I just addressed the nation about the use of chemical weapons in Syria.
Over the past two years, what began as a series of peaceful protests against the repressive regime of Bashar al-Assad has turned into a brutal civil war in Syria. Over 100,000 people have been killed.
In that time, we have worked with friends and allies to provide humanitarian support for the Syrian people, to help the moderate opposition within Syria, and to shape a political settlement. But we have resisted calls for military action because we cannot resolve someone else’s civil war through force.
The situation profoundly changed in the early hours of August 21, when more than 1,000 Syrians — including hundreds of children — were killed by chemical weapons launched by the Assad government.
What happened to those people — to those children — is not only a violation of international law — it’s also a danger to our security. Here’s why:
If we fail to act, the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons. As the ban against these deadly weapons erodes, other tyrants and authoritarian regimes will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gases and using them. Over time, our troops could face the prospect of chemical warfare on the battlefield. It could be easier for terrorist organizations to obtain these weapons and use them to attack civilians. If fighting spills beyond Syria’s borders, these weapons could threaten our allies in the region.
So after careful deliberation, I determined that it is in the national security interests of the United States to respond to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike. The purpose of this strike would be to deter Assad from using chemical weapons, to degrade his regime’s ability to use them, and make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use.
Though I possess the authority to order these strikes, in the absence of a direct threat to our security I believe that Congress should consider my decision to act. Our democracy is stronger when the President acts with the support of Congress — and when Americans stand together as one people.
Over the last few days, as this debate unfolds, we’ve already begun to see signs that the credible threat of U.S. military action may produce a diplomatic breakthrough. The Russian government has indicated a willingness to join with the international community in pushing Assad to give up his chemical weapons and the Assad regime has now admitted that it has these weapons, and even said they’d join the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits their use.
It’s too early to tell whether this offer will succeed, and any agreement must verify that the Assad regime keeps its commitments. But this initiative has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force.
That’s why I’ve asked the leaders of Congress to postpone a vote to authorize the use of force while we pursue this diplomatic path. I’m sending Secretary of State John Kerry to meet his Russian counterpart on Thursday, and I will continue my own discussions with President Putin. At the same time, we’ll work with two of our closest allies — France and the United Kingdom — to put forward a resolution at the U.N. Security Council requiring Assad to give up his chemical weapons, and to ultimately destroy them under international control.
Meanwhile, I’ve ordered our military to maintain their current posture to keep the pressure on Assad, and to be in a position to respond if diplomacy fails. And tonight, I give thanks again to our military and their families for their incredible strength and sacrifices.
As we continue this debate — in Washington, and across the country — I need your help to make sure that everyone understands the factors at play.
Please share this message with others to make sure they know where I stand, and how they can stay up to date on this situation. Anyone can find the latest information about the situation in Syria, including video of tonight’s address, here:
“Es totalmente desacertado justificar la inacción o complicidad ante tal atrocidad, haciendo alusión al caso de la invasión de Irak”
EL VOCERO/ Archivo
La utilización de gas sarín contra su población por parte del régimen militar de Bashar El Assad en Siria, resultando en la muerte comprobada hasta el momento de sobre 1,400 civiles, incluyendo 456 niños, implicó una crasa y descarada violación contra los tratados internacionales que proscriben el uso de armas químicas en los conflictos bélicos. Por ende, no debe de quedar impune por los miembros de la comunidad internacional que se adhieren a principios básicos de civilidad y respeto a la vida humana. Sobre todo tomando en cuenta que esta es la segunda ocasión en que el sanguinario carnicero de Damasco utiliza armas químicas contra su población civil.
De ahí que el llamado del presidente Barack Obama tanto a sus aliados a unirse, como al Congreso de nuestro país a autorizar una acción de represalia militar encaminada a minar significativamente las capacidades logísticas de la dictadura siria para volver a utilizar dichas armas contra su población o cualquiera otro adversario, debe ser debidamente refrendado por los miembros de la OTAN y nuestro Congreso nacional. De lo contrario se establecería un precedente sumamente peligroso, en el que no solo el dictador sirio, sino sus aliados los ayatolas iraníes, el grupo fundamentalista terrorista Hezbolá en el Líbano y el régimen mafioso autoritario de Vladimir Putin en Rusia, se sentirían alentados a utilizar dichas armas químicas ante el convencimiento de que dichos tratados internacionales que vedan las mismas no valen el papel en los que están escritos, al quedar el uso de estas completamente impune.
Es por ello que es imperativo se destruya en la medida de lo posible las capacidades logísticas de la dictadura siria para utilizar nuevamente armas químicas. Ni se diga de la importancia de enviarle un claro mensaje al régimen sirio y sus aliados de que la utilización de armas químicas contra cualquier objetivo, pero sobre todo contra civiles, tendrá consecuencias letales sobre su capacidad militar y su pretensión de permanecer en el poder.
