Policy Alert #163 | April 19, 2018

On April 7, 2018, a suspected chemical attack occurred in the Syrian town of Douma, which was held by rebel forces at the time. The Syrian government, with strong support from Russia, has denied the allegations that it was behind the attack. Citing their own evidence of Syrian responsibility, the United States, United Kingdom, and France went ahead and fired over one hundred missiles on “three distinct Syrian chemical weapons program targets.” Inspectors from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) are finally entering the area, after charges and countercharges regarding reasons for the delay. In this RPI Policy Alert, we assess the Rising Powers’ responses to the crisis.

Russia supports the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and has strongly condemned the “illegitimate” and “aggressive” strikes. President Vladimir Putin condemned the US-led strikes as “an act of aggression.” Russian Ambassador to the United Nations Vasily Nebenzya berated the “Western trio” for their alleged efforts to topple the Assad regime: “We’re astonished by the hypocritical behavior on the part of the US, the UK, and France in recent days. […] By their act of aggression, the trio and those who supported it have expressed solidarity with a party to the conflict.” Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova hit back at accusations that Russia was impeding the investigation by OPCW, “We call on Western countries that staged the illegitimate strike on Syria to stop manipulating public opinion and meddling with the work of international organizations. […] It was Russia that called for an immediate inspection.” In another press conference, Zakharova emphasized Russia’s concern with rebel stockpiles of chemical weapons: “major international media outlets and official representatives of foreign capitals remain silent on the discovery of large stockpiles of chemical weapons in warehouses of the terrorists in liberated parts of Eastern Ghouta.” Defense Ministry Spokesman Major-General Igor Konashenkov claimed that, “The true targets of the strike delivered by the US, the UK, and France on April 14 were both facilities in Barzeh and Jaramani and Syrian military facilities, including airfields.” In an interview with the BBC, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov asked, “Can you explain to me why strike the day before OPCW is going to move there and to verify the fact which, they assert, was a fact?”

• In state-owned TASS, Alexander Rodionov, specialist of Russia’s radiation, chemical, and protection force in Syria, claimed the Russian team found a chemical weapons laboratory and warehouse in Douma, and concluded that the weapons were “used by illegal armed formations”. The TASS article emphasized that the Russian Foreign Ministry labeled reports that the Syrian government dropped chemical weapons as “fake news” and classifies the White Helmets as “an unreliable source, notorious for disseminating falsehoods.” Another article reiterated the Russian government’s’ claims that it did not participate in anti-missile defense during the US-led strike: “[None] of the missiles appeared in the zone of responsibility of Russian air defense systems in Tartus and Hmeymim. Russian missile defense systems were not used.”
• Lyuba Lulko, a correspondent for the nationalist Pravda Report, argued that “the West” intends to “grab pieces of Syria, its raw materials, territories, and zones of influence” and was undermined by its own “inability to analyze or pure cowardice”: “The attack yielded no geopolitical victory for the West at all.”
• Government-funded RT‘s Nebojsa Malic argued that, “The US likes to present itself as the foremost guardian of the ‘rules-based international order,’ blaming Russia and China for flouting these rules or seeking to change them. Yet in practice it is Washington and its allies that trample on the rules at nearly every occasion.”

India’s Ministry of External Affairs is “closely following the situation,” and issued a carefully worded statement on the recent developments in Syria: “The alleged use of chemical weapons, if true, is deplorable. We call for an impartial and objective investigation by the OPCW to establish the facts. In the meantime, we urge all Parties to show restraint and avoid any further escalation in the situation.”

• An editorial by the liberal Indian Express was cynical that the strikes would have any effect in curbing “the tragedy in Syria,” explaining that the limited nature of the strikes “underlines the fact that the West is no longer interested either in ousting Assad from power or joining Russia in imposing regional peace. […] Assad seems to have no incentive for internal reconciliation.” It lamented that “The Middle East in general and Syria in particular have become victims of renewed great power rivalry, intensifying regional conflict and the breakdown of the internal political order in many countries.”
• The Hindustan Times, another liberal-leaning paper, was also pessimistic about the West’s commitments to peace in Syria. “The Western Powers, especially the US, appear to have no real strategy to cope with the complex situation in Syria or to force an end to the fighting. […A] regime change, which some Western powers appear to be pushing for, isn’t the real solution.”  Foreign affairs editor Pramit Pal Chauduri, focused on the dominance of the “Russia-Iran axis” in the area due to the fading influence and commitment of the Western powers: “Expect the various regional players to just continue where they left off before the strike.”
• C. Uday Bhaskar, Director of the Society for Policy Studies, New Delhi, provided an analysis of the orchestration of narratives in the US, UK, France, and Russia surrounding the alleged chemical attack and retaliatory strikes in the Indian Express. Bhaskar argues that “what is at play is the battle for the more compelling and persuasive narrative about April 7 and Douma, even while the actual facts have been buried. […] It appears that the 21st century has uneasily and perhaps unwittingly transmuted from the certitudes of the previous century (Cold War, bipolarity) into post-fact world order.”
• Left-leaning The Hindu criticized the the strikes: “While the use of chemical agents against civilians cannot and must not go unpunished [..t]he U.S. undertook the strike before [OPCW] even began its investigation in Douma to ascertain if chemical weapons had in fact been used. […] By acting merely on the basis of inputs from their intelligence agencies, the U.S.-led alliance flouted international law.”

Foreign Minister Wang Yi emphasized that “Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity should be maintained and respected,” and that any action “should be within the framework of the UN and in accordance with the purposes of the UN Charter as well as the basic norms of international relation[s].” Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Lu Kang later defended China’s abstention from a UN Security Council (UNSC) resolution regarding the use of chemical weapons in Syria by clarifying China’s position on the use of chemical weapons: “It is the clear and consistent position of China that we oppose the use of chemical weapons by any country, organization, or person for any purpose and under any circumstance. China condemns the suspected chemical weapons attack in Syria.” Lu explained that China believes “the unity of the UN Security Council is crucial to the settlement of the Syrian issue,” and did not support the resolution because it did not achieve a consensus between all UNSC members.

• The government-supported China Daily featured two political cartoons on the US-led airstrikes: one which depicts a battered dove protecting a Syrian sheep from the wolf-United States, and another illustrates US President Donald Trump shooting a slingshot into a wasp nest.
• The China Daily repeatedly condemned the US-led strikes in several editorials. Two characterized the action as a repeat of the US’s 2003 invasion of Iraq and suggested that “[t]he arbitrary and abrupt military action by the [US] and its allies will likely complicate the possibility of political solutions to the settlement of other hotspot issues” such as the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. Another supported the need for an investigation to be concluded before any further action is taken, and argued that “any action should be done in accordance with the UN Charter and international law, as UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres urged.” However, the China Daily also placed some blame on Russia, and described the continued conflict in Syria as “a shadow clash between Washington and Moscow.” The Daily also featured analysis from Zhao Guangcheng, a researcher at the Institute of Middle Eastern Studies, Northwestern University, and Wang Jinglie, a researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
• The nationalist Global Times predicted that the recent strikes “will have a negative impact on the upcoming talks between the two Korea and the Trump-Kim summit” given that they reiterate the “willfulness and recklessness” of the Trump administration. In another editorial, the Times warned that the Western states would do well to stop “mocking” Russia in their narratives as an “evil” state on a “dark path”: “Russia is capable of launching a destructive retaliatory attack on the West. […] That the West provokes Russia in such a manner is irresponsible for world peace.”
• Zhao Minghao, a senior research fellow at the Charhar Institute and adjunct fellow at the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies at Renmin University of China, described the Syrian civil war as “a complicated proxy war” between the US, Russia, and Iran: “The US got involved in the Syrian issue with the primary goal of combating [the] Islamic State and other terrorist forces, but now, its strategic calculation has become more prominent in containing Iran and Russia’s influence in the region.”
• Li Haidong, professor at the Institute of International Relations at China Foreign Affairs University, pointed to the domestic political strife in the US, UK, and France as another motivator for the strikes as a distraction. “Although there is no clear evidence proving the relationship between the chemical attacks and the Assad government, news and reports in Western newspapers instigated public support for the military action,” Li asserted.
• The independent South China Morning Post lamented that “[t]he world has once again failed Syria’s people” as external powers’ vying for dominance delayed international efforts to investigate and help the victims of the attack.

Foreign Press Secretary Norio Maruyama issued a response to the alleged chemical attacks that expressed Japan’s “deep concern” over the reports, condemnation of the use of chemical weapons, and call for “relevant countries and organizations to promptly investigate the situation.” The Ministry of Foreign Affairs posted the G7 Leaders’ Statement on Syria to its website in response to the US-led missile strikes days later, in which signatories expressed their “full support” of the strikes to “degrade the Assad regime’s ability to use chemical weapons and deter any future use” and defended the action as “taken only after exhausting every possible diplomatic solution to uphold the international norm against the use of chemical weapons.”

• An editorial by the Japan Times weighed the costs and benefits of the US-led strike. The Times acknowledged that the willingness of the US and its allies to strike may act as a deterrent for North Korea in similar circumstances, but resolved that it is “far better to have U.N. authorization for such strikes.” The Times also took the opportunity to preemptively chide Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe for letting Russia’s actions slide as part of his effort to strengthen relations. “Japan cannot do business with a regime that not only turns a blind eye to, but actually enables, such horrific acts. It should join the West in demanding genuine sanctions against Syria and help develop a strategy that goes beyond punishment.”
• The conservative-leaning Yomiuri Shimbun targeted its attention on President Trump and the US in its editorial that warned the country against abandoning its duties: “It will become inevitable for Russia and Iran to fill the power vacuum if the United States withdraws from Syria. There would no longer be any brakes to stop inhuman acts by Assad government forces. Trump should not abandon, on the pretext of advocating ‘America first’ policies, the duties the United States has assumed for the peace and stability of the Middle East.”