Stephen Nulty 9:20 am on April 12, 2018
Tags: , ,   

Thursday 12 April 2018 – Tensions escalating as world waits to see USA’s response to chemical attack in Syria

last updated: 17:10 pm GMT

_100762824_mediaitem100762823

It’s never a good sign when the United States and Russia start hurling accusations and threats against one another – this time over a chemical weapons attack in Syria that the Americans and the West blame Syria’s president Bashar al-Assad for, supported by its ally Russia, and Russia and Syria itself says never happened and is a provocation by the west to justify military action against the Syrian regime.  The signs are even more worrying when the the US president is the deeply unstable Donald Trump and the Russian president is Vladimir Putin – both men are obsessed by their own machismo and egos and by a need to assert themselves by appearing strong and tough.  Their posturing may just lead the United States and Russia – and by consequence the rest of us – into a dangerous military conflagration that could quickly spiral out of control.

The conflict in Syria has been raging for several years now and shows no sign of coming to an end.  The people of Syria have suffered tremendous hardship and trauma at the hands of the Syrian regime of Assad, backed militarily by Putin’s Russia.  On Saturday, as has happened before, the Syrian regime resorted to using chemical weapons against its own people in the city of Douma.  Despite claims by both Assad and Russia that the attack never happened, or at least did not involve any toxic chemical weapons, opposition activists, rescue workers and medics in Douma say that 40 people were killed and that hundreds were showing signs of being exposed to toxic chemicals.  Douma is the last rebel-held town in  the Eastern Ghouta region of the war-torn country and forces loyal to Assad have been renewing their efforts to take the city since February, which has so far left at least 1,700 civilians dead.  Rebel forces in Douma, facing defeat, had agreed to be evacuated to northern Syria but talks stalled on Friday between the regime and the rebel group controlling Douma, Jaysh al-Islam.  Air strikes resumed almost immediately, including the attack on Saturday.


The Violations Documentation Center (VDC), who monitor alleged violations of  international law in Syria, say there were two separate bomb attacks by the Syrian air force which utilised toxic chemicals.  The first took place at 4pm local time (1pm GMT) in north-western Douma when a bakery was targeted on Omar Ibn Al-Khattab street.  A rescue worker from the Syria Civil Defence reported smelling chlorine in the air after the strike, adding: “We later discovered the bodies of people who had suffocated from toxic gases. They were in closed spaces, sheltering from the barrel bombs, which may have caused their quick death as no-one heard their screams.” The VDC say the second incident took place at 7.45pm local time (4.45 GMT) at Martyrs’ Square not far to the east of the first attack.   More than 500 people were injured in the second attack, mostly women and children, who are all showing signs of being exposed to a chemical agent.  This was according to the Syrian American Medical Society (SAMS), a relief organisation that assists hospitals.  In  a statement released they said patients showed signs of “respiratory distress, central cyanosis (blue skin or lips), excessive oral foaming, corneal burns, and the emission of chlorine-like odour.”  Searches of the affected area found bodies with oral foaming, cyanosis and corneal burns. Several hospitals reported receiving patients with similar symptoms.  One medical worker told the BBC: “His [a patient] pupils were dilated and he had foam in his mouth. His heart was very slow. Then he coughed blood into his mouth as well.”  The opposition group Douma Revolution posted videos online of what it said were the bodies of children and adults found in the affected area, some of which had foaming of the mouth.

_100762826_mediaitem100762825

Photo: a child is treated after exposure to toxins. Read more.


It is claimed 25 five people died in the first attack and 20 in the second.  SAMS said that 42 bodies were found in homes in the areas hit and that rescue efforts were hampered by strong chemical odours that caused breathing difficulties among the rescue workers.  The Union of Medical Care and Relief Organisations (UOSSM) at first reported 70 deaths, but revised this down to 42 with a belief that the figure will rise.  Meanwhile the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) said air strikes on Friday and Saturday killed almost 100 people.  It said that 21 of them died from suffocation but could not identify the cause.


