Kerry: U.S. Won’t Block Other Countries Arming Syria Rebels

[ProSense]

Kerry: U.S. Won’t Block Other Countries Arming Syria Rebels

While official Obama administration policy remains indirect support to Syria's rebels in a grueling civil war against the Assad regime, Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that should other countries decide to provide arms, the U.S. would not stand in the way.

“(T)he United States does not stand in the way of other countries that made a decision to provide arms, whether it’s France or Britain or others," Kerry told reporters after a meeting with Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr. From the Associated Press:

The comments come after French President Francois Hollande said last week that his country and Britain were pushing the European Union to lift its arms embargo on Syria as soon as possible so that they can send weapons to rebel fighters. The two countries are seeking military help for the rebels by the end of May or earlier if possible. But Germany and other EU nations have been skeptical about sending weapons, pointing to the risk of further escalation in a volatile region.

The United States long held the same conviction, with President Barack Obama and other officials saying more weapons in Syria would only make peace harder. As the violence has worsened over the last year, Washington has tempered that message somewhat. It is now promising nonlethal aid to the anti-Assad militias in the form of meals and medical kits, and refusing to rule out further escalation.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/kerry-us-wont-block-other-countries-arming-syria

Text of Kerry's response:

QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I’d like to ask you about Syria. This week, discussions are intensifying among European Union members on lifting the arms embargo. Specifically, Britain and France are pushing for lifting the arms embargo and they’re hoping that the U.S. will support them. Given that the rebels are telling us that the U.S. is already training members of the Syrian rebel military in Jordan and other places, can you say whether you support a more robust arming of the rebels to strengthen moderate – the moderate forces there, or are you already moving in that direction?

<...>

SECRETARY KERRY: Yeah. Well, let me say, first of all, with respect to Syria, we have consistently said, and I say again, the longer the bloodshed goes on, the greater the prospect that the institutions of the state of Syria implode, and therefore, the greater the danger is to the region and the world that chemical weapons fall into the hands of really bad actors. We do not want that to happen. We also don’t want the fragmentation and destruction of the state. Those state institutions are critical to the stability of the state, to its future, and the region.

So as long as President Assad continues to attack his own people with SCUDs, with aircraft, with tanks, there is an imbalance in this which is creating more and more refugees pouring into Jordan, pouring into Lebanon, pouring into Turkey. And that is becoming a global catastrophe.

So we do not stand – President Obama has made it clear that the United States does not stand in the way of other countries that have made a decision to provide arms, whether it’s France or Britain or others. He believes that we need to change President Assad’s calculation. Right now, President Assad is receiving help from the Iranians, he is receiving help from al Qaida-related – some elements, he’s receiving help from Hezbollah, and obviously some help is coming in through the Russians. If he believes he can shoot it out, Syrians and the region have a problem, and the world has a problem.

So President Obama’s effort is to try to change that calculation, but leave the door open for the possibility of the Geneva Communique to take hold, which requires the selection of individuals acceptable to both sides, which clearly means not Assad, who will form a provisional transitional government with full executive authority. The Russians have signed onto that, the United States, the global community. That’s the road forward. But you have to have a President Assad who is willing to appoint that independent entity. And as of this moment, he is not.

So that’s the effort in Syria. It’s to try to change the calculation. And President Obama is evaluating and will continue to evaluate any additional options available in order to make that happen.

<...>

http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2013/03/206370.htm

[TwilightGardener]

1. I'd read that Kerry had been open to arming them while he was still in the Senate.

Did something change his mind, that he isn't convincing Obama to do it? Or are there holdouts in the rest of the administration--Biden, Rice, Hagel? I think this is the right course. The rebels aren't ultimately going to lose for lack of weapons. We don't have to contribute them--let France and England have at it, and own the results.

[karynnj]

7. No he wasn't - McCain tried to push him there in the confirmation

hearings, but he has consistently been wary of it because of the dangers of arming an ununified group of rebels who were in danger of fighting each other as well as Assad -- and said so in the hearings.

What Kerry has wanted to do was to work with Russia to move get Assadd to realize that he has to go. (Russia has been Assad's main supporter.)
It was Petraeus and Hillary Clinton who supposedly wanted to arm the rebels..

[TwilightGardener]

9. He did consider it, but seemed to base it on the opposition being unified--

but it still hasn't gotten that way. He may have also changed his mind on it, after the whole Benghazi thing.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/05/08/kerry_time_to_consider_safe_zones_and_arming_the_opposition_in_syria

[ProSense]

11. I think FP is

putting words in Kerry's mouth. Kerry has always warned against the U.S. arming the rebels.

There is no direct quote and a lot of editorializing around his point.

But he cautioned that the United States should insist on greater unity within opposition ranks before it provides lethal aid, noting that international efforts to train opposition fighters could help establish that very unity. Safe zones within Syria would have to be defended by some foreign military force, but not necessary the United States or NATO, Kerry explained.

Here is Kerry on safe zones around the same time as the article.

<...>

Progress requires bold steps from all sides:

First, with the creation of the Friends of Syria group, there is now a multilateral mechanism for supporting the Syrian National Council and other political groups with humanitarian aid and non-lethal supplies, including communications equipment. I understand that Secretary Clinton is meeting today with a subset of the Friends of Syria in Paris. I urge our colleagues to support these efforts.

Second, there are still serious questions about the various opposition groups, including the Syrian National Council and the Free Syrian Army. We need to continue to work with these and other groups to encourage them to coalesce into a viable and inclusive political force. It may be that they can’t – or don’t – unify as an organization, but they certainly need to achieve unity of purpose. They urgently need to present to Syria and the world a coherent vision of a tolerant and pluralistic post-Assad society.

Third, we need to consider how best to support the Free Syrian Army. The Administration has committed to provide non-lethal assistance. In addition, we should work with the Free Syrian Army’s leadership to promote professionalism and better integration with the political opposition.

Finally, we should weigh the risks and benefits of establishing “safe zones” near Syria’s border areas. Safe zones entail military action and would require significant support from regional powers, and therefore requires a more significant vetting and strategic work-through. I believe the unity of the Council and coordination of the FSA must develop significantly before one could create those zones. But our interests and values demand that we consider how they could be constructed and what this would mean for Syria’s neighbors.

We also need to clarify what Syria’s neighbors – immediate and near neighbors – need to do here. It seems to me that the Arab league needs to continue to lead, the GCC has provided leadership and they must continue to also, and we obviously need to understand what is achievable by all of us together.

<...>

http://www.foreign.senate.gov/press/chair/release/chairman-kerry-opening-statement-at-hearing-on-syria-options

[karynnj]

19. Hadn't read that but the headline does not reflect his position in the article well

This is more hawkish than every other thing I read and it appears that he does lead with a diplomatic solution. It seems the questions might have been in the line of under what circumstances would you back "lethal aid". It then seems that he describes a circumstance that did not, does not exist and is unlikely to exist. He also speaks - as he did with Libya - of the possible need to bomb if the attacks on civilians increase.

It is interesting as he DID (as Rice did) back the help given to Libya - long before Obama did on the grounds that they had the ability to stop a massacre. I suspect that he, like others, were answering the question of why Syria is different than Libya.

[Arkana]

2. I'd question how much authority we have in that area.

What would we do to stop another country funding the Syrian resistance besides bomb them into submission?

[Comrade Grumpy]

3. Assad is getting help from al-Qaeda related elements? I think Kerry has this backwards.

The al-Qaeda boys are trying to overthrow Assad so they can establish their caliphate.

Cool story, though, bro.

[TwilightGardener]

4. That may have been just a misspeak--it looks like he hesitated and corrected himself.

[Comrade Grumpy]

5. Benefit of the doubt?

My ears always prickle at the mention of the bogey man.

[karynnj]

8. I don't think he corrected, but qualified

If so, that means there are elements of AQ on BOTH sides.

I suspect that it is even more complicated than that. There were reports that the moderates and the jihadist rebels were fighting among themselves -- in addition to both fighting Assad.

[TwilightGardener]

15. Possibly.

[Comrade Grumpy]

21. I haven't seen anything to suggest that Al Qaeda is supporting Assad.

Al Qaeda is Sunni, Assad is a heretic Alawite.

Al Qaeda wants a caliphate, Assad runs a secular state.

No, Al Qaeda is on the side of the opposition, whether it wants them or not.

[karynnj]

22. Me either - I HAVE seen articles saying they are attacking the moderates

What I don't know is whether any of those attacking the "moderates" have been used by Assad. If Assad has allied with any, he is stupid or desperate - for the reasons given.

My point was not that it was true - but that Kerry's words actually make it less likely that it was a simple misstatement that he corrected. Kerry is well aware of the branches of Islam as he has spoken in detail about them.

[JCMach1]

6. means CIA and the Saudis will be sending arms

[Brother Buzz]

18. Woohoo, Proxy war

I buy, you fly; gainful employment for spook contract pilots.

[TwilightGardener]

20. Saudis are already sending arms. And Qatar.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. ".. that chemical weapons fall into the hands.." WMD again?

Oh, well, maybe this time we'll find them after killing 100,000s of Syrians.

[TwilightGardener]

12. I could be wrong, but I thought it was pretty well established that Syria actually did have

some chemical weapons, and that use of them (or shipment of them elsewhere) would be a trigger for us to act.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. There are always dangerous bogeymen to erect to get involved in a civil war.

And, the outcome remains the same. Vietnam, Cambodia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and countless other countries we've "helped".

Further, if the possible use or shipment of them is a trigger, why not Iran, North Korea, Israel, Russia, China, Britain, France?

[TwilightGardener]

14. I honestly don't think Obama seriously wants to get involved in Syria's civil war--

to the extent that we plan humanitarian and non-lethal aid to the rebels, that's not nearly as involved as we COULD be (look at France and England deciding to jump in with weapons). Our involvement would stem from concerns that Israel and other countries would be in danger of attack from spillover violence and weapons, regional instability from cross-border fighting and refugees, and jihad nutjobs gaining a base of operations. I don't know if it's in our direct interests to control any of that, but they are real concerns.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. But, Andorra, Lichtenstein, Bolivia and Honduras have stayed out of it and are not suffering.

I fail to see the need, and or, obsession, to get involved in civil wars that we should stay out of.

How has doing so worked for us, or the nations involved, so far?

[TwilightGardener]

17. The real crux of it is: Israel and Iran.

Obama is going to to talk to Netanyahu about our involvement in Syria and when we would back Israel up with airstrikes, that sort of thing. But getting too deep into fighting in against Assad would turn into a proxy war with Iran, we don't really want to do that--plus, of course, arming the wrong guys, increasing and prolonging the bloodshed and getting an unintended result (an even worse regime, eventually?). And then there's the humanitarian angle--always somebody pushing for us to stop bad regimes from doing bad things to their people. So, that's why the pressure for us to get involved. Obama is under tremendous pressure internationally and domestically (McCain and the GOP) to basically commit us into jumping in--I think Obama is doing his best to stay out of the fight.

[HiPointDem]

23. goes without saying. pnac dominoes, 1, 2, 3....