This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/08/world/europe/european-union-wants-un-report-before-any-military-action-in-syria.html

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
Europe Says Syria Strike Should Hinge On U.N. Data Kerry and French Foreign Minister Appeal Together for Strike Against Syria
(about 3 hours later)
PARIS — The European Union said Saturday that a military strike against Syria should be put off until United Nations inspectors submit a preliminary report on a deadly chemical weapons attack near the Syrian capital. PARIS — The two most vocal advocates of an international response to a chemical weapons attack in Syria teamed up on Saturday when Secretary of State John Kerry and his French counterpart made an unusual joint appeal for military action.
The senior foreign policy official for the European Union, Catherine Ashton, said after a meeting in Lithuania that it was clear that a large-scale chemical weapons attack had occurred on Aug. 21 near Damascus, and that it was a “war crime.” “France and the United States stand together,” said Laurent Fabius, the French foreign minister, who argued that a punishing military strike was needed to redraw the red line against the use of chemical weapons.
Ms. Ashton said that evidence seemed to point to the Syrian government because it was the only side in the civil war that has chemical weapons and the means of delivering them in such a substantial quantity. Mr. Kerry reached back to President John F. Kennedy’s meetings with President Charles de Gaulle and sought to touch a chord with wary Europeans over the need to stand up to the “slaughter” of civilians by delivering much of his presentation in fluent French.
But she endorsed the French decision to wait until United Nations inspectors had submitted their “preliminary” assessment. President François Hollande made the decision to wait for that assessment, European officials said, to obtain broader support for an attack from European nations like Germany and Italy, whose leaders believe that there should be some sort of United Nations process before force is used. France has displaced Britain as the United States’ main military ally if force is to be used against the Syrian government.
And Germany indicated on Saturday that it would support an international response in Syria, with Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle saying in Vilnius that Berlin had wanted to wait for European foreign ministers to take a common stand before making its decision. But Mr. Kerry and Mr. Fabius need each other politically as well. France has been Exhibit A in the State Department’s campaign to demonstrate that it has managed to mobilize some international support.
Secretary of State John Kerry, who participated in the European Union meeting before flying here for meetings with his French counterpart, said that President Obama had yet to decide whether to hold off on an attack until the report from the United Nations inspectors was submitted. French officials, for their part, have made clear that they do not want to go it alone against Syria and need a partner if action is taken.
But Laurent Fabius, the French foreign minister, suggested in a joint news conference with Mr. Kerry that waiting for the preliminary assessment would not impose a substantial delay. The events that unfolded on Saturday, however, indicated that the next phase of the American and French partnership on Syria will require more coordination.
Mr. Fabius, who made an impassioned case for military action to deter further chemical attacks, said he had been assured by Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations security general, that the assessment would be submitted very soon. A Western European diplomat said it would possibly be ready around Sept. 15. In an effort to obtain broader backing for a military operation from European nations, France’s president, François Hollande, said Friday that his government would not act militarily before United Nations inspectors presented their findings about the Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack near Damascus, Syria’s capital.
Since the mandate of the United Nations inspectors is limited to establishing whether a chemical attack took place, and not who carried it out, the Obama administration has already asserted that it is largely irrelevant. The move was intended to secure a measure of support from Germany and other European nations, which are concerned that action will be taken without the approval of the United Nations Security Council because of the threat of a Russian veto. Mr. Hollande indicated that there would be some sort of United Nations process before the use of force.
But the administration has been eager to have French participation in any attack and, thus, has reason to adjust to Mr. Hollande’s decision to wait for the United Nations report, especially if it would not greatly delay an American strike for which Mr. Obama is seeking Congressional approval. After Mr. Hollande’s remarks, the European Union issued a statement on Saturday at a meeting in Lithuania calling for a “clear and strong response,” but only after a “preliminary” report by United Nations inspectors is submitted “as soon as possible.”
The statement, which was read by Catherine Ashton, the European Union’s chief foreign policy official, papered over some of the lingering divisions in the European Union’s ranks.
The statement urged the Security Council to “fulfill its responsibilities” but pointedly did not call for an attack or say that the council’s approval was required before a military strike could be carried out.
Still, the European Union’s move enabled Germany and France to narrow the gaps between their positions.
On Saturday, Germany indicated that it would support an international response in Syria, with Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle saying in Vilnius, Lithuania, that Berlin had wanted to wait for European foreign ministers to take a common stand before making its decision.
But while the maneuvering preserved the appearance of European unity, it posed some potential complications for the Obama administration.
Since the mandate of the United Nations inspectors is limited to establishing whether a chemical attack took place, and not who carried it out, the Obama administration has repeatedly asserted that the United Nations evaluation is irrelevant.
But since the administration is also eager to have French participation in any attack, it also has a powerful incentive to accept Mr. Hollande’s approach, especially if it would not greatly delay an American strike for which President Obama has decided to seek Congressional approval.
Senate and House members return from their recess on Monday, when debate on the issue is expected to pick up. Mr. Obama is scheduled to address the nation on Tuesday night about Syria.Senate and House members return from their recess on Monday, when debate on the issue is expected to pick up. Mr. Obama is scheduled to address the nation on Tuesday night about Syria.
The European Union statement appeared to paper over differences in the group’s ranks. It called for a “clear and strong response,” but did not specifically endorse military action. In his news conference on Saturday, Mr. Fabius suggested that an arrangement had been worked out to protect the interests of all sides.
The statement also urged the United Nations Security Council to “fulfill its responsibilities” but pointedly did not say that council approval was required. He said he had been assured by Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations secretary general, that the inspectors’ assessment would be submitted very soon.
With Russia and China wielding veto power in the Security Council, it is clear that council approval for any military action is not politically feasible. Mr. Fabius made it clear that he expected the report to be presented before October, and a Western European official who asked not to be named, because he was privy to private diplomatic communications, said it might be ready by next Sunday.
French officials appeared to have calculated that waiting for the submission of a preliminary report from the inspectors would be enough for some European nations to tell their constituents that action had not been taken until after some sort of United Nations process. Such a schedule would enable the United Nations to claim that the work of its inspectors was relevant. It would enable European governments to tell their constituents that there had been United Nations involvement before military action was taken, and it would not appear to tie the Americans’ hands.
Standing side by side, Mr. Kerry and Mr. Fabius sought to counter the impression that they were outnumbered by the skeptics. Mr. Kerry declined to comment on the Europeans’ insistence that any military action follow the submission of the inspectors’ preliminary report, adding that he would take up the question with Mr. Obama and top officials after he returned to Washington on Monday.
The United States and France would be the two major powers in any attack, but Mr. Kerry insisted that he had offers from other nations, which he did not identify. But with an uphill battle to win Congressional support and Mr. Obama receiving less backing than he would have wished during the recent Group of 20 summit meeting, the White House may be ready to embrace Mr. Hollande’s strategy as well.
“There are a number of countries, in the double digits, who are prepared to take military action,” Mr. Kerry said. “We have more countries prepared to take military action than we actually could use in the kind of military action being contemplated.” “The president has given up no right of decision in respect to what he will do,” said Mr. Kerry, who nonetheless added that he was encouraged by the “very powerful statement” made by the European Union.

Suzanne Daley contributed reporting from Paris.

Suzanne Daley contributed reporting from Paris.