The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has established a fact-finding mission which was “gathering further information from all available sources to establish whether chemical weapons were used.”  The situation is complicated by the fact that to confirm whether people have been exposed to toxic chemicals scientists need to analyse samples in a laboratory.  You cannot accurately assume contamination from videos and photos alone.  However, humanitarian organisations have not been allowed in Douma since March because of the Syrian regime’s siege of the city.  Of course, the Syria Civil Defence and SAMS believe people have been exposed to a toxic agent, mostly likely an organophosphate – a compound that includes pesticides and nerve agents.  The UOSSM concluded that symptoms were consistent with the use of a nerve agent.  Dr Raphal Pitti of UOSSM France believes that chlorine was used to conceal the use of nerve agent Sarin.  The US administration also said the victims’ symptoms appeared to be “consistent with an asphyxiation agent and of a nerve agent of some type.”

_100804894_syria_damascus_control_09_04_18_map_v2_640-nc

Despite all the expert and anecdotal evidence, the Syrian regime flatly deny using chemical weapons, accusing rebels of “fabricating” the attack in an attempt to stop the regime taking Douma.  A Syrian foreign ministry source told the official Sana news agency: “Every time the Syrian Arab Army advances in its fight against terrorism, claims emerge of chemical weapons use.”  The Russian government supported its ally in Syria, calling the reports from Douma as “bogus”  Vassily Nebenzia, the Russian permanent representative to the United Nations, “confirmed that there were no chemical substances found on the ground, no dead bodies found, no poisoned people in the hospitals.  The doctors deny that there were people who came to the hospital claiming that they were under the chemical attack.”  Mr Nebenzia offered protection to the OPCW experts whom he said should fly to  Syria to “see for themselves what happened.”

_100774237_e81f46b1-5f22-418b-b01d-8412d389c22a

Few outside Russia and the Syrian regime are buying these denials.  UN General Secretary Antonio Gutteras said he was outraged by events in Douma: “any confirmed use of chemical weapons, by any party to the conflict and under any circumstances, is abhorrent and a clear violation of international law.”  On Monday, President Trump declared that there had been a “heinous attack on innocent Syrians with banned chemical weapons.”  He added that he was speaking to his military leaders and advisers and would make a decision on a response and that “nothing is off the table.”  Governments in the UK and France were quick to condemn the use of chemical weapons and leaders of both nations are engaging in cabinet meetings and discussing ways to support the United States, including militarily as it seems likely Trump is preparing for a military response.

_100823127_hi046108466

By yesterday, the US administration was still considering their options.  White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders told gathered media: “The President has a number of options at his disposal and a number remain on the table. We haven’t laid out any specific actions we plan to take.”  As usual, the President took to Twitter to threaten the Syrian regime and warn Russia that the US is going to take action: “Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria. Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and ‘smart!’ You shouldn’t be partners with a Gas Killing Animal who kills his people and enjoys it!”  US Defence Secretary James Mattis echoed Ms Sanders comments that options were available: “[the military stands ready] to provide military options if they are appropriate as the president determines.” The BBC’s North American editor Jon Sopel believes that military action could take place as early as this weekend.  A US Navy guided-missile destroyer, USS Donald Cook, is already in the Mediterranean Sea from where it could undoubtedly launch missile strikes on Syria.


Trump, however, perhaps under criticism from many that his tweets and warnings to both Syria and Russia of possible military action was not the correct thing for a commander-in-chief to be doing, backtracked somewhat from his initial “Get ready Russia, because they will be coming” tweet.  This morning, at 11.15 Washington time, he tweeted: “Never said when an attack on Syria would take place. Could be very soon or not so soon at all! In any event, the United States, under my Administration, has done a great job of ridding the region of ISIS. Where is our ‘Thank you America?’”

