US' 'Red Line' Crossed Again and Again
Published in Libération
(France) on 26 April 2013
by (link to original)
(France) on 26 April 2013
by (link to original)
Translated from
by Clare Durif.
Edited by Gillian Palmer.
A duel where each side takes its turn to sound a warning — such is the perception of the political game we are witnessing between the Assad regime and certain powers involved in the Syrian dossier.
The scene is now a familiar one: In response to Bashar Assad’s threats to prevent any attempt at foreign interference, countries will fix “red lines” that the Syrian head of state must not cross. No tanks are to be used against civilians, no war planes, etc.
Return to sender: Bashar Assad does not hesitate to deploy the army in the towns or use tanks against the Syrian population, as if the limits fixed constituted real personal challenges. One of the most famous red lines for Syrians was Erdogan’s warning concerning the town of Hama, sadly notorious for the 1982 massacre that led to one of the heaviest death tolls in history — 30,000 in only a few days. We know what happened next: The army entered Hama and carried out those massacres. Homs, Idleb and Deir Ezzor followed.
Syrians make fun of it: Erdogan says, “Hama is a red line,” and the Syrian army enters Hama. Erdogan says, “Homs is a red line,” and the Syrian army bombs Homs. Erdogan says, “Deir Ezzor really is a red line,” and half of Deir Ezzor is destroyed. And for good this time, Erdogan says, “Istanbul is a red line!”
In July 2012 the Syrian regime — which is not a signatory of the 1992 Chemical Weapons Convention — acknowledged that it possessed various chemical weapons that it threatens to use in case of foreign aggression. So the U.S. finds a new red line to draw, probably thinking that to avoid crossing it, Bashar Assad would limit himself to bombing and deploying barrels of TNT and Scud missiles against the Syrian people, the ideal excuse not to intervene in favor of the population.
While France, Great Britain and Israel claim to have evidence of the use of chemical weapons, the U.S. has repeatedly said that this was impossible to confirm. Bashar can therefore use them with peace of mind. The White House finally ended up admitting that the Syrian regime had “probably” used them, while still stressing that there is currently insufficient intelligence information to be certain that Damascus had crossed the red line — the use of these weapons apparently being limited to just a “small number.”
Syrians know what to expect: There will probably be an inquiry, which will take enough time for this international red line to be forgotten. Syrian rebels could also be accused when the Syrian regime demands an inquiry … only to then reject its findings when the U.N. says it is ready to send in its teams. Or else they’ll tell us that what they really meant was the mass deployment of these weapons. After the red line, they should invent the “infrared” line: falling outside the visible spectrum, nobody will ever know if it had been crossed or not!
As a reminder, Kafranbel had already mocked the U.S. red line in December 2012: “Is the American amber light a license for Assad to continue his repression without crossing the famous ‘red line’ represented by the use of chemical weapons?”
*Translator's Note: The authors of this article, as Syrian exiles, have chosen to remain anonymous.
The scene is now a familiar one: In response to Bashar Assad’s threats to prevent any attempt at foreign interference, countries will fix “red lines” that the Syrian head of state must not cross. No tanks are to be used against civilians, no war planes, etc.
Return to sender: Bashar Assad does not hesitate to deploy the army in the towns or use tanks against the Syrian population, as if the limits fixed constituted real personal challenges. One of the most famous red lines for Syrians was Erdogan’s warning concerning the town of Hama, sadly notorious for the 1982 massacre that led to one of the heaviest death tolls in history — 30,000 in only a few days. We know what happened next: The army entered Hama and carried out those massacres. Homs, Idleb and Deir Ezzor followed.
Syrians make fun of it: Erdogan says, “Hama is a red line,” and the Syrian army enters Hama. Erdogan says, “Homs is a red line,” and the Syrian army bombs Homs. Erdogan says, “Deir Ezzor really is a red line,” and half of Deir Ezzor is destroyed. And for good this time, Erdogan says, “Istanbul is a red line!”
In July 2012 the Syrian regime — which is not a signatory of the 1992 Chemical Weapons Convention — acknowledged that it possessed various chemical weapons that it threatens to use in case of foreign aggression. So the U.S. finds a new red line to draw, probably thinking that to avoid crossing it, Bashar Assad would limit himself to bombing and deploying barrels of TNT and Scud missiles against the Syrian people, the ideal excuse not to intervene in favor of the population.
While France, Great Britain and Israel claim to have evidence of the use of chemical weapons, the U.S. has repeatedly said that this was impossible to confirm. Bashar can therefore use them with peace of mind. The White House finally ended up admitting that the Syrian regime had “probably” used them, while still stressing that there is currently insufficient intelligence information to be certain that Damascus had crossed the red line — the use of these weapons apparently being limited to just a “small number.”
Syrians know what to expect: There will probably be an inquiry, which will take enough time for this international red line to be forgotten. Syrian rebels could also be accused when the Syrian regime demands an inquiry … only to then reject its findings when the U.N. says it is ready to send in its teams. Or else they’ll tell us that what they really meant was the mass deployment of these weapons. After the red line, they should invent the “infrared” line: falling outside the visible spectrum, nobody will ever know if it had been crossed or not!
As a reminder, Kafranbel had already mocked the U.S. red line in December 2012: “Is the American amber light a license for Assad to continue his repression without crossing the famous ‘red line’ represented by the use of chemical weapons?”
*Translator's Note: The authors of this article, as Syrian exiles, have chosen to remain anonymous.