 |
| President Obama on the phone and file picture of a Syrian chemical attack victim |
U.S. President Barack Obama has
reported the Syrian president to his backer in the Kremlin for cheating and
dabbling with chemical weapons.
That’s how I read this official
White House “readout”
of President Obama’s call with Russian President Vladimir Putin:
President Obama spoke by
phone today [Monday] with President Putin of Russia to convey his condolences
on the tragic hospital fire outside of Moscow that killed dozens last week, and
to reiterate his appreciation for the close cooperation that the United States
has received from Russia on the Boston marathon attack. The two Leaders
discussed cooperation on counter-terrorism and security issues going forward,
including with respect to the 2014 Olympics in Sochi. President Obama and
President Putin reviewed the situation in Syria, with President Obama
underscoring concern over Syrian chemical weapons. The Presidents agreed
to stay in close consultation and instructed Secretary [John] Kerry and Foreign
Minister [Sergei] Lavrov to continue discussions on Syria. Finally, both
Presidents noted that they look forward to meeting in person in June at the
time of the G-8 meeting in Northern Ireland and again in September for a
bilateral Summit in Russia.
Game Over
“Game
Over” is a message in video
games signaling that the game
has ended, often due to a negative outcome.
“It’s
Game Over in Syria,” Lebanese journalist, author and political analyst
Samir Atallah writes today for the leading Saudi daily Asharq Alawsat.
In his words, paraphrased from Arabic:
While Barack Obama looks high and low for the
red line in Syria, the Arab Mashriq
seems about to fall into the netherworld.
Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon are going to rack
and ruin as viable civil states. There was never a winner in wars fought by men
with no colors other than the inferno colors.
Jabhat al-Nusra has set up its republic, its
laws, its courts, its economy and its bakeries in all the localities it
captured in and near Aleppo.
The regime in turn is trying to carve up a
separate republic for itself in Homs.
For their part, the “civilians” in Istanbul keep
pining for news from Ahmet Davutoglu, the learned politician who knew
everything except all that has happened.
Each and every side in the conflict crossed the
entire the red lines the White House preacher is hunting for.
They are all losers. And the Syria we knew is
the biggest loser of them all.
What did Russia gain from Jabhat al-Nusra spreading
in the north all the way to Damascus?
What did Iran benefit from most of Syria falling
in the Takfiris’ hands?
What did America reap from the war, which her
ambassador in Damascus started by visiting
Hama, only to end up reading false reports about the whereabouts of Jihad Makdissi?
Originally, the prevailing view was the
regime did not know what it had on its hand.
No one who had Syrian blood on his hands knew
anything about the pothole he was jumping into. That’s why there are hands
drenched in blood but no life-saving hands.
The world fought the war outwith the Security
Council.
The Arabs fought it outwith their League.
The regime fought it from the start outwith
any acceptable or negotiable solution.
Clock chimes are ringing out Syria’s end.
For a year now, the red line has been without
benchmark or terms of reference.
The first red line was the Russian-Chinese
veto.
The second red line came in Geneva with
ambiguous Action Group resolutions akin to an open invitation to keep up the
ruination.
The third red line considered the use of
chemical weapons a game-changer – as if suggesting all other lethal and
destructive weapons are green lines in the race to obliterate Syria as a
nation-state.
In the end, Russia will evacuate its
citizens, America will issue a travel warning to its citizens, and Iran will
pull out its Revolutionary Guards, leaving Syria in shreds.
“Game Over” Iraq’s Mohammed al-Douri told the
United Nations in announcing the [Saddam] regime’s fall.
It’s “Game Over” in Syria.
Press
Briefing
I wrote in my
post last week, “I doubt Obama would ever lift a finger against Assad.”
For those who wish to continue reading, here is how the dithering continued at yesterday’s
press briefing by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney:
Q. Jay, on
Syria, some questions are being raised about whether the Syrians actually used
sarin on their people. What confidence does the United States have in
this evidence? And can you characterize what exactly the evidence is in
any way and what standards you’re trying to meet in terms of establishing it?