_100825722_macron_1_afp_getty

Sadly it seems that both Prime Minister Theresa May in the UK and President Emmanuel Macron (above) in France are preparing to support an American attack without showing any particular interest in getting the support of their own country’s parliament – or people for that matter.  Theresa May is thought to be wary of seeking parliamentary support as this would possibly slow an American response down.  Does she seriously believe that Trump would bother waiting for British MPs to approve military action before attacking Syrian regime targets?  Theresa May will also be aware of her predecessor, David Cameron, who went to Parliament in 2013 for permission to launch air strikes on Syria and was rebuffed.   That was a deep humiliation for Cameron who wanted to fall in line behind Obama’s administration and Mrs May will be anxious to avoid a similar situation, not least because her government is far less stable than that of David Cameron. Some British MPs are already expressing their views on military action, both for and against.  Tory MP John Redwood abstained from the 2013 vote to attack the Assad regime and now says he is still cautious about military intervention.  He Tweeted this morning: “How should the West respond to Syria? I trust the UK will be a sane voice wanting us to act effectively where we can, rather than demanding action to reveal our anger even if there is no action that is likely to have a good outcome.”  Meanwhile the Brexit secretary David Davis, who was generally known as being dovish, says he now backs military action in Syria.  According Jessica Elgot of The Guardian, in a series of tweets: “David Davis hints he has changed his mind since 2013 when he opposed Cameron going into Syria. He says he did ‘not have the evidence and intelligence’ then that they knew who it was” / “NEW: Davis says in 2013 there was ‘not a proper plan thought through properly.’ … ‘Those two things I’m assured we’re going to answer today’.” Tom Tugendhat, the chair of the foreign affairs select committee in the House of Commons, backed Theresa May’s stance of not seeking Parliamentary approval, saying to the BBC: “I think that we’re looking at what they’re doing is rather more important than looking at what Russia might do. What we’re doing is dealing with a violation of the 1925 Geneva gas protocol, and exercising the 2005 responsibility to protect.”

Ken Clarke a former Conservative Party Chancellor of the Exchequer, as well as Caroline Lucas, leader of the Green Party, have both called for a parliamentary vote before military action is taken.  Mr Clarke told BBC Radio 4’s World At One today: “In a modern, parliamentary democracy, I think you have got to have parliamentary approval if you have a planned, policy decision to launch a military attack of any significant size. To say that Parliament is just sidelined before you take such a serious decision is a very retrograde step. It makes parliamentary accountability fairly pathetic.”


Around 40 prominent parliamentary figures, academics and actors have written to The Guardian expressing their belief that military intervention will only increase the suffering in the Syria: “Britain voted to join the US in bombing Syria in 2015 and was involved in covert operations before that. Its interventions have killed many people, fuelled the cycle of violence and done nothing to bring peace. Rather than backing the gung-ho foreign policy of the most inflammatory and xenophobic US president in history, the UK government should be seeking political and diplomatic solutions to the tragic situation in Syria, and to avoid anything that can escalate further the conflict in the region.”


A former UK intelligence chief, Sir John Sawers, weighed in with his belief that military action was necessary following the use of chemical weapons. Sawers was head of MI6 from 2009 to 2014 and said that military action was needed to restore the international taboo against using chemical weapons.  He, however, called for communication and criticised President’s Trump’s use of Twitter to communicate.  Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme he said: “We need very clear communication. Not by tweet, and I don’t approve of what President Trump is doing, but his instincts on this that you do need to respond are basically right. The method of communicating with Moscow is not right.” Mr Sawers also said that previous airstrikes by Trump against Syria last year had failed to deter the regime: “It is quite clear that the deterrent impact of that strike [last year on the Shayrat airbase] was insufficient, because the Syrians have gone ahead and done it again.”

