The European Union called Saturday for a “clear and strong” international response to what it said was “strong evidence” that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government was responsible for a massive chemical weapons attack two weeks ago near Damascus.
But the E.U. statement stopped far short of endorsing a U.S. military strike — something that U.S. officials acknowledged many of the organization’s 28 members do not support.
E.U. foreign ministers, after listening to Secretary of State John F. Kerry explain the U.S. position on punishing Syria with a limited strike, also indicated that no action should take place until U.N. chemical weapons inspectors release their report at least two weeks from now.
A similar delay was advocated Friday by French President François Hollande, whose government had said until last week that it was “ready” to participate in a U.S.-led military strike against Syria.
The European Union said in its statement that it “hopes the [U.N.] preliminary report can be released as soon as possible and welcomes” Hollande’s preference to await its results.
Kerry, speaking in a brief appearance in the Lithuanian capital, Vilnius, with Lithuanian Foreign Minister Linas Linkevicius, who hosted the meeting, expressed gratitude for “support for efforts to hold the Assad regime accountable for what they have done.”
Though U.N. evidence of a chemical attack may allow some Europeans to feel more comfortable about a U.S. strike and nudge public opinion toward supporting it, others say no attack can take place unless the United Nations authorizes the use of force — a development that remains unlikely. China and Russia, Assad’s main military and political backer, have indicated that they will continue to veto any such U.N. Security Council resolution.
Linkevicius, echoing the uneasiness voiced by many European governments about military action without U.N. authorization, said in his appearance with Kerry that “those responsible should be brought to justice; we will make full use of the United Nations.”
But neither he nor others who spoke at the conference spelled out what action they would find acceptable, short of a military strike and in the absence of U.N. agreement.
“Obviously there’s a diversity of opinion in the E.U.,” said a senior State Department official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the closed-door meeting.
On Friday, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called military action “ill-considered” and warned of “serious and tragic consequences” if it were carried out. He reiterated U.N. insistence that only the Security Council could authorize a military strike against a member state.
The Obama administration has said that its own intelligence has proved both that the attack, which it said killed more than 1,400 people, took place and that Assad’s forces were responsible. It has described the U.N. report, which addresses only the occurrence of a gas attack and not who launched it, as irrelevant to its decision.
In the E.U. meeting, the State Department official said, Kerry “made very clear that the United States has not made a decision to wait” for the inspectors’ report before deciding on a military strike. But that time frame appears increasingly immaterial, in any case, since the congressional approval President Obama is now seeking may take even longer, if it is ever obtained.
The Senate may vote next week on a resolution authorizing the use of military force. In the House, where only a small minority so far has said publicly it would support the measure, it remains the subject of sharp debate.
The European statement, read at a news conference in Vilnius by E.U. foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, called the chemical attack a “blatant violation of international law, a war crime, and a crime against humanity,” and spoke of “strong evidence that the Assad regime was responsible.”
“A clear and strong response is crucial to make clear that these crimes are unacceptable and that there can be no impunity,” the statement said.
Assad’s government and its foreign backers, including Russia and Iran, have acknowledged an attack but said rebel military forces were responsible.
Kerry, who flew to France on Saturday after the meetings in Lithuania and will travel to Britain on Sunday, is seeking foreign support during a weekend break from the effort to persuade Congress.
Except for the call for a delay, the E.U. statement mirrored one signed by 10 governments and released by the White House on Friday following the Group of 20 economic summit in Russia attended by Obama. Half of the nations at the G-20 forum refused to join the call for an unspecified “strong international response” to what it said was convincing evidence of Assad’s responsibility for the Aug. 21 attack.
Germany, which had declined to sign the statement at the G-20 summit, said Saturday that it would now do so, after what Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said was the “excellent and very wise position of the E.U.”
In addition to Russia, others at the G-20 meeting that rejected the statement of support included Argentina, Brazil, China, Mexico, Indonesia, India and South Africa. Those who joined the statement included Canada, Australia, Turkey, Japan, South Korea and Saudi Arabia, along with Italy, Spain, France and Britain.
Although the administration’s focus has shifted to the uphill battle to win congressional authority for a resolution authorizing the use of U.S. military force against Syria, a lack of international support has been cited by some lawmakers who oppose the measure.
Whatever international backing the Obama administration thought it could count on when it first contemplated an attack quickly fell into confusion and contradiction. Indications that Britain would be at the U.S. side began to dissipate more than a week ago when British Prime Minister David Cameron lost a parliamentary vote.
Hollande changed course just hours later, after Obama said he would delay action until U.S. lawmakers could vote. On Friday, Hollande took another step back from imminent action, saying he thought a military strike should be postponed until the U.N. inspectors reported.
Speaking in Paris on Saturday next to Kerry, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius sought to fend off comparisons to the prelude to the Iraq War in 2003, when France was the United States’ strongest Western critic. The prospect of intervening in Syria is deeply unpopular with the French public — especially if it stands alone with Washington.
“The United States and France are side by side . . . every time the cause is just and is essential,” Fabius said, deriding “false comparisons to Iraq, which has absolutely nothing to do with this.”
“In Iraq, the weapons of mass destruction didn’t exist,” he said. “Here the weapons of mass destruction exist.”
Some of the G-20 members who signed the statement calling for a strong response have offered differing interpretations of what they are supporting. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said his country had nothing to contribute to an attack, which his government has said would include cruise missiles and armed drones, neither of which Canada possesses.
Canada, Harper indicated, is offering moral support. “All we’re doing, we’re not just supporting our allies, but trying to argue vigorously with those on the other side,” he said.
Source: WashingtonPost
