Kerry Asserts Syrian Regime Used Chemical Weapons, Says Assad Must Be Held Accountable

Meanwhile, Russia’s foreign minister says there is no proof, and urges the U.S. to show restraint.

National Journal
Matt Vasilogambros Brian Resnick
Matt Vasilogambros Brian Resnick
Aug. 26, 2013, 11:50 a.m.

Five days after an at­tack that claimed the lives of hun­dreds of ci­vil­ians in a Dam­as­cus sub­urb, the United States is de­clar­ing that the As­sad re­gime did in­deed use chem­ic­al weapons against Syr­i­an ci­vil­ians.

Though United Na­tions in­spect­ors have not been able to in­vest­ig­ate the at­tack in full, U.S. of­fi­cials seem to have enough in­form­a­tion to con­firm re­spons­ib­il­ity and the weapon used in the at­tack that killed 355 people, ac­cord­ing to Doc­tors Without Bor­ders.

Sec­ret­ary of State John Kerry was the first ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fi­cial to speak openly about the at­tack since Pres­id­ent Obama and his top na­tion­al se­cur­ity ad­visers met in an emer­gency ses­sion Sat­urday. Speak­ing from the State De­part­ment on Monday, Kerry said the As­sad re­gime’s sus­pec­ted chem­ic­al-weapons use last week “de­fies any code of mor­al­ity.”

“The in­dis­crim­in­ate slaughter of ci­vil­ians, the killing of wo­men and chil­dren and in­no­cent bystand­ers by chem­ic­al weapons is a mor­al ob­scen­ity,” Kerry told re­port­ers. “By any stand­ard it is in­ex­cus­able, and des­pite the ex­cuses and equi­voc­a­tions that some have man­u­fac­tured, it is un­deni­able.”

Now, the ques­tion shifts from wheth­er the U.S. will use force against the As­sad re­gime to when it will use force. In­deed, the U.S. is in talks with its al­lies, in­clud­ing France and the U.K., on what sort of force it will use. Ac­cord­ing to sev­er­al re­ports, a cruise-mis­sile launch from the sea is the lead­ing op­tion. Whatever Wash­ing­ton de­cides, it is clear that the U.S. will act, at least ac­cord­ing to Kerry.

“Pres­id­ent Obama be­lieves there must be ac­count­ab­il­ity for those who would use the world’s most hein­ous weapons against the world’s most vul­ner­able people,” Kerry said. “Noth­ing today is more ser­i­ous, and noth­ing is re­ceiv­ing more ser­i­ous scru­tiny.”

Such force does not need con­gres­sion­al ap­prov­al, but some law­makers have called on the White House to con­sult with Con­gress be­fore tak­ing any ac­tion. And with Con­gress on its ex­ten­ded va­ca­tion cur­rently, it’s un­likely con­gres­sion­al lead­ers could get something passed. Nor, however, would con­gres­sion­al au­thor­iz­a­tion be easy to come by. In 1991, con­gres­sion­al au­thor­iz­a­tion for the U.S. to in­vade Kuwait to chase Sad­dam Hus­sein out of the oil-rich na­tion passed with only 52 per­cent.

Kerry said the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion would con­sult with con­gres­sion­al lead­ers in the com­ing days. Over the week­end, sev­er­al law­makers on both sides of the aisle said they were open to tak­ing ac­tion in Syr­ia.

In his re­marks, Kerry ref­er­enced videos that showed people con­vulsing, strug­gling to breath, foam­ing at the mouth. These im­ages, he said, show “hu­man suf­fer­ing that we can nev­er ig­nore or for­get.”

“Any­one who could claim that an at­tack of this stag­ger­ing scale could be con­trived or fab­ric­ated needs to check their con­science and their com­pass,” Kerry con­tin­ued. “What is be­fore us today is real, and it is com­pel­ling.”

Right now, U.N. sci­ent­ists are on the ground at­tempt­ing to in­vest­ig­ate this latest at­tack. But with the per­sist­ent shelling by the As­sad re­gime on the area, it will be dif­fi­cult to find con­clus­ive evid­ence.

“That is not the be­ha­vi­or of a gov­ern­ment that has noth­ing to hide,” Kerry said. “That is not the ac­tion of a re­gime eager to prove to the world that it had not used chem­ic­al weapons. In fact, the re­gime’s be­lated de­cision to al­low ac­cess is too little and too late to be cred­ible.”

On Monday morn­ing, the U.N. said in­vest­ig­at­ors were un­der sniper fire. Their vehicles were re­placed and they went back to work later in the day.

In a press con­fer­ence that can be seen as the mir­ror op­pos­ite of Kerry’s, Sergei Lav­rov, the Rus­si­an for­eign min­is­ter, on Monday urged re­straint on part of the United States, say­ing there is no evid­ence to con­firm that the chem­ic­al at­tack happened or if it happened by the dir­ec­tion of the As­sad re­gime. As The Wash­ing­ton Post re­ports, he said if the United States and its NATO al­lies at­tack without a U.N. sanc­tion, it would amount to a “severe vi­ol­a­tion of in­ter­na­tion­al law.”

While Kerry was speak­ing of the As­sad re­gime’s “mor­al ob­scen­ity” and threw out ac­cus­a­tions of a cov­er-up, Lav­rov’s out­rage was fo­cused west­ward. “Of­fi­cial Wash­ing­ton, Lon­don, and Par­is say they have in­con­tro­vert­ible evid­ence that the Syr­i­an gov­ern­ment is be­hind the chem­ic­al at­tack in Dam­as­cus, but they have not yet presen­ted this evid­ence,” Lav­rov said, as tran­scribed by the Rus­si­an news out­let RT. “Yet, they keep say­ing that the ‘red line’ has been crossed.”

He also re­peated a sim­il­ar state­ment to Brit­ish Prime Min­is­ter Dav­id Camer­on over a phone call. While on the call, “they both re­it­er­ated the po­s­i­tion agreed by all lead­ers at the G-8 in June: No one should use chem­ic­al weapons and any use would mer­it a ser­i­ous re­sponse from the in­ter­na­tion­al com­munity,” ac­cord­ing to a Down­ing Street press re­lease. But while Camer­on main­tained little doubt of the Syr­i­an lead­er’s guilt, Lav­rov said Rus­si­an Pres­id­ent Putin be­lieves there is little evid­ence.

Any ac­tion by the U.S. and its al­lies, however, will likely hap­pen in the next few days. Any longer, and the win­dow for ac­tion closes.

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 4402) }}

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
35 minutes ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
35 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
35 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
35 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
1 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×