Flashback
to 2003: "Major combat in Iraq is over, U.S. warns rogue
Syria"
Propaganda alert
compiled by Cem Ertür
16 April 2014
Living in an age of dis-information, not many people do remember the
deadly serious Anglo-American threats of war against Syria on
the 26th
day of the “shock and awe” genocide in Iraq.
The Guardian, 14 April 2003
Chicago
Tribune, 15 April 2003
Le Figaro, 15 April 2003
After Iraq, is it Syria’s turn?
While
the GIs [i.e. U.S. troops] take control of most of the
Iraqi territory, Washington
suspects Damascus’
duplicity
La Stampa, 15 April 2003
Bush:
"Syria is a terrorist state"
The White House threatens sanctions, Damascus replies: We do not have
chemical weapons. The city of Saddam has fallen too.
Libération, 15 April 2003
Threats against
Damascus
Strengthened
by their military success in Iraq, the Americans put pressure on Syria,
which
is accused of having helped Baghdad, and evoke sanctions.
El Pais, 15 April 2003
United
States threatens Syria with reprisals for collaborating
with Saddam
Aznar
will put pressure on Damascus after asking Bush Washington
insists that Syria is a “terrorist
State”
that manufactures weapons of mass
destruction.
Le Monde, 15 April 2003
Tikrit
surrenders, Syria threatened
The U.S. army takes the fiefdom of Saddam
Hussein’s clan.
Washington calls into question Syria’s arsenal and requires
Damascus’ cooperation.
Note:
A special thanks to Les Blough
and Giovanni Carlo Bettinelli for translating the excerpts
from El Pais
and La Stampa respectively.
______________________________
The White House this morning [April 14, 2003] escalated sharp
diplomatic warnings to Syria,
which the [Bush] administration accused of harboring former Iraqi
leaders and
developing chemical weapons.
Without making a specific threat to
Syria,
White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, at his morning briefing,
said
repeatedly that "Syria
needs to cooperate." He read from a CIA report to Congress last year
that
Syria had stockpiles of the nerve agent sarin, that it was "trying to
develop more toxic and persistent nerve elements," and that it was
"highly probable" that Syria was pursuing biological weapons.
Fleischer described the document as "authoritative" and said the
charge is "well corroborated."
Fleischer declined to dispel the impression that administration was
targeting Syria
for
stronger diplomatic or even military measures. "I can only say to you
that
it should not be unexpected that the United States
for a considerable
period of time has said through diplomatic channels that nations that
are rogue
nations need to clean up their act," he said. "They should not harbor
terrorists. They should not produce weapons of mass destruction."
[…]
"With respect to Syria, of course we will examine possible measures of
a
diplomatic, economic or other nature as we move forward," [U.S.
Secretary
of State Colin] Powell told reporters after talks with Kuwait Minister
of State
for Foreign Affairs Sheikh Mohammad al-Salem al-Sabah.
"In light of this new environment they [Syria]
should review their actions and their behavior, not only with respect
to who
gets haven in Syria
and weapons of mass destruction but especially the support of terrorist
activity," Powell added.
[1]
On April
15, Secretary Powell [said] "Iraq
was a
unique case": "There is no war plan to go and attack someone else,
either for the purpose of overthrowing their leadership or imposing
democratic
values. ... There is no 'list'..."
UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw (April
14)
told reporters in Kuwait:
"As far as 'Syria
is next on the list', we made clear that it is not... There is no
'next'
list... There are important questions which the Syrians need to
answer."
Straw continued: "There is much evidence of considerable cooperation
between the Syrian government and the Saddam regime in recent months...
It is
very important for Syria
to appreciate that there is a new reality now the Saddam regime is
gone, and
that its policies reflect that new reality... Syria
[must] fully cooperate over these questions that have been raised about
the
fact that some fugitives from Iraq
may well have fled into Syria,
and other matters including whether they have in fact been developing
any kind
of illegal or illegitimate chemical or biological arms..."
[2]
[U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
said] “Well, first I would say that we have seen the chemical
weapons tests in Syria
over the past 12, 15 months. And second, that we have intelligence that
shows
that Syria
has allowed
Syrians and others to come across the border into Iraq,
people armed and people
carrying leaflets indicating that they'll be rewarded if they kill
Americans
and members of the coalition.”