CARNEY: We have established with
varying degrees of confidence that chemical weapons were used in limited
fashion in Syria and the agent is sarin, as we have said. We have some
physiological tests that are part of that collection of evidence. But there is
much more to be done to verify conclusively that the red line that the
President has talked about has been crossed.
And it’s very important that we take the
information that’s been gathered thus far and build upon it, because an
assessment of varying degrees of confidence is not sufficient upon which to
base a policy reaction, as we’ve said and as the President said in the Oval
Office on Friday.
So our work continues. We have a team
-- or the United Nations has a team ready to deploy to Syria within 24 to 48
hours if Assad allows that team in and follows through on his stated commitment
and interest in having this matter investigated. And we are working with
the French and the British and other allies and partners to gather more
evidence. Chain of custody is an important issue -- establishing not just
that there was an incident of chemical weapons used, but how the exposure
occurred, under what circumstances, who specifically was responsible, and
again, the chain of custody, how the incident itself was brought about.
Q. You say
physiological. Can you be any more specific about what that evidence is and
who is holding it?
CARNEY: Physiological is tangible
evidence. And beyond that, I’m not going to be specific about it or
methods and sources in terms of gathering evidence. It is a piece in the
puzzle that needs to be put together to establish the kind of verifiable,
reviewable evidence that can be corroborated that we need to establish as we
make decisions about policy.
(…)
Q Jay, on
Syria, where exactly is that red line?
CARNEY: The President has made clear,
as he did again Friday, that the use of chemical weapons or the transfer of
chemical weapons to terrorist groups would cross a red line.
What we have made clear, and we can go over
it again, is that we have established with varying degrees of confidence that
there have been incidents of chemical weapons used, sarin, in particular, in a
limited fashion in Syria. We are now working to build upon that evidence
to increase the amount of evidence to find specifically what happened, what
occurred, who was responsible and build that case, if you will.
Q. So is it
the use of any amount of chemical weapons?
CARNEY: There’s not a gradation here
that I can engage in. I can tell you that there have been, as we have
assessed with varying degrees of confidence, incidents of the use of chemical
weapons in a limited fashion. But the issue here is chain of
custody. It is going on more than simply intelligence assessments.
I think our history provides us with examples of why we need to be especially
assiduous when it comes to evaluating and gathering evidence in matters related
to these kinds of issues. And that's what we're doing.
Q. But I'm
trying to understand -- because I heard the President say "systematic
use" on Friday -- so is it any amount? Is it a small amount? Does it
have to be a large amount to cross the red line?
CARNEY: I think that the issue here is
the use by, we believe, the regime -- because we are highly skeptical of any
accusations that the opposition may have used chemical weapons -- the use by
the regime of chemical weapons against the Syrian people or the transfer by the
regime of some of its chemical weapons stockpile to terrorists --
Q. Any
amount -- even a limited amount?
CARNEY: I don't have an amount to give
you. Obviously, the nature of chemical weapons varies depending on the
agent. The use of chemical weapons can depend on the instance and the
chain of custody. So that's what we're investigating now. That's
what we're calling on Assad to allow the United Nations to investigate.
So this is a very serious matter. The
President made clear this was a very serious matter. And it is because
that it is so serious that it is essential to establish a broader process of
verification that will allow us then to assess whether that red line has been
crossed and what the policy response will be.
Q. And on
chain of custody, does it have to be something that is directed by Assad and
his --
CARNEY: We have said the use by the
regime of chemical weapons would be President Assad's responsibility. And
we believe and have assessed that the chemical weapon stockpiles in Syria are
under the control -- continue to be under the control of the Syrian regime, led
by Bashar al-Assad.
Again, I don't want to speculate on the
incidents that we have assessed with varying degrees of confidence have occurred
or may have occurred. We are further investigating all credible
information about possible use of chemical weapons in Syria and call on Assad
to comply with his own request for an investigation of chemical weapons use in
Syria by allowing that team in to investigate. It's ready to go.
Q. And just
one more. How long do you think this process takes? Are we talking
like --
CARNEY: I don't think it's possible to
say necessarily, because building -- the building blocks that create the
evidence necessary to make these kinds of assessment depend on what we're able
to gather and it's a complex process. Establishing the use of chemical
weapons and the incidents involved and the chain of custody is not easy
business, but it is essential business.