Por otro lado, es totalmente desacertado justificar la inacción o complicidad ante tal atrocidad, haciendo alusión al caso de la invasión de Irak por la administración George W. Bush bajo falsos pretextos de la alegada existencia de un arsenal de armas químicas bajo control del exdictador iraquí Sadam Hussein, que finalmente resultó ser falsa. En primer lugar, en aquella ocasión el régimen iraquí no había hecho uso reciente de dicho tipo de armas y las Naciones Unidas realizaban una investigación sobre el terreno sobre la existencia de las mismas que no arrojaba pruebas fehacientes de su existencia. En esta ocasión, se ha confirmado en base a muestras recogidas sobre el terreno y de intercepciones a las telecomunicaciones de las Fuerzas Armadas baazistas por parte de varios países a pocos días del ataque químico del 21 de agostos, tanto el uso de gas sarín contra civiles, como la responsabilidad de las Fuerzas Armadas oficialistas. Dicho crimen contra la humanidad no debe quedar impune.
President Obama told the nation Tuesday he is exploring a Russian diplomatic plan to end a chemical weapons dispute in Syria, but reserves the right to take military action. Obama spoke to the country about why Syria matters, and where the nation goes from here. Among the key questions he attempted to answer:
1. Are we going to strike Syria?
«I determined that it is in the national security interests of the United States to respond to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike. The purpose of this strike would be to deter Assad from using chemical weapons, to degrade his regime’s ability to use them and to make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use. That’s my judgment as commander in chief.»
2. Is there proof chemical weapons were used in Syria?
«No one disputes that chemical weapons were used in Syria. The world saw thousands of videos, cellphone pictures and social media accounts from the attack. And humanitarian organizations told stories of hospitals packed with people who had symptoms of poison gas.»
3. Will we put American boots on the ground in Syria?
«I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria. I will not pursue an open-ended action like Iraq or Afghanistan. I will not pursue a prolonged air campaign like Libya or Kosovo. This would be a targeted strike to achieve a clear objective: deterring the use of chemical weapons and degrading Assad’s capabilities.»
4. Is the strike worth it if we don’t take out Assad?
«Others have asked whether it’s worth acting if we don’t take out Assad. As some members of Congress have said, there’s no point in simply doing a pinprick strike in Syria. Let me make something clear: The United States military doesn’t do pinpricks.»
5. Why are we getting involved in a civil war at all?
«It’s true that some of Assad’s opponents are extremists. But al-Qaida will only draw strength in a more chaotic Syria if people there see the world doing nothing to prevent innocent civilians from being gassed to death. The majority of the Syrian people and the Syrian opposition we work with just want to live in peace, with dignity and freedom. And the day after any military action, we would redouble our efforts to achieve a political solution that strengthens those who reject the forces of tyranny and extremism.»
6. Why do we have to be the world’s policeman?
«America is not the world’s policeman. Terrible things happen across the globe, and it is beyond our means to right every wrong, but when with modest effort and risk we can stop children from being gassed to death and thereby make our own children safer over the long run, I believe we should act.»
7. What’s going on with Russia?
«The Russian government has indicated a willingness to join with the international community in pushing Assad to give up his chemical weapons. The Assad regime has now admitted that it has these weapons and even said they’d join the chemical weapons convention, which prohibits their use.»
8. What about our allies?
«I’ve spoken to the leaders of two of our closest allies — France and the United Kingdom — and we will work together in consultation with Russia and China to put forward a resolution at the U.N. Security Council requiring Assad to give up his chemical weapons and to ultimately destroy them under international control.»
9. How is the U.N. going to be involved?
«We’ll also give U.N. inspectors the opportunity to report their findings about what happened on August 21st, and we will continue to rally support from allies from Europe to the Americas, from Asia to the Middle East, who agree on the need for action.»
10. So what about Congress?
«I’d ask every member of Congress and those of you watching at home tonight to view those videos of the attack, and then ask, what kind of world will we live in if the United States of America sees a dictator brazenly violate international law with poison gas and we choose to look the other way?»
Syria: 9 latest developments you need to know
Doug Stanglin and Alia E. Dastagir, USA TODAY11:02 p.m. EDT September 10, 2013
As President Obama prepared to address the nation Tuesday night, a Russian proposal that Syria place its chemical arms under international control triggered a flurry of diplomatic moves. Here’s what you need to know:
• President Obama said during his prime-time address that images and videos of children in pain and dying in Syria require the United States to act. He also said it is within the United States’ ability to prevent Syrian President Assad from using chemical weapons again by launching strikes.
• Secretary of State John Kerry will meet with Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s prime minister, in Geneva on Thursday to try and reach an agreement on a U.N. resolution that would require Syria to give up chemical weapons or face consequences.
• Syria Foreign Minister Walid Muallem said Damascus is ready to sign an international agreement banning chemical weapons and pledged to open its storage sites and provide full disclosure immediately.
• Syria is one of only five countries — including North Korea, Angola, Egypt and South Sudan — that has not signed the Chemical Weapons Convention that was drawn up in 1993.
• Obama said in his address that he spoke with the leaders of France and the United Kingdom, and that the United States would work with Russia and China to present a resolution to the U.N. Security Council requiring Syrian President Assad to give up his weapons.
• Secretary of State John Kerry and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, testifying before a House committee, expressed cautious support for the Russian proposal, but said it must not be used as a diplomatic stalling tactic.
• Russian President Vladimir Putin said any agreement over Syria would work only if the United States and its allies renounce the use of force against Damascus.
• The Arab League said it backs the Russian proposal.
• France said it would put a resolution before the United Nations Security Council appealing to Syria to make public details of its chemical weapons program. Putin said he opposed the language of the French proposed resolution to the U.N. Security Council.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login