[3]
The White House has
privately ruled out suggestions that the
US should go to war against Syria following its military success in
Iraq, and
has blocked preliminary planning for such a campaign in the Pentagon,
the
Guardian learned yesterday.
In
the past few
weeks, the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, ordered contingency
plans for
a war on Syria to be reviewed following the fall of Baghdad. Meanwhile,
his
undersecretary for policy, Doug Feith, and William Luti, the head of
the
Pentagon's office of special plans, were asked to put together a
briefing paper
on the case for war against Syria, outlining its role in supplying
weapons to
Saddam Hussein, its links with Middle East terrorist groups and its
allegedly
advanced chemical weapons programme. […]
Faced
with rising
apprehension over the prospect of a new conflict, [British Prime
Minister] Tony
Blair also offered categorical assurances to anxious MPs yesterday that
Britain
and the US had "no plans whatsoever" to invade Iraq's neighbour.
Dismissing fears of an Anglo-American invasion as another "conspiracy
theory", the prime minister said that Mr Bush had never mentioned an
attack on Syria during their regular talks. "I have the advantage of
talking to the American president on a regular basis and I can assure
you there
are no plans to invade Syria," he said. […]
Mr Blair made
clear to Syria yesterday that it must not accept high-level political
fugitives
or weapons of mass destruction from Iraq.
"It is important Syria
does not harbour people from Saddam's regime or allow any transfer of
[weapons
of mass destruction] material from Iraq to Syria. I have spoken to
President
Assad and he has assured me that is not happening and I have said it is
important that assurance is valid," Mr Blair told MPs. […]
[The
British]
defence secretary, Geoff Hoon […] warned that Britain
had had concerns for some time about Syria's
desire to develop weapons
of mass destruction. Mr Hoon referred to a government paper, presented
to
parliament in February last year, which raised questions about Syria's
weapons
programme. The document said that Syria
was one of five countries
attempting to "obtain inventories of longer-range ballistic
missiles". The other countries included North Korea,
Iran,
Iraq
and Libya. [4]
______________________________
Iraq
and the Middle East [14 Apr 2003]
[minutes
of the session at the British Parliament on April 14, 2003]
UK Parliament website, 14
April 2003
Conservative
Party leader Iain
Duncan Smith:
[…]
Does
the Prime
Minister [Blair] accept that there is a danger that the coalition
[countries]
will give out mixed messages, particularly with regard to Syria?
We understand that the Prime
Minister has spoken to President Assad, and that he has sent a Minister
to
speak to the regime directly. Meanwhile, the American Government have
said: "There's
got to be a change in Syria ... The Syrians need to know they'll be
held to account." Is the Prime Minister's view the same as the
[Bush]
Administration's in Washington?
[…]
Prime
Minister Tony Blair:
[…]
In
relation to Syria,
the issue concerns any attempt by Syria
to harbour people who are
leading members of the Iraqi regime. When the US or anyone else talks
about
holding them to account, they mean in respect of that matter. I spoke
to
President Bashar Assad over the weekend, and he assured me that they
would
interdict anyone crossing the border from Iraq into Syria. I believe
that they
are doing that. The Foreign Office Minister will be present in Damascus
to have
further talks on the issue. Some of the wilder
surmises in the media at the moment are simply not correct: there are
no plans
whatever to invade Syria. […]
Liberal
Democrats leader Charles
Kennedy:
[…]
The
Prime Minister also spoke about Syria.
A few days ago he said, and
I use his words, that Syria
should make a decisive break with its previous policies. To which
policies was
he referring? Were those policies in place when the President of Syria
met Her
Majesty the Queen officially not long ago? On the radio this morning,
the
Foreign Secretary [Jack Straw] said that he was unsure whether Syria
had been developing chemical or biological weapons. He said that
questions
needed to be answered. What exactly will those questions be in the
course of
this weekend's discussions with the President of Syria?
[…]
Prime
Minister Tony Blair:
[…]
On what
was said
about Syria and the break with previous policies, support for
terrorism—terrorism that deeply, adversely affects the Middle
East peace
process—should stop, and it should stop irrespective of what
has happened in
relation to Iraq. We have continually made that clear to Syria.
On chemical weapons, people
are simply pointing out that Syria
is not a signatory to the chemical weapons convention. If Syria
does have chemical weapons in
its possession, it should be a signatory.
[…]
Tam
Dalyell
(Labour Party):
The Prime Minister said
that there were "no plans",
as he put it, to invade Syria or to take action against Syria, but does
not he
know that there are people in Washington with an agenda—James
Wolsey in
particular—who go on and on about the need for regime change
in other countries
of the Middle East? Do we have the unambiguous assurance that the
British
Government will not in any circumstances support military action
against Syria?
Prime
Minister Tony Blair: I
said that there are no
plans whatever to invade Syria.
All sorts of things may come out of the newspapers about various
conspiracy
theories to do with parts of the American Administration, but I have
the
advantage of talking regularly to the American President and I can
assure my hon. Friend that there are no plans to invade Syria. What
people are
saying, however, is that it is important that Syria does not harbour
people
from Saddam's regime or allow any transfer of [weapons of mass
destruction] material
from Iraq to Syria. I have spoken to President Assad and he has assured
me that
that is not happening. I have told him that it is important that he
makes sure
that that assurance is valid.
[…]
Anne
Campbell (Labour Party):
If it is found or
strongly suspected that members of
Saddam's regime are taking shelter in Syria, or that Syria is hiding
weapons of
mass destruction, what action would my right hon. Friend take to
persuade Syria
to give them up?
Prime
Minister Tony Blair: We
have said
that Syria should hand any people from the [Iraqi] regime who may take
refuge
in Syria to the coalition forces. I have to say in fairness that the
President
of Syria has said that he does not believe that there are any such
people in
Syria. In relation to chemical weapons, I have nothing to add to what I
said
earlier, but there are conventions governing these things to which
countries
who have such weapons should be signatories.
[…]
Alex
Salmond (Scottish
National Party): The
Prime Minister says that
there are no plans
whatever to invade Syria, but [U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense] Mr.
Wolfowitz
is quoted as saying that Syria is a problem that needs to be dealt
with. At the
third time of asking, can the Prime Minister give the only commitment
that he
can give under these circumstances: United Kingdom forces will not
participate
in an attack against Syria?
Prime
Minister Tony Blair: There
are no
plans to invade Syria, so it stands to reason that we do not intend to
invade
Syria. When one looks at the statements that are supposed to come out
of
various parts of the [U.S.] Administration and one analyses their
context, one
finds that the context is the concern, which is why I spoke to the
President of
Syria: it is that Syria may be acting in a way, first, to support Iraqi
forces,
and, most latterly, to give refuge to members of the Iraqi regime. That
is the
problem with which we are trying to deal. It is being dealt with by my
conversations with the President [of Syria], and by the Americans and
us making
it clear what is acceptable or unacceptable. I suspect that this is
another
conspiracy theory that in time will fade away, but I have no doubt that
it will
be replaced swiftly by a fresh one.
Tony
Lloyd (Labour Party):
The Prime
Minister deserves the support of the whole
House [of Parliament] in the tone that he has set on the need to build
co-operation and on a new spirit with the other permanent members of
the [United Nations]
Security Council—France, Russia and China. If we are to get
back to the tasks
of the war on terrorism and the building of the Middle East peace
process, that
co-operation will be important much further afield. […]
In that context,
does my right hon. Friend recognise that the loud and strident voices
in
Washington on the question of Syria lead precisely to the suspicions
that have
been raised in the House [of Parliament] today? Will he pass on to
Washington
the words of [European Union's High Representative for Common Foreign
and
Security Policy] Javier Solana that perhaps now is the time for a
rather
quieter period from Washington?
Prime
Minister Tony Blair: To
be fair,
often people give the answers when they are asked the questions and
that is one
of the things that happens when there are constant debates and
discussions. I
think that the concerns that people have expressed about Syria are very
clear
and policy has not changed at all in relation to that.
