In US, critique of Syria deal falls along party lines

In US, critique of Syria deal falls along party lines

Democrats say use of force still an option if agreement falls through, but Republicans say Moscow given too much say

Senator Lindsey Graham, right, accompanied by Senator John McCain, speaks with reporters outside the White House in Washington, DC, in September 2013. (AP/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
Senator Lindsey Graham, right, accompanied by Senator John McCain, speaks with reporters outside the White House in Washington, DC, in September 2013. (AP/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

WASHINGTON (AP) — Lawmakers assessing the agreement on Syria’s chemical weapons argued Sunday about whether President Barack Obama was outfoxed by the Russians and had lost leverage in trying to end the civil war, or whether his threat of military action had propelled the breakthrough.

Obama said the turn to diplomacy had laid “a foundation” toward political settlement of the conflict.

The deal announced Saturday in Geneva by US and Russian diplomats sets an ambitious timetable for elimination of Syria’s chemical weapons by mid-2014, with rapid deadlines requiring a complete inventory of Damascus’ chemical arsenal within a week and immediate access by international inspectors to chemical weapons sites.

The agreement came in response to an August 21 chemical weapons attack near Damascus, the capital, that the US believes was carried out by the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad and killed more than 1,400 people.

Republican lawmakers said that committing to remove or destroy Syria’s chemical weapons was laudable, but the agreement fell short by not mandating military action should Assad fail to comply.

Representative Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said the US is “being led by the nose by” Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“So, if we wanted a transition with Assad, we just fired our last round, and we have taken our ability to negotiate a settlement from the White House, and we’ve sent it with Russia to the United Nations,” Rogers said. “That’s a dangerous place for us to be if you want an overall settlement to the problems.”

Russia, which already has rejected three Security Council resolutions on Syria, would be sure to veto a UN move toward military action, and US officials said they did not contemplate seeking such an authorization.

Obama said Saturday that “if diplomacy fails, the United States remains prepared to act,” and Secretary of State John Kerry warned during a visit to Israel on Sunday that “the threat of force is real” if Assad fails to live up to the terms of the agreement.

Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the threat of force “is still very much in Russian hands.”

“That’s the most important element, is the veto piece,” Corker said. “So in many ways, our credibility in the region, and certainly relative to the chemical warfare, is very much driven by Russia, which has its hands firmly on the steering wheel. ”

Republican Senators John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who are among Obama’s sharpest foreign policy critics and support greater US assistance for Syria’s rebels, said the agreement will embolden enemies such as Iran.

Democrats insisted that while the agreement itself doesn’t commit the US to using force, the option of acting independently of the UN remains.

Democratic Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Russia’s primary aim has been to force the US to give up that option. “Russia has failed in that goal,” Levin said.

To Democratic Senator Robert Menendez, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the threat of American military action is “the only reason we’ve gotten to this point, even to this possibility.”

Obama said in an interview with ABC television’s “This Week” that if Syria can be stopped from using chemical weapons, “then we may also have a foundation” to begin the process of reaching a political settlement to the civil war.

The president’s interview aired Sunday but was taped Friday, before the chemical weapons deal was reached but while Secretary of State John Kerry was engaged in intense talks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Geneva, Switzerland.

Obama said Putin is “protecting” Assad and doesn’t share American “values” in Syria. “He has a different attitude about the Assad regime,” Obama said. “But what I’ve also said to him directly is that we both have an interest in preventing chaos, we both have an interest in preventing terrorism. The situation in Syria right now is untenable. As long as Mr. Assad’s in power, there is going be some sort of conflict there.”

The US says intelligence reports have placed the blame on the Assad government for the attack last month.

But polls showed relatively little support among Americans for a military strike against Syria, even after the Obama administration’s efforts to argue that punishing the Assad government for violating international norms of warfare was in the security interests of the US.

Obama ordered preparations for American airstrikes, but he decided instead on August 31 to ask for authorization from Congress for military action, only to face growing skepticism from both Republican and Democratic lawmakers. Then came the Russian proposal for international control of Syria’s chemical weapons, and Obama asked Congress, already largely opposed to military intervention, to delay a vote.

The deal to destroy Syria’s chemical weapons also offers the potential for reviving international peace talks to end a civil war that has claimed more than 100,000 lives and sent 2 million refugees fleeing for safety, and now threatens the stability of the entire Mideast.

Rogers spoke on CNN’s “State of the Union.” Corker and Levin were on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” and Menendez appeared on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Copyright 2013 The Associated Press.

read more: