Britain to Press U.N. to Authorize ‘Necessary Measures’ in Syria

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/29/world/middleeast/britain-syria.html

Version 0 of 1.

LONDON — As politicians here prepared to debate a possible military intervention in Syria, Prime Minister David Cameron said Britain would propose a resolution at the United Nations on Wednesday accusing the authorities in Damascus of responsibility for a chemical weapons attack one week ago and authorizing “all necessary measures” to protect civilians.

The resolution, to be circulated among the five permanent members of the Security Council, came as the momentum toward retaliatory military action gathered pace in the West, while the allies of President Bashar al-Assad in Russia and Iran warned against an attack.

In a Twitter feed, Mr. Cameron said Britain had “drafted a resolution condemning the chemical weapons attack by Assad” and “authorizing necessary measures to protect civilians.”

“We’ve always said we want the UN Security Council to live up to its responsibilities on Syria,” he wrote.

Syria has denied using chemical weapons, blaming antigovernment rebels for the attack.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Cameron, speaking in return for anonymity under departmental rules, said the British draft proposed invoking Chapter Seven of the United Nations Charter, which can be used to authorize the use of force “to maintain or restore international peace and security.”

As Syria’s turmoil has deepened since revolt took root in March 2011 and grew into a bloody civil war, Russia — a permanent member of the Security Council along with China, the United States, France and Britain — has steadfastly blocked efforts to subject Mr. Assad’s government to military pressure.

Britain’s latest move seemed to be designed to lay the diplomatic groundwork for action by a coalition of outside forces, led by the United States, if there was no consensus at the United Nations.

The maneuvers have alarmed some Britons, including the archbishop of Canterbury, the spiritual head of the world’s 77 million Anglicans, who was quoted on Wednesday as urging lawmakers to avoid a rush to judgment about military action that could have “unforeseeable ramifications across the whole Arab and Muslim world.”

His remarks sounded a cautionary note that contrasted with the more bullish tone of government leaders ahead of two key gatherings in London: the National Security Council of senior ministers and military commanders on Wednesday and an emergency debate in Parliament on Thursday after Prime Minister Cameron recalled lawmakers early from their summer recess.

In an interview with the Daily Telegraph, the Most Rev. Justin Welby, the archbishop of Canterbury, acknowledged that he had no inside information about what had happened in Syria or what the government has planned. “The Government and the Americans are seeing intelligence nobody else sees,” he said. “I just think we have to be very careful about rushing to judgment.”

Lawmakers should “bear in mind in what is going to be a very, very difficult debate,” the archbishop said, asking two questions — “are we sure about the facts on the ground?” and “is it possible to have a carefully calibrated response including armed force, if you are sure about the facts on the ground, that does not have unforeseeable ramifications across the whole Arab and Muslim world?”

“I have had a lot of conversations with people in the region,” the archbishop said. “I think the overwhelming sense is of a really moving and terrible sense of fear about what might come out of, what might be happening in the next few weeks — not predicated on people doing one thing or people doing another, just a sense that this a terribly, terribly dangerous time.”

Writing in the same newspaper, however, Foreign Secretary William Hague said a failure to respond “would send a signal to the Syrian regime that they will never face any consequences for their actions, no matter how barbarous. It would make further chemical attacks in Syria much more likely, and also increase the risk that these weapons could fall into the wrong hands in the future.

“But this is not just about one country or one conflict. We cannot afford the weakening of the global prohibition against the use of chemical weapons. We must proceed in a careful and thoughtful way, but we cannot permit our own security to be undermined by the creeping normalization of the use of weapons that the world has spent decades trying to control and eradicate,” Mr. Hague wrote.

“This actual, repeated use of chemical weapons in Syria is a moral outrage, a serious violation of international humanitarian law and a challenge to our common security. We are now weighing with the United States and our other allies how to respond in a way that is legal and proportionate. The goal of any response should be to prevent further similar humanitarian distress, to deter the further use of chemical weapons in Syria and to uphold the global ban against their use.”

He also repeated his argument that outsiders could take military action without a consensus at the deadlocked United Nations Security Council.

“We cannot allow diplomatic paralysis to be a shield for the perpetrators of these crimes,” he said.

Mr. Hague warned that inaction would unravel “decades of painstaking work to construct an international regime of rules and checks, overseen by the U.N., to prevent the use of chemical weapons and to destroy stockpiles.”

In a message to lawmakers, Mr. Hague also said: “Parliament will have the opportunity to debate these issues, and to make its views known. This is a moment of grave danger for the people of Syria, a moment of truth for democratic nations to live up to their values, and a weighty test of the international community. The way ahead will not be without risks, but the risks of doing nothing are greater.”

<NYT_AUTHOR_ID> <p>Stephen Castle contributed reporting.