Erasing a red line allows for “routine” chemical weapon use in Syria

On August 20, 2012, President Obama said chemical weapons “being utilized” in Syria would be a “red line.” He went on to say there would be “enormous consequences” if there was “the use of chemical weapons.”

Pretty much exactly one year later, on August 21, 2013, the Syrian government attacked the Ghouta area of Damascus with the nerve agent sarin. The U.S. government estimated at the time that the attack killed more than 1,400 people.

Because President Obama’s red line was crossed without consequence, there has been “a pattern of use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime,” as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power said yesterday.

To avoid enforcing his own red line by military force, President Obama entered into a diplomatic initiative with Russian President Putin in which Syria would give up its chemical weapons and join the Chemical Weapons Convention. This was enshrined in U.N. Security Council Resolution 2118.

This dodge of responsibility garnered great praise:

• President Obama patted himself on the back for the “diplomatic breakthrough,” achieved through “strong diplomacy.”
• Upon passage of the Resolution, Secretary of State Kerry said diplomacy was “so powerful” that it met the objective of “deter[ring] Syria’s chemical weapons capability,” just as military force could have achieved.
• Upon implementation of this initiative, Secretary Kerry told the American people that “we got 100 percent of the chemical weapons out” of Syria.
• The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize “for its extensive efforts to eliminate chemical weapons.”

Reality intrudes, however, and the agreement’s failures become more and more apparent as time passes. Earlier this year, the State Department reported that Syria is comprehensively violating its most basic and fundamental Chemical Weapons Convention obligations. It said:

• “Syria has used chlorine as a chemical weapon systematically and repeatedly against the Syrian people every year since acceding to the Convention, and therefore is in violation of its obligations under Article I of the CWC.”
• “Syria did not declare all the elements of its chemical weapons program, required by Article III of the CWC.”
• “Syria may retain chemical weapons as defined by the CWC.”

Ambassador Power said a report submitted to the U.N. Security Council yesterday found that Assad engages in “repeated use” of chemical weapons in Syria. She said the report found that ISIL also uses chemical weapons in its fight. The U.N. secretary general said this report is expected to be considered by the council on August 30, after which it will be made public.

Simply put, as the U.S. representative to the OPCW said last November, the use of chemical weapons in Syria has now become “routine.”

When the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 2118, Secretary Kerry said that if Assad “fail[ed] to act, there will be consequences.” Much like the red line, the credibility of this threat was reduced when President Obama said earlier this year that he is “very proud” of his diplomacy and the fact of that he allowed Assad to cross the chemical weapons red line with impunity.

The State Department assessed earlier this year that “Syrian conduct in relation to international norms against the use of CW did not materially change following accession to the CWC.” As the saying goes, pride cometh before the fall, and the purported norm against the use of chemical weapons is in danger of falling.