G20 Syria divide: World’s largest nations speak out against US-led strike
As leaders of countries making up half of the world’s population firmly opposed military action against Syria without a UN mandate, the US kept pushing for a strike, claiming that many countries represented at the G20 summit were “comfortable” with it.
Although discussion of the Syrian conflict was never officially
on the G20 agenda, world leaders used their statements and
speeches to outline their stance on a possible US-led military
strike against the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has dismissed the notion that
there was a 50/50 split of opinion on the issue, alluding that
leaders of the majority of the world’s largest economies clearly
stated their opposition to military intervention in Syria.
Russia, China, India, Indonesia, Argentina, Brazil, and South
Africa were among the countries that openly spoke out against
military action not authorized by the UN Security Council, Putin
revealed.
Putin himself said that he believes the alleged chemical weapons
attack was nothing more than “a provocation on behalf of the
armed insurgents in hope of the help from the outside, from the
countries which supported them from day one.”
Taking a stand against a US-led strike
During his closing speech at the G20 summit, the Russian
President pointed out that the world’s most populous
Muslim-majority nation – Indonesia – was among those
“categorically opposed” to a strike against Syria.
Indonesia has been calling on the international community to
refrain from extrajudicial justice on Syria, and to wait until UN
investigators publish the results of their work.
“Indonesia’s stance is clear. President Yudhoyono has said
that, while affirming that the use of chemical weapons against
innocent civilians cannot be accepted, we need to ensure who
actually carried out the attacks. In this sense, we should wait
for the UN’s inspection team to announce the result of its
investigation,” Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa
said in a statement published on President Susilo Bambang
Yudhoyono’s official website.
“International responses should not lead to more and worse
humanitarian problems. The misery of the Syrian people has been
too long and we need to ensure there is no military approach
used, but instead peaceful diplomatic measures must be utilized
to settle the problems,” Natalegawa added.
China has consistently opposed a military solution for the Syrian
crisis, joining Russia in its belief that any action must be
based on the UN investigation and authorized by the UN Security
Council.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Qin Gang told RT at the
summit that it is “vitally important” that any move on
Syria be based on the UN investigation, stressing that China is
“against the use of chemical weapons by any countries or
organizations.”
“China and Russia are both appealing to the countries
concerned to be serious about the possible consequences of the
use of military means without the mandate of the UN Security
Council,” Qin added, reminding that recent history has shown
that such means “can’t solve a complicated issue like
Syria.”
Meanwhile, China’s vice finance minister, Zhu Guangyao, has
warned that a strike would have a negative impact on the global
economy and “cause a hike in the oil price.”
Other members of the BRICS bloc of emerging economies – Brazil,
India and South Africa – also voiced their firm opposition to the
possibility of a US-led military strike.
Any action on Syria should be taken within the UN framework, and
only after the UN releases the results of the chemical weapons
investigation, India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh stressed.
While condemning the use of chemical weapons by any party, Singh
told G20 leaders that one needs to be certain what has really
happened in Syria, according to Indian Planning Commission Deputy
Chairperson Montek Singh Ahluwalia, who spoke to reporters at the
summit.
South African President Jacob Zuma slammed the idea of a military
intervention in Syria on the eve of the summit, saying that one
cannot “remain silent when one country is being bombed to
ashes before our eyes.”
Zuma stressed that the UN is “the only authority that can
intervene militarily in any country,” in his speech earlier
this week.
“We don’t want the world to be run by individuals, but a
collective in the form of the UN. I don't know if people who are
questioning our position on Syria have an alternative,” Zuma
said.
President Putin on Friday quoted his South African counterpart as
saying that the world’s smaller countries feel “increasingly
vulnerable and insecure” with the notion that a more powerful
nation can “at any time and at its own discretion use force
against them.”
In this regard, a military strike outside of a UN Security
Council resolution would set a dangerous precedent, Putin warned.
“The use of force on a sovereign state is only possible if it
is done for self-defense – and, as we know, Syria is not
attacking the US – or under a decision made by the UN Security
Council. As one participant in our discussion said, those who act
otherwise put themselves outside of law,” Putin said.
143,400,000
US
316,597,000
China
1,353,821,000
Turkey
75,627,384
India 1,210,193,422
Canada
33,476,688
Indonesia
237,424,363
Saudi Arabia
29,195,895
Argentina
41,660,417
France
65,350,000
Brazil
201,032,714
Australia
23,173,142
South Africa
52,981,991
Japan
126,659,683
Republic of Korea
50,219,669
UK
63,181,775
Italy
59,685,227
Germany 81,800,000 TOTAL
3,240,513,907
923,966,463
*EU, a full member of the G20,
does not take a unified stand yet
**Spain supports the resolution but
is not a member of the G20
Defending a US-led strike on Syria
On the other hand, US President Barack Obama stressed that the
situation in Syria might set a dangerous precedent for the world.
During his Friday speech at the G20 summit, Obama said his
“goal” and America’s “responsibility” was to
maintain international norms on banning the use of chemical
weapons, saying he wanted the enforcement to be “real.” He
stressed that if the international community does not act, the
norms will begin to “unravel.”
Obama then seemingly downplayed the role of the UN Security
Council, saying it can end up as “a barrier to acting on
behalf of international norms and international law.”
The US has stated that it has “high confidence” that
Syrian President Bashar Assad was behind the alleged chemical
weapons attack, and that Washington has evidence proving it, with
US officials speculating on Assad’s “capabilities” for
such an attack. However, neither Russia nor the UN found such
reasoning to be satisfactory.
Seeking international support for a strike against Syria at the
G20 summit, Obama openly brought up the issue at both bilateral
meetings and in discussions on the summit’s sidelines. The US
President’s conclusions on the global opinion contradicted that
of President Putin’s.
“I would say that the majority of the room is comfortable with
our conclusion that Assad – the Assad government – is responsible
for their [chemical weapons] use. Obviously this is disputed by
President Putin, but if you polled the leaders last night, I’m
confident that you’d get a majority who said it’s most likely, we
are confident that the Assad regime used them,” Obama said.
Just as the G20 summit was closing up, the White House promptly
published a joint statement signed by the leaders and
representatives of 11 nations – ten of whom are G20 members. The
signees included Australia, Canada, France, Italy, Japan,
Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Turkey, the United
Kingdom, and the United States.
The statement condemned “in the strongest terms the horrific
chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus on August
21,” adding that “evidence clearly points to the Syrian
government being responsible for the attack.”
It called “for a strong international response to this grave
violation of the world’s rules and conscience that will send a
clear message that this kind of atrocity can never be
repeated.”
The signatory nations said they “support efforts undertaken by the United States and other countries to reinforce the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons.”
However, another part of the statement clearly contradicted the
current American stance on military action against Syria.
“Recognizing that Syria’s conflict has no military solution,
we reaffirm our commitment to seek a peaceful political
settlement through full implementation of the 2012 Geneva
Communique. We are committed to a political solution which
will result in a united, inclusive and democratic Syria.”
It also remained unclear whether all the parties shared a common
understanding of what constitutes a “strong international
response.”
Earlier last week, Italian Prime Minister Enrico Letta stressed
that Italy would not participate in a strike against Damascus
“if the United Nations doesn’t back it.”
British Prime Minister David Cameron pledged that he “will act
accordingly” after British MPs rejected the government’s
motion to support a military action against Syria.
Cameron on Friday again hinted at the possibility of
bypassing the UN Security Council on the strike, saying that
relying on the body whose decision hinges on a potential Russian
veto would be “a very misguided approach.”
As he expressed his frustration over the divisions at the G20
summit, Cameron stopped short of accusing Putin of being
dishonest about the situation in Syria.
“This G20 was never going to reach conclusions on Syria. The
divisions are too great…The Russian position that, as Putin has
said, if it is proved it is Assad he will take a different view,
but he is fairly clear that it is the opposition, is miles away
from what I think the truth is and miles away from what lots of
us believe,” Cameron said at the G20 summit briefing.
Europe’s biggest supporter of the US-led strike against
Assad, French President Francois Hollande, told reporters after
the G20 summit that he will rely on the UN inspectors’ report and
the decision of the US Congress.
“We shall await the report of the inspectors just as we will
await [US] Congress,” he said, promising to do everything he can
“so that France only strikes military targets to avoid
civilian casualties” if the Syrian strike is launched.
Hollande also said he hopes to convince his EU partners to adopt
a similar position on Syria.
‘Extremely cautious’
According to Putin, Germany - one of America’s key NATO allies -
is “extremely cautious” when it comes to a strike against
Syria.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel defined her country’s
position during the G20 summit, saying that she does not believe
military intervention is the answer, and that Germany will
support a political solution. But on Saturday Germany did join
Obama's resolution.
The European Commission disagreed with the position voiced by
some of the union’s members, saying that the EU does not support
a military solution to the Syrian crisis.
“The European Union is certain that the efforts should be
aimed at a political settlement,” president of the European
Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, told reporters at the G20
briefing.
On Saturday, Secretary of State John Kerry met up with leader of
EU countries in Vilnius in Lithuania to try and persuade more of
them to back military action.
