Power: U.S. strikes on Syria in 2013, would not allow to destroy chemical weapons

UN 14 Jan. /Offset. TASS Oleg Zelenin/. Applying the United States strikes on Syria in 2013 would quickly destroy the warehouses and factories for the production of chemical weapons, but would have led to casualties among the civilian population. This was stated on Friday by the U.S. permanent representative to the UN, Samantha Power, responding to criticism of the American authorities because they did not use force against the Syrian government in response to a massive gas attack in the suburbs of Damascus.

See also

Kerry: United States not attacked Syria because of the “good ideas” of the Russian Federation on the export of chemical weapons

According to the diplomat, the elimination of the program of chemical weapons in Syria would require a long campaign, for which the administration of President Barack Obama did not have the necessary support from the Congress .

“I think there is some revisionism and misunderstanding in terms of what we could achieve by force,” said Power at last press conference in the headquarters of the United Nations. She noted that due to a “credible threat of force,” the United States was in a winning position for negotiations with Russia and other countries on the question of an international operation to eliminate stockpiles of chemical agents in Syria. “We deprived the government of the declared chemical weapons program, and we would not be able to do it, if it has used military force” – declared the Ambassador of the United States.

8 photos

Syria: chemical weapons as a pretext for war. Photo gallery

“In the end, and I talked about this with President (Barack Obama), (state) Secretary (John Kerry) and others, we would not have eliminated the program of chemical weapons strikes, which caused huge collateral damage to civilians and would lead to God knows what. We would need to continue the (military) campaign, to ensure that they (the Syrians) will no longer use chemical weapons,” said Power, adding that such an operation would require approval by Congress. “It was disappointing that we had no support within the country to support the (military) campaign,” she said.

In the first years of the Syrian conflict, the us authorities argued that the use of toxic substances will be a “red line”, the crossing of which will force the US to intervene in the conflict. After a chemical attack in Eastern ghouta on 21 August 2013, in which the West blamed the Syrian government forces, Washington has threatened Damascus with blows, but after talks with Russia, it was decided to hold an international operation on chemical disarmament Syria under the auspices of the UN and the OPCW.

Power was surprised that the involvement of the Syrian government for a gas attack in Eastern ghouta is still disputed by some countries, including Russia. “I think the fact that we have deprived the Syrian government of its chemical weapons after the attack, quite clearly reflects a de facto consensus in the international community about who actually used chemical weapons. It would be strange to take away the chemical weapons from the government, if someone else was responsible for killing over a thousand people in the suburbs of Damascus,” – concluded the diplomat.


Chronicle of conflict in Syria

The contribution of the States in the process of elimination of chemical weapons in Syria

To the question about the use of chemical weapons in Syria

Leave a comment

Confirm that you are not a bot - select a man with raised hand:

levitra online