Brussels, 29/08/2013 (Agence Europe) - As European ambassadors prepare to meet in ordinary session on 30 August to discuss Syria, among other things, Europeans - although they all condemn the attack on 21 August - are divided regarding military intervention, especially without a UN mandate. Furthermore, some decisions can only be taken by the member states, said Sébastien Brabant, the spokesman for EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Catherine Ashton, on 28 August. The next foreign ministers' meeting is planned to take place in Vilnius on 6 and 7 September.
France, which has sent a warship to the zone, and the United Kingdom, which has deployed six fighter aircraft to the British army base in Cyprus as a “precaution to protect British interests”, are ready to intervene without UN authorisation. Most EU countries, however, wish to have endorsement from the UN Security Council which, for now, is impossible. Italy has warned that it will not take part in any operations without UN approval. Belgium awaits evidence before contemplating engagement and would like to have the UNSC's endorsement. Poland has already indicated that it will not take part in military intervention. Most European countries have not yet publicly stated their intention to participate in intervention.
British, French and Americans continue to waver.
On 28 August, British Prime Minister David Cameron backpedalled on imminent intervention due to reticence from the opposition and from members of his own party. One might ask, therefore, whether the United Kingdom plans to wait for the conclusions of the UN inspectors' report before making any decision on military action in Syria. The fact-finding mission is due to continue until 31 August and its report, which will not determine who is responsible for the attack, is not expected until early next week.
British involvement would require a parliamentary vote, which is not likely to come before ordinary sessions are resumed on 3 September. Meeting in extraordinary session on 29 August, the parliament is expected to vote on a motion condemning of the use of chemical weapons in Syria on 21 August by the Assad regime. “A strong humanitarian response is required from the international community and this may, if necessary, require military action” that is legal, proportionate and intended to save lives by preventing any future use of chemical weapons in Syria, the motion says.
The motion specifies that it is necessary, despite the difficulties, to push the UN process as far as possible to ensure any action has full legitimacy. London, moreover, has presented a resolution to the Security Council condemning the chemical attack by Assad and authorising the measures needed to protect the population, but this seems bound to fail. According to the official line taken by the British government, even if the UN Security Council vetoed action, it would be justified in taking “an exceptional measure on grounds of overwhelming humanitarian necessity, military intervention to strike specific targets with the aim of deterring and disrupting further such attacks” by the Syrian regime.
French President François Hollande has for his part decided to convene the French deputies on 4 September to “assess the situation”. He told his ministers on 28 August that “we must now find the appropriate response” to the chemical attacks. The meeting convened “in no way prejudges the decision that will be taken by the French authorities in conjunction with their partners on the appropriate response to what is happening in Syria” (unofficial translation), the government spokesman, Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, warned. The French president does not need his parliament's authorisation to launch military action.
US President Barack Obama, who discussed Syria with Congress on 29 August, explained the previous day that no decision had yet been taken on military action. He said the idea underpinning the US response would be that the Syrian government should receive a powerful message to say it would be in its interest not to repeat the offence. (CG/transl.jl)