Again, if you're as serious as the President
is about this kind of transgression, if it were to occur, you need to be sure
of your facts and you need to have facts that can be corroborated and that can
be reviewed and that are airtight.
Q. So it
could be weeks, it could be months. It could be impossible --
CARNEY: I don't have a timetable for
you. I would not give you a timetable.
(…)
Q
Jay, I wanted to follow on Syria, Jon’s questions about the timeline and
whatnot. Understanding, as you say, that the evidence has to be airtight
-- because nobody should suggest that the administration rushed through this --
if it takes months and months to verify this or maybe a year, doesn’t that keep
the door wide open for Assad to use chemical weapons? I mean, when the President
was in the briefing room here some months ago he made it seem like there will
be action taken if this line is crossed. If it drags on for months and
months, it seems like the door could be open for Assad to do this again.
CARNEY: Well, I certainly appreciate
the question and I understand it. What I won't do is speculate about how
much time might be required to gather the evidence necessary to be able to
assess clearly in a way that can be corroborated and reviewed whether or not
this red line has been crossed.
I think all Americans would hope and expect
that on a matter of this seriousness that we would be very careful in that
process and would insist upon gathering all the facts, and not rushing to take
action in a policy sense in reaction to assessments that are very important but
are based on incomplete information.
So we need to build upon
the excellent work that's been done thus far. We call upon Assad to allow
the inspection team from the United Nations to conduct the investigation that
Assad himself asked for. But we are not relying on the United Nations
alone; we are working with our partners and allies as well as the Syrian
opposition, very importantly, to gather more facts and evidence because this
matter is so serious.
(…)
Q. I appreciate that. Going back to Syria quickly. The Free
Syrian Army over this weekend said that Israeli Air Force jets flew over
Assad’s palace and that they bombed a chemical weapons site near Damascus this
weekend. Do you have any more information about that and what the message
is to Israel?
CARNEY: I don’t have any information on
that.
Q. And then,
finally, if I can quickly, as we speak about Syria, can you explain -- there’s
some sense that the White House is perhaps out over its skis, to use a
colloquial phrase, in terms of the issue on Syria; that the language that was
used before to describe this red line as this being a game-changer is now the
policy doesn’t meet that place, that the words perhaps got a little bit ahead
of policy right now. If the White House wasn’t 100 percent sure when they
put out the information to the Hill late last week, why right now? Why
not wait to have said something to -- created this new, complex situation?
CARNEY: Well, I think, as you know, the
President made clear the fact that there was a red line for the United States
long before this report came out because he was making clear to President Assad
how seriously we would view the use or transfer of Syria’s chemical
weapons. And he made that clear again on Friday when asked about this in
his meeting with the King of Jordan. And that is why we have to be so
thorough in our review of and collection of evidence to prove that chemical
weapons have been used. And I think the American people would expect
nothing less.
That’s why we have made clear that while
there is some evidence that leads to an assessment of varying degrees of
confidence that chemical weapons have been used in a limited way in Syria, more
evidence needs to be gathered to build upon the work that’s been done thus far,
and that includes working with allies and partners who care deeply about this
issue and have their own assessments that have been made. It includes
working, very importantly, with the Syrian opposition, and it includes urging
President Assad to allow the United Nations team into Syria.
Q. So given
the challenge that’s posed by the last part of your answer, which is Assad’s
willingness to allow inspectors in there, if he doesn’t allow inspectors in, as
appears increasingly to be the case given that hasn’t happened to this point,
can the White House or can this administration ever reach a point of certitude
to know that chemical weapons are being used, to mandate this reaction that the
President has discussed, a game-changer?
CARNEY: I think that it is certainly
easier if you were to have a team on the ground allowed entry by the Assad
regime, but we are not waiting for that process. We are moving forward,
as we have already, to collect information and gather evidence. We are
relying and working with the Syrian opposition, as well as our allies and
partners in that effort. And that effort will continue.
But there is no question that this not easy
business and it needs to be thorough, and we need to establish the highest
possible level of confidence in the assessments that we make. And that's
why we’re assembling the facts in the way that we are.
Q. Thank you, Jay.