Mr Sawers emphasised that all efforts should be made to prevent damage to Russian forces, even by accident, adding: “The strategy is not to change the course of events in Syria, the strategy is to restore the red lines against the use of chemical weapons. The issue that faces western governments at the moment is whether we stand back and allow that [chemical attacks] to go ahead without any response, and just tolerate the use of chemical weapons, or if we try to restore the taboo against using chemical weapons which is enshrined in law, but now is being breached in practice.” Mr Sawers said that Putin believes feels that the world is trying to bring him down, and that Russian behaviour is forcing the West to push back.  He added that: “There is a risk in all military action, but equally there are risks in not taking military action. More people have been killed by they Syrian civil war, in which we didn’t intervene, than in the Iraqi war in which we did intervene.”  Read more on Theresa May’s options.


Leader of the British Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, said that “Parliament should always be given a say on military action. Obviously the situation is very serious, obviously there has to be, now, a demand for a political process to end the war in Syria. We cannot risk an escalation even further than it’s gone already. What happened last weekend was terrible. What we don’t want is bombardment which leads to escalation and leads to a hot war between Russia and America over the skies of Syria.”


Anger over the seemingly likelihood of UK involvement in military action against Syria has spread on Twitter, with the hashtag #NotInMyNameTheresaMay trending in the UK.  Some examples of people expressing their opinions using the hashtag include:

Rachael Swindon: “So Theresa May admits she’s not sure who’s behind the awful chemical attack, but she’s going to bomb Syria anyway, without the backing of Parliament. This is about to be the start of a very tragic chapter in our history. Complete and utter madness. #NotInMyNameTheresaMay.”

Lil’oldme NO#: “#NotInMyNameTheresaMay You were elected to represent British people. We have spoken. NO military action in #Syria.”

Paul Smith: “If as is expected, the US re-enters the Syrian conflict…and Theresa May disgracefully and arrogantly follows them without democratic process… it will cost her. Rational population see through irresponsible recklessness and faux steeliness.”

Ben Tedds: “#NotInMyNameTheresaMay War will always result in countless unnecessary deaths until people end up at the negotiating table like they were always going to from the start. Don’t make the same mistakes. Words, not war.”

Andy McFetrich: “Because military intervention in the middle-east when there isn’t evidence to support it has always worked so well in the past.  #NotInMyNameTheresaMay.”

Steven Beddoe: “I wonder how much money “saved” through austerity has been spent on those nice new shiny bombs you want dropped onto Syria? #NotInMyNameTheresaMay.”

Shlomo: “When the most enthusiastic people wanting to Bomb Syria are Donald Trump, Boris Johnson and Dan Hodges, that should be a sign that this is a seriously bad idea with no longer term plan. #NotInMyNameTheresaMay.”

Johny Doe: “Bombing Syria now is surely not the solution The only thing it will do is help ISIS. I thought we had learned our lesson after Iraq and Lybia but instead these maniacs are adamant on starting a major conflict with unpredictable consequences. #NotInMyNameTheresaMay.”

Paul Smith: “Bombing Syria now is surely not the solution The only thing it will do is help ISIS. I thought we had learned our lesson after Iraq and Lybia but instead these maniacs are adamant on starting a major conflict with unpredictable consequences. #NotInMyNameTheresaMay.”

Meanwhile, in France, President Macron is said to be considering his own country’s response in the coming days.  The French President had previous said that any military strikes would be targeted against the Syrian government’s “chemical capabilities,” but today said in a TV interview that “We have proof that last week chemical weapons, at least chlorine, were used by the regime of Bashar al-Assad.”  He said: “We will need to take decisions [on military action] in due course, when we judge it most useful and effective.”  President Macron added: “France will not allow any escalation that could harm stability in the region. Regimes that think they can do everything they want, including the worst things that violate international law, cannot be allowed to act.”  


In Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel has ruled out German involvement in any military strikes but added that it was a hard decision to do nothing before calling for unity among Western allies. Italy has also ruled out direct involvement in any strikes, but said it would offer “logistical support.”  Italian caretaker leader Paolo Gentiloni said: “Italy will not participate in Syrian military actions. Based on current international and bilateral accords, Italy will continue to offer logistical support to allied forces.”  NATO Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg urged Assad to allow “full and unimpeded access to international medical assistance and international monitoring” and urged Russia and Iran to “make this possible.”  Mr Stoltenberg added that “it is important that those responsible are held accountable.” 


