Kerry: 'Not Going To Pin Ourselves Down' on Response If Syria Again Used Chemical Weapons

    In London Thursday for a meeting with the foreign ministers of the nations of the London 11, the Friends of Syria, Secretary of State John Kerry revealed that “raw data that suggests there may have been” chlorine-based chemical weapons used by the Assad regime in Syria:

Chlorine is not listed on the list of prohibited items by itself freestanding under the Chemical Weapons Convention. But chlorine, when used and mixed in a way that is used as a chemical weapon in the conduct of war, is against the chemical weapons treaty. And I have seen evidence, I don’t know how verified it is – it’s not verified yet – it’s hasn’t been confirmed, but I’ve seen the raw data that suggests there may have been, as France has suggested, a number of instances in which chlorine has been used in the conduct of war. And if it has, and if it could be proven, then that would be against the agreements of the chemical weapons treaty and against the weapons convention that Syria has signed up to.

    Kerry was then questioned by a reporter about the possible responses if the evidence eventually proves that chemical weapons were indeed used again:

QUESTION: Thank you. Secretary Kerry, to follow up on your last point, if it is proven that chlorine was used as a chemical in war, which is prohibited, what will the Syrian Government face? What steps can be taken? 

SECRETARY KERRY: ...With respect to the CW and what the consequences are, it has been made clear by President Obama and others that use would result in consequences. We’re not going to pin ourselves down to a precise time, date, manner of action, but there will be consequences if it were to be proven, including, I might say, things that are way beyond our control and have nothing to do with us. But the International Criminal Court and others are free to hold him accountable. And as you know, we have a resolution that will be in front of the United Nations with respect to culpability for crimes against humanity, atrocities in the course of this conflict. So one way or the other, there will be accountability.

    In an interview on September 10, 2013, the secretary said that proof of Syria's use of chemical weapons was the "straw that broke the camel’s back" that prompted President Obama to order military strikes against Syria:

That’s when the President decided that that was straw that broke the camel’s back so to speak with respect to his usage. And the President decided that it needed a response from the world because chemical weapons were suddenly being used as a tactical weapon in a civil war, and any use of chemical weapons is unacceptable. 

That’s why we’re here where we are today. There’s a moral imperative to this, there’s a strategic imperative to this, there’s a practical military imperative in terms of sending him a message that his infrastructure, militarily, and his capacity to wage war could be affected if he continues to use these prohibited, outlawed, and outrageous weapons.

    Two days later at an appearance with Russian Foreign Ministry Sergey Lavrov in Geneva, Kerry said that the president maintained that "force might be necessary" "should diplomacy fail[.]"  After the Russian-brokered deal with Syria headed off military strikes, Kerry said "Ensuring that a dictator's wanton use of chemical weapons never again comes to pass, we believe is worth pursuing and achieving."
    Kerry did not mention a renewal of the strike threat when questioned this Thursday about the consequences to Syria if use of chemical weapons is proven again.


Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

U.S. Ambassador: Sanctions Against Russia Are '21st Century Use Of Force'

    Given the lack of foreign policy success with "red line" threats of military force, the Obama administration has apparently broadened the definition of "use of force" to include financial threats of red ink against Russia for recent actions in Ukraine.  U.S. Ambassador to the U.K. Matthew Barzun wrote an editorial on May 10 for the U.K. Daily Mail newspaper where he refers to sanctions on Russia by the US, Britain and EU as a "21st Century use of force," and said that Russia is in danger of "profound economic costs."  The ambassador insists the mockery and criticism of the sanctions overlooks their "potency":

The reaction of the US, Britain and the EU to Moscow’s malign interventions in Ukraine has been to introduce calibrated, comprehensive and co-ordinated sanctions. We are raising the economic costs on Russia. 

And this week, John Kerry will be in London to discuss with William Hague and their EU counterparts what appropriate next steps might be. Were Putin to take steps that hinder or attempt to prevent the elections, he will bring more costs on Russia. 

There has, however, been criticism of our response. One British paper belittled it by depicting a shirtless Putin on board a tank driving past a sign which said: ‘Stop. Or the West will put you on the naughty step.’ 

This characterisation of our approach ignores the potency of this 21st Century use of force. No longer is the choice between hand grenades or hand-wringing.

    The shirtless Putin in the tank appeared on the cover of the March 22, 2014 issue of The Economist shortly after the first sanctions were put in place in response to the Crimean crisis but before the more recent aggressive actions by Russia and pro-Russian separatists in other areas of eastern Ukraine. Nonetheless, Barzun asserts the sanctions are exacting a "steep price":

Sanctions are making Russia pay a steep price for its actions. Its credit rating has been downgraded to one step above ‘junk’ status, stock prices and economic growth are weakening, and the central bank has spent close to $30 billion (£18 billion) to prop up the rouble.

    Ambassador Barzun closes his editorial with unequivocal confidence that ultimately the sanctions, or, in his words, the "21st Century use of force," will have the desired effect once Russia's "current nationalistic fever" breaks:

Unless Putin changes course, the current nationalistic fever in Russia will soon break. When it does, it will give way to a cold realisation of the profound economic costs of his policies. 

This crisis is one of his own choosing. Now he faces another choice: to leave Ukraine in peace and work with us to create a strong Ukraine – one that is not a buffer between East and West, but a bridge to both.

    An email to the State Department seeking further explanation of the ambassador's words has not yet been returned.

UPDATE: After this post ran at The Weekly Standard, the State Department press office replied: "We don’t have anything on this."


NOTE: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.