Updated
A leading Syria-watcher says French and British claims of proof of the use of chemical weapons during the Syrian civil war are unlikely to prompt an international military intervention. France and Britain say test results prove the use of chemical weapons, although Washington says it needs more proof before it'll take action.
Ashley Hall
Source: PM | Duration: 4min 1sec
Topics: unrest-conflict-and-war, foreign-affairs, refugees, syrian-arab-republic
ASHLEY HALL: There's mounting evidence of the use of chemical weapons during Syria's 27-month-old civil war.
The French foreign minister Laurent Fabius says tests conducted on samples from two locations in Syria leave no doubt that the Syrian government has used the deadly nerve agent sarin gas.
The British Ambassador to the UN, Mark Lyall Grant, also confirmed today that there is 'credible evidence in small quantities that chemical weapons have been used by the regime'. Mr Grant says Britain has reported several incidents to the UN Secretary-General.
The US president Barack Obama has previously said the use of chemical weapons was a red line, that could provoke a military response, if crossed. So what now for the Syrian conflict?
Dr Rodger Shanahan is a non-resident fellow at the Lowy Institute, and a former army officer with operational service with the UN in Syria. I spoke with him earlier.
RODGER SHANAHAN: There's still a degree of uncertainty about the issue, and on top of that, if the reports are proven, then there's the other issue of how do you track this down to who gave the order to do it? Was it a local area commander? Where did you get the samples from? Who provided you the samples?
There's still such a lack of definition about these claims that it falls far short of any kind of impetus to take any action.
ASHLEY HALL: The US president, Barack Obama, has previously said that the use of chemicals represented a red line that could bring about some kind of response if it's crossed. The White House is simply saying it needs more evidence. How far do you think we are form seeing that kind of evidence and would there be some sort of intervention?
RODGER SHANAHAN: Once you do get that evidence, if you ever in fact get it, you've got to prove that the person who used that was acting on instructions from higher and wasn't just a local area commander who had taken matters into his own hands.
On the second issue of military intervention, I still think we're a long way away from that. The US has shown no inclination to undertake military action or to become decisively engaged in Syria for a whole variety of reasons.
ASHLEY HALL: We see both Britain and France almost urging some kind of military response now, particularly with what they say is this evidence of the use of chemical weapons. Why is the US so reluctant?
RODGER SHANAHAN: I think every part of President Obama tells him not to intervene and his military, including the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says that he no longer has a good picture of who the opposition are and so he's unable to differentiate the good guys from who may not be the good guys.
ASHLEY HALL: Nonetheless, Washington has confirmed that it will deploy Patriot missiles and F-16 fighter jets to Syria's neighbour Jordan for a military exercise and perhaps for longer. What part could this play in ramping up tensions?
RODGER SHANAHAN: Ideally everybody would like to see a political settlement to the Syrian situation, but people aren't going to be going to the negotiating table or taking those negotiations seriously unless there's some kind of pressure put on them, and I think this talk about F-16s staying on in a neighbouring country after the exercise is part of that public messaging to the Syrian government.
ASHLEY HALL: Given this fighting is getting quite nasty, as officials are on the way to Geneva to try and hammer out some kind of terms to try to get the president, Bashar al-Assad and the rebels to negotiate directly for the first time in some kind of peace talks.
How do you rate their chances?
RODGER SHANAHAN: Not particularly strong at the moment. Obviously the advantage lies with the Syrian government because they're unified, they know who they're going to send, so they're happy to turn up. Exactly what they're going to offer, if anything, is a separate issue.
They've really put the pressure on the Syrian opposition by agreeing to these peace talks because it's forced the Syrian opposition to determine who is authorised to represent the opposing forces, which has proven to date impossible to do.
It just reemphasises the weakness of the political opposition on the Syrian side.
ASHLEY HALL: The Lowy Institute's Middle East specialist, Dr Rodger Shanahan.
05 Jun, 2013
-
Source: http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&fd=R&usg=AFQjCNGoi1PW9qlb3M5x2a-fOFJKLRE_YQ&url=http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-05/chemical-tests-intensify-pressure-for-syria/4735830
--
Manage subscription | Powered by rssforward.com