US Secretary of Defence James Mattis told a hearing of the Armed Services Committee: “I believe there was a chemical attack and we are looking for the actual evidence.”  He also said that one of his major concerns was the Syrian conflict getting “out-of-control”, emphasising that Turkey, Russia and Iran had taken side of Assad in the conflict.  He also accused Russia of being complicit in Syria’s ability to retain chemical weapons, despite a deal in 2013 that Russia brokered.  Mr Mattis also claimed that the US is committed to ending the civil war in Syria through the Geneva process, but stated that Congress would be notified of any military action ahead of time.


Today, Bolivia’s UN ambassador Sacha Llorentty Soliz has called and emergency Security Council meeting at the United Nations and said, ahead of the meeting, that “no unilateral action should be taken,” adding that unilateral action against Syria would be deemed “illegal”.  He called for the US Government to “comply with international law, to at least have at first a complete investigation of what happened” in Douma, only afterwards “adopt any measures” in response to the findings.


The Syrian government are no doubt already moving such chemical capabilities and other resources away from areas it knows would be initial targets.  The New York Times  is reporting that Syrian planes have been moved to a Russian airbase, where they will fall under the protective umbrella of the Russia S-400 surface-to-air missiles.  Moving Syrian warplanes to Russian bases at Latakia, Tartus and Khmeimim  will complicate matters greatly if the West’s response includes attacking Assad air power.  Blowing up Syrian planes on a Russian base would be extremely dangerous and provocative. Reports also suggest that given notice by Trump of an attack, the Syrian regime have emptied their infantry basis and dispersed as much of their armed forces as possible in anticipation of airstrikes.   The Western airstrikes may find targets hard to find and may have to focus on fixed targets such as airfields and buildings. 


However, US-led strikes will undoubtedly have the potential to cause massive damage to the command and control and military infrastructure of the Syrian regime, which has been effectively rebuilt in the last couple of years.  The Americans also have the option of continuously returning to carry out fresh air strikes, thus keeping the Assad air force bottled up in the Russian bases.  This would possibly create a no-fly zone for the Syrian air force, at least for a while.  After last year’s US attack on the Shayrat airbase, the Syrian air force was active again within a day.  The Americans will be keen not to see this happen again.  What difference any of this will make in the long term is uncertain and in the short term it at best antagonises the Russians and at worst escalates the Syrian conflict out of control. UN Secretary General Antonio Gutteras has warned of the need to avoid the situation “spiralling out of control.”


Furthermore, a prolonged assault on Syria’s military assets increases the chances that the West will inadvertently strike Russian troops or assets.  It seems unlikely that Putin will stand by and allow that to escape retaliation if such a thing does happen.  All this raises the question also that military action on its own its next to meaningless without a political solution to the Syrian crisis.  It also risks hampering Trump’s promise that American troops will be out of the Syrian conflict very soon.  With his self-professed almost total annihilation of ISIS in Syria, Washington’s justification for being involved is fading fast.  Starting a new level of military intervention in the country, this time against Assad’s regime rather than ISIS, will only ensure that a political solution is that much more further away.


On the other hand, there is a creeping normalisation of the use of chemical weapons, whether by Assad in Syria or Putin’s government in poisoning Russian citizens in the UK.  The conventions against their use was one of the 20th century’s most successful disarmament achievements, dating back to the end of World War One during which chemical weapons had been used by both sides.  Syria itself had been a signatory to the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention.  To his shame, President Obama allowed his own red line on their use to be crossed when he didn’t act in 2013 when Assad used them on his own people.  That was partly as a result of the failure of Obama to secure international backing for military action, not least from the UK whose parliament said no to military intervention by Britain.  This failure to act in 2013 has only encouraged Assad to repeatedly resort to chemical weapons in his war with his own people. 