There has been a particular concern because of reports that senior
[Iraqi]
regime figures were taking refuge in Syria. However, the worries about
Syria's
support for terrorist activity in connection with the Israel-Palestine
issue
are well known and have been there for a long time. I can only repeat
what I
said earlier. When my hon. Friend reads the context in which the
remarks were
made, he will find them a lot less alarming. […]
Andrew
Tyrie (Conservative
Party):
Three times the
Prime Minister has been asked about
Syria, in response to which he has said that there are no plans to
deploy force
against Syria. The trouble is that that phrase has been used by the
Prime
Minister and many others in other contexts just before they have done
exactly
the opposite—for example, the Prime Minister said, "I have no
plans to
raise taxes at all." Can the Prime Minister find more forceful language
to
allay the concerns of the conspiracy theorists?
Prime
Minister Tony Blair: Let
us not get
into manifesto commitments on tax, which were very clear. I think that
I have
made the position clear enough. If people continue to raise that issue,
it can
only be because they are not listening to the very clear answer that is
being
given. I have given that answer throughout our proceedings today and
give it
again now: we have absolutely no plans whatsoever to invade Syria. I
cannot put
it any clearer than that. It is clear enough, I think, for most people.
What is
important is to recognise that no one on the other side of the water,
so far as
I am concerned, has said that there are such plans. We are in a
situation in
which I am asked about the latest conspiracy theory. Once it has been
laid to
rest, I have no doubt that will be replaced by the next one, as I said.
Richard
Burden (Labour Party):
May I say to
my right hon. Friend that I have listened to what he said and have no
reason to
doubt his sincerity in relation to Syria? However, many of us are
deeply
troubled by some statements on Syria that have been made by sources
around the
Pentagon, and sometimes by people in the Pentagon itself and the White
House.
If we are to win Syria's co-operation for a Middle East peace and its
confidence in becoming a full member of that part of the world, would
not it be
better for the United States to be a bit more unambiguous and to
acknowledge to
Syria that we have some concern about the fact that parts of its
territory have
been occupied illegally since 1967?
Prime
Minister Tony Blair: The
best way to
resolve that is through a reinvigorated Middle East peace process that
deals
with the Syrian track as well. I have engaged in a dialogue with Syria
and its
President over the past few months precisely to try, through
partnership, to
deal with the issues of concern in respect of Syria. I hope and believe
that we
can deal with them in that way. After the debate
about whether Syria is harbouring [Iraqi] regime figures—to
be fair, the
president [of Syria] has made it clear that it is not—and
when we get the Middle
East peace process back under way, it will be important for Syria and
other
countries in the region to stop any support for terrorist groups whose
aim is
to disrupt the very peace process that everyone wants. […]
Mark
Simmonds (Conservative
Party):
I have listened
carefully to the Prime Minister's
chosen and considered words in response to questions about Syria. I
should like
him to assure the House [of Parliament] that not only will there be no
invasion, but there will be no air strikes and no military incursions
into
Syria without United Nations resolutions under chapter VII.
Prime
Minister Tony Blair: I
really do not
think that I can make the situation any clearer. If the hon. Gentleman
reads my
words he will see that they provide all the clarity that anyone could
possibly wish for.
______________________________
Notes:
[1] White
House Escalates Diplomatic Pressure on
Syria
Action Comes as U.S. Suspects Syria of
Developing Chemical Weapons
by Dana Milbank, Washington
Post, 14 April 2003
[2]
US
Turns Fierce
Diplomatic Fire on Iran and Syria over WMD, Terrorism
Disarmament
Diplomacy, No. 71, June/July 2003
[3]
Secretary
Rumsfeld Media Availability with Kuwaiti Foreign Minister Sabah
Al-Ahmed
Al-Sabah
U.S.
Department of
Defense website, 14 April 2003
[4]
Bush
vetoes
Syria war plan
by
Julian Borger, Michael
White, Ewen MacAskill and Nicholas
Watt, The Guardian, 15 April 2003
______________________________
Related
propaganda alert:
Flashback
to 1991: "Kuwait freed, Iraqis crushed"
by Cem Ertür, Indybay, 28 February 2014
______________________________