to the Mediterranean, including the amphibious warfare ships Minsk, Novocherkassk and Nikolai Filchenkov; the reconnaissance ship Prirazovye; the Slava-class cruiser Moskva, and the Udaloy-class destroyer Admiral Panteleyev. The Kashin-class destroyer Smetlivy, the Nanuchka-class corvette Shtil and Tarantul-class corvette Ivanovets were scheduled to arrive by the end of September.[133]
After a U.S. suggestion that a handover of Syrian chemical weapons within a week might avert military action, Russia and Syria began to pursue this solution. On 10 September Syria said it would be willing to sign the Chemical Weapons Convention, halt weapons production and allow UN inspectors access to its stockpiles; joining the convention would be an implicit commitment to the destruction of its chemical-weapons stockpile. Debate began at the UN over the terms of a resolution on the issue. With no clear support in Congress for military action,[134] and the UK Parliament having already voted against military action,[135] the U.S. put its attempt to gain Congressional authorization for military strikes on hold, stressing that the UN initiative must not be merely a delaying tactic,[136] and said it would wait for a report from UN inspectors.[137]
In Foreign Policy, Yochi Dreazen wrote that implementing such a plan would not be easy: "Taking control of Assad's enormous stores of the munitions would be difficult to do in the midst of a brutal civil war. Dozens of new facilities for destroying the weapons would have to be built from scratch or brought into the country from the U.S., and completing the job would potentially take a decade or more". The plan's success would depend on Syrian disclosure of its full stockpile—much of which is mobile, and spread across dozens of sites—and it would be difficult (particularly in civil-war conditions) to verify that this was done.[138]
Syrian rebels opposed the plan, saying that the Syrian government could escape punishment for its crimes. According to Selim Idris the rebels would work with the inspectors, but Qassim Saadeddine said: "Let the Kerry-Lavrov plan go to hell. We reject it and we will not protect the inspectors or let them enter Syria."[139] Idris said that the government had begun moving its chemical weapons to Lebanon and Iraq.[139]
A pre-Geneva II preparation meeting planned by senior U.S. and Russian diplomats for 28 August 2013 in The Hague was postponed by the U.S. Department of State because of "ongoing consultations" about the attacks. According to a State Department spokesperson, the U.S. "would work with Russia to reschedule [the] planned meeting and that the alleged chemical weapons attack demonstrated the need for a 'comprehensive and durable political solution'."[140] On 6 September, President Obama said that he and Russian President Putin agreed that the "underlying conflict" in Syria could "only be resolved through a political transition as envisioned by the Geneva I and Geneva II process".[141]
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.