A further backing down this time would only weaken the conventions of international law in regard to the use of chemical weapons, yet many politicians and citizens in the West are still unprepared and unwilling to take military action or risk escalating the existing crisis in Syria in order to reinforce the conventions.  After decades of interference and wars in the Middle East it is perhaps understandable that many just want to leave the region well alone, but others argue that doing so has only made the situation throughout the Middle East that much worse, and while the West has been focusing on the fight against ISIS, countries such as Iran, Russia and Turkey have been gaining influence in the region – to the long-term detriment of the West.


The debate will continue to rage over whether the West needs to get involved again in the Middle East rather than its current indifference to the region.  As for the Syrian people, their suffering continues regardless of what the West does but it is hoped by many that a sustained military campaign by the West could finally force Assad to negotiate a political settlement to the long and bitter civil war.  Left alone by the West and with the backing of Russia the alternative for the Syrian people is an eventual bitter victory for Assad.

_100808865_chemical_weapons_sites_624_nc

The Russian’s have warned that any US missiles fired at Syria will be shot down and their launch sites targeted if Russian lives are at risk.  Would this include the Russians attacking the USS Donald Cook or other US military assets?  President Putin, however, did express his hope that the situation would stabilise and hoped that common sense would prevail and said that Russia would “keep all its international obligations in full.”  The big question is whether Russia will respond if the West launches attacks on the Syrian regime.  Russia is Syrian’s military ally and has a vested interest in supporting the Syrian regime of Assad.  Will it risk escalating the crisis in Syria and even risk a war with Western powers  in order to continue to prop up the Syrian government?  Also, what is common sense to Putin is probably unacceptable to Trump – i.e. the continuing survival of President Bashar al-Assad. 


We have seen many wars by proxy between the West and the former Soviet Union over the decades since the end of World War II but it is in no one’s interest to allow those wars to become full-blown wars between Russia and the West.  At the end of the day this shared need to avoid all-out war will probably stop any attacks by the West on Syria from escalating beyond the region.  That’s bad news for the Syrian people, but as we have seen repeatedly from Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and elsewhere, the West and Russia are content to fight their proxy wars on foreign soil and I can’t see this increasingly terrible situation in Syria from being any different.

Capture

read more on potential targets in a US attack


The Guardian were reporting this morning that the United States and Russian governments are in direct contact via an “incident prevention” hotline.  This is according to Dmitri Peskov, a Kremlin spokesman, who said that the “line exists and is active.”  The hotline is used to prevent direct clashes between US and Russian troops in the Syrian conflict.  Mr Peskov said both sides were using the hotline and were attempting to de-escalate the tensions ahead of a potential military response after Saturday’s chemical attack in Douma.  Meanwhile, the Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan appears to be offering himself as a mediator.  He says he has already spoken to President Trump and later on spoke with President Putin, saying that the two had agreed to stay in close contact.  It is known that Erdoğan share’s Putin’s aim of curbing US influence in the Middle East.


As a delegation from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) prepares to go to Douma with the support of the Russian government, Russia is claiming that Douma is now under control of the Syrian regime and that their own military police are on the ground.  If this is true then the chances of the OPCW finding evidence of a chemical attack could be seriously undermined if Russia and the Syrian regime sanitise the attack sites.  Russia seems confident that the OPCW will find no evidence, with the Russian foreign ministry calling for the OPCW to get to Douma quickly, adding: “any delay in visiting the location of the alleged incident could lead to another reckless move of Washington, which has already fired missiles on Syria’s Shayrat airbase in April 2017 in violation of the UN Charter and international law.”  It seems that Russia believes that the OPCW will find nothing incriminating and that this will pull the rug from under the West’s planning for a military response.  Russia, however, is preparing for an attack in Syria.  They have deployed ships at the Russian naval base in the Syrian city Tartus.

Sources & Further Reading: