The United States is deeply concerned by reports that hundreds of Syrian civilians have been killed in an attack by Syrian government forces, including by the use of chemical weapons, near Damascus earlier today. We are working urgently to gather additional information.

The United States strongly condemns any and all use of chemical weapons. Those responsible for the use of chemical weapons must be held accountable. Today, we are formally requesting that the United Nations urgently investigate this new allegation. The UN investigative team, which is currently in Syria, is prepared to do so, and that is consistent with its purpose and mandate. For the UN’s efforts to be credible, they must have immediate access to witnesses and affected individuals, and have the ability to examine and collect physical evidence without any interference or manipulation from the Syrian government. If the Syrian government has nothing to hide and is truly committed to an impartial and credible investigation of chemical weapons use in Syria, it will facilitate the UN team’s immediate and unfettered access to this site. We have also called for urgent consultations in the UN Security Council to discuss these allegations and to call for the Syrian government to provide immediate access to the UN investigative team. The United States urges all Syrian parties including the government and opposition, to provide immediate access to any and all sites of importance to the investigation and to ensure security for the UN investigative team.

-------------------------------------

On a same day August 21st, 2013, Saudi Arabia also requested for UN Security Council meeting after gas attack in Syria in order to discuss reports of a chemical attack that opposition groups say killed hundreds of people in Syria, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said.

"It is time for the Security Council to shoulder its responsibility and overcome differences between its members and restore the confidence of the international community by convening immediately to issue a clear and deterrent resolution that will put an end to this human crisis," Prince Saud said in a statement which was reported by World Bulletin News dated August 21st, 2013.

The deepest fear using chemical to killing people which the following youtube showing many were attacked by chemical and dead from children to the adults.

On 21 August, Syrian activists reported that Assad forces struck Jobar, Zamalka, 'Ain Tirma, and Hazzah in the Eastern Ghouta region with chemical weapons. At least 635 people were killed in a nerve gas attack. Unverified videos uploaded showed the victims, many of who were convulsing, as well as several dozen bodies lined up. Early sources reported a figure of 213 in a poisonous gas attack. The SNC chief said that the overall death toll stood at an estimated 1300, as only a fraction of the bodies could be collected and many died within their own homes.

At the same time, the Syrian government blocked UN investigators from leaving the hotel they were staying in. The attack raises new concerns that President Obama so-called "red line" in Syria has been crossed, violated and effectively ignored.

The following map shows that the current military situation in Syria as of June 28th, 2013 (click to view bigger view).

The United States is appalled as soon as the reports of bloodshed and widespread civilian killings in Syria and senior administration officials have been in touch with their counterparts around the world to coordinate with their response.

According to the White House, The images of that we've seen are nothing short of horrifying meanwhile, US discussed and had some consultation at the United Nations Security Council and U.N. chemical weapons investigative team is on the ground in Syria right now, although Assad regime denies responsibility for the use of these chemical weapons.

United States of America (USA) recommends that The easiest way for them to demonstrate that they are on the side of the international community in opposition to the use of chemical weapons is to allow this which the U.N. team will be able to have the full access to the site to try to get to the bottom of what happened.

CNN, reported, August 23rd, 2013 CNN interviewed with President Barack Obama asserted in an exclusive interview with CNN that aired Friday for "New Day" anchor Chris Cuomo and reported that President Obama defended his administration's decision to not intervene militarily in the conflict so far, but predicted that American focus on the country's strife would be necessary for the fighting to come to an end.

"I think it is fair to say that, as difficult as the problem is, this is something that is going to require America's attention and hopefully the entire international community's attention," Obama said.

His remarks came the same week rebels in Syria alleged Syrian President Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons in an attack on rebels. The assault killed more than a thousand people, the rebels claimed.

Obama said the United States, along with United Nations inspectors, were gathering information on the attack, but that preliminary signs point to a "big event of grave concern."

"It is very troublesome," he said. "That starts getting to some core national interests that the United States has, both in terms of us making sure that weapons of mass destruction are not proliferating, as well as needing to protect our allies, our bases in the region.".

A year ago, Obama laid out his barometer for greater action in Syria during a White House press conference. He said in August 2012 that "a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized."

"That would change my calculus," Obama said at the time. "That would change my equation.

President Obama Administration continues to monitor the critical situation of Middle East and his priorities straight what is an increasingly tragic and bloodshed situation in Syria and work with UN which has been discussed.

According to UN dated August 23rd, 2013.

Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki Moon
Use of chemical weapons in Syria would be
‘crime against humanity’

23 August 2013 – The use of any chemical weapons in Syria would amount to a “crime against humanity” and there would be “serious consequences” for the perpetrators, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said today, while urging an immediate investigation on this matter. “Any use of chemical weapons anywhere, by anybody, under any circumstances, would violate international law,” Mr. Ban said ahead of a meeting in Seoul, Republic of Korea (ROK) on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). “Such a crime against humanity should result in serious consequences for the perpetrator. Once again, I call for an immediate investigation of this latest incident.” A UN team is currently in Syria spending up to 14 days, with a possible extension, probing the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Government at Khan al-Asal, as well as two other allegations reported by Member States. Yesterday, Mr. Ban called on the Syrian Government to extend its full cooperation so that the team, led by Swedish scientist Åke Sellström, can swiftly investigate the incident, which occurred on the morning of 21 August. Mr. Ban has also instructed the High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, Angela Kane, to travel to Damascus. “I can think of no good reason why any party – either Government or opposition forces – would decline this opportunity to get to the truth of the matter,” Mr. Ban said. Since fighting began in March 2011 between the Syrian Government and opposition groups seeking to oust President Bashar Al-Assad as many as 100,000 people have been killed, almost 2 million have fled to neighbouring countries and a further 4 million have been internally displaced. In addition, at least 6.8 million Syrian require urgent humanitarian assistance, half of whom are children. Mr. Ban stressed that “there is no time to waste” given the alarming humanitarian situation, and repeated his call to all parties to come to the negotiating table. “The time has clearly come for the parties to stop shooting, and start talking. I am determined to do everything I can to assist the victims and move towards a political solution. That is the only way this crisis will be resolved.” He added that while a political situation emerges, UN agencies would continue to provide assistance to millions of people inside and outside Syria who are in urgent need. “Our challenge remains: achieving a complete cessation of hostilities, delivering humanitarian assistance and getting the Government and the opposition to the negotiating table in Geneva as soon as possible,” he said. Meanwhile, the Joint Special Representative of the UN and League of Arab States for Syria Lakhdar Brahimi said planning for the so-called “Geneva II” conference is still underway, with the conference tentatively taking place in September. In June, discussions about the international meeting were held in Geneva with participation from senior United States, Russian and UN officials, led by Mr. Brahimi. The goal of the conference would to be to achieve a political solution to the conflict in Syria through a comprehensive agreement between the Government and the opposition for the full implementation of the Geneva communiqué of 30 June 2012. Issued after a meeting of the Action Group for Syria, the document lays out key steps in a process to end the violence. In an interview with UNTV, Mr. Brahimi underscored the need to convene the conference, warning that Syria has become “without any doubt, the biggest threat to peace and security in the world today.” “What has happened, this story, this allegation, that chemical weapons have been used a few kilometres from the heart of Damascus as a matter of fact emphasizes the importance of this crisis and the danger it represents, not only for the Syrian people, not only for the region, but for the world,” he said. --------------------- Meanwhile, U.S. Defense Department Has Options for President Obama on Syria. reported by Cheryl Pellerin American Forces Press Service dated, August 23rd, 2013. ABOARD A MILITARY AIRCRAFT, Aug. 23, 2013 – Shortly after takeoff on the first leg of his second official trip to the Asia-Pacific region, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel joined a video teleconference with President Barack Obama’s senior national security advisors that focused on the deadly situation in Syria. In the latest tragedy in the stricken nation, more than 1,000 men, women and children died in what may have been a chemical weapons attack on its own citizens by the government of President Bashar Assad. The United Nations and others are investigating the attacks. After leaving Hawaii, the first stop on his trip, Hagel spoke today with reporters who are traveling with him to Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei and the Philippines. “The president has asked the Defense Department for options. {As] always, the department is prepared, has been prepared, to provide ranges for all contingencies for the president of the United States, and we’ll continue to do that,” Hagel said. “We’re dealing with a very serious issue,” the secretary added. “We are working with our international partners, the international community [and] the United Nations. We are looking at every option.” Referring to an interview that Obama gave Chris Cuomo on CNN about Syria, Hagel said the president framed the situation there “exactly right” when he said the United States must be part of the international community in its response to the actions in Syria. As the president noted, the secretary said, the United States must consider its long-term objectives, its long-term interests, and its objectives for influence and outcomes in deciding upon any response. “The Defense Department has a responsibility to provide the president with options for all contingencies, and that requires positioning our forces [and] positioning our assets to be able to carry out whatever options the president might choose,” Hagel said. “On the specific option of military use or force in response to what we will determine at some point here very shortly what did happen, and we’re still assessing that,” he added. “I think the range of military options is always part of the range of options the president has.” Hagel said he thinks the international community is moving quickly to get the facts and the intelligence right about what happened in Syria so a decision can be made swiftly about how to respond. “If, in fact, this was a deliberate use and attack by the Syrian government on its own people using chemical weapons, there may be another attack coming,” he said. “A very quick assessment of what happened and whatever appropriate response should be made.”. August 28th, 2013 - President Obama: 'I Have Not Made a Decision' on Syria President Barack Obama said that he didn't make his decision yet in regarding a U.S. strike on Syria during an interview with PBS NewsHour senior correspondents Judy Woodruff and Gwen Ifill. The president said that Syrian president Bashar al-Assad's regime alleged use of chemical weapons would factor may change into his calculation and President Obama warned that the Syrian president Bashar al-Assad should be held accountable. Meanwhile, ABC news reports that British Prime Minister David Cameron faces off with Labor Party members opposed to military action in Syria. According to the White House Press, Press Briefing by Principal Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest, dated 8/29/2013, The President today conducted a phone call with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. This is part of the series of communications that the President has initiated around the situation in Syria. The President has called a number of other allies in Europe and some of US partners in the region, and that international consultation is ongoing and will continue in the days ahead. Congress is getting briefed early this evening by a series of administration officials on the unclassified intelligence reports on Syria which the President believes it's important to consult with Congress.

The White House Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release August 29, 2013 Readout of Briefing for Congressional Leaders on the Assad Regime’s Use of Chemical Weapons in Syria Following on the President’s calls with House and Senate leaders over the last day, and building on extensive Cabinet Member outreach to Congress over the past week, this evening Senior Administration Officials held an unclassified phone call with congressional leaders and the Chairs and Ranking Members of national security committees to brief them on the Administration’s thinking and seek their input on the U.S. response to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons near Damascus on August 21. The views of Congress are important to the President’s decision-making process, and we will continue to engage with Members as the President reaches a decision on the appropriate U.S. response to the Syrian government’s violation of international norms against the use of chemical weapons. Senior Administration Officials participating in tonight’s call included National Security Advisor Susan Rice, Secretary of State John Kerry, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Sandy Winnefeld. The call lasted 90 minutes and 15 Members asked questions of the assembled Administration Officials. Members of Congress participating in the briefing included: Speaker John Boehner, R-OH Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-CA Senator Dick Durbin, D-IL, Assistant Majority Leader and Chairman, Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense Senator John Cornyn, R-TX, Republican Whip Representative Eric Cantor, R-VA, Majority Leader Representative Kevin McCarthy, R-CA, Majority Whip Representative Steny Hoyer, D-MD, Democratic Whip Senator Charles Schumer, D-NY, Democratic Conference Committee Vice Chair Senator Barbara Mikulski, D-MD, Chair, Appropriations Committee Senator Carl Levin, D-MI, Chairman, Armed Services Committee Senator Robert Menendez, D-NJ, Chairman, Foreign Relations Committee Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-CA, Chair, Select Committee on Intelligence Senator James Inhofe, R-OK, Ranking Member, Armed Services Committee Senator Bob Corker, R-TN, Ranking Member, Foreign Relations Committee Senator Saxby Chambliss, R-GA, Ranking Member, Select Committee on Intelligence Senator Patrick Leahy, D-VT, Chairman, Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Senator Lindsey Graham, R-SC, Ranking Member, Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Senator Thad Cochran, R-MS, Ranking Member, Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense Representative Bill Young, R-FL, Chairman, Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense Representative Ed Royce, R-CA, Chairman, Foreign Affairs Committee Representative Mike Rogers, R-MI, Chairman, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Representative Nita Lowey, D-NY, Ranking Member Appropriations Committee and Ranking Member, Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Representative Buck McKeon, R-CA, Chairman, Armed Services Committee Representative Eliot Engel, D-NY, Ranking Member, Foreign Affairs Committee Representative Dutch Ruppersberger, D-MD, Ranking Member, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Representative Kay Granger, R-TX, Chair, Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs.

Syria is officially the Syrian Arab Republic, is a country in Western Asia, bordering Lebanon and the Mediterranean Sea to the West, Turkey to the north, Iraq to the east, Jordan to the south and Israel to the southwest. A country of fertile plains, high mountains and deserts, it is home to diverse ethnic and religious groups, including Kurds, Armenians, Assyrians, Turks, Christians, Druze, Alawite Shias and Arab Sunnis. The latter make up the majority of the population. The historical role that Damascus played as an important trade center has changed in recent years due to political development in the region as well as the development of modern trade. Most goods produced in Damascus, as well as in Syria, are distributed to Countries of the Arabian peninsula. Damascus also holds an annual international trade exposition in the fall since 1955. Damascus has the potential for a highly successful tourism industry. The abundance of cultural wealth in Damascus has been modestly employed since the late 1980s with the development of many accommodation and transportation establishments and other related investments. The Damascus stock exchange formally opened for trade in March 2009, and the exchange is the only stock exchanges in Syria. It is currently located in the Barzeh district, within Syria's financial markets and securities commission. Its final home is to be the upmarket business district of Yaafur. The walls and gates of Damascus Bab Tuma gate The Old City of Damascus with an approximate area of 128 hectares is surrounded by ramparts on the northern and eastern sides and part of the southern side. There are seven extant city gates, the oldest of which dates back to the Roman period. These are, clockwise from the north of the citadel: Bab al-Faradis ("the gate of the orchards", or "of the paradise") Bab al-Salam ("the gate of peace"), all on the north boundary of the Old City Bab Tuma ("Touma" or "Thomas's Gate") in the north-east corner, leading into the Christian quarter of the same name, Bab Sharqi ("eastern gate") in the east wall, the only one to retain its Roman plan Bab Kisan in the south-east, from which tradition holds that Saint Paul made his escape from Damascus, lowered from the ramparts in a basket; this gate has been closed and turned into Saint Paul Chapel marking this event, Bab al-Saghir (The Small Gate) Bab al-Jabiya at the entrance to Souk Midhat Pasha, in the south-west. As of April 28, 2013, Alkosair and tallkalakh controlled 100% by the government forces The rebels didn't reach the sea The Kurds controlled about 90% of alhasaka district. The following map is as of July 29, 2013: (you may click to view for a bigger map)

Syria is officially the Syrian Arab Republic, is a country in Western Asia, bordering Lebanon and the Mediterranean Sea to the West, Turkey to the north, Iraq to the east, Jordan to the south and Israel to the southwest. Syria is divided into 14 governorates, which are sub-divided into 61 districts, which are further divided into sub-districts.

According to White House report dated August 30th, 2013, President Obama hosted Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves, Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite, and Latvian President Andris Berzinš for a meeting at the White House.

During the visit on August 30th, 2013, President Obama stated about the critical chemical situation of Syria while the Baltic Leaders meeting underscored the close ties between the United States and the Baltic states, which are grounded in our shared values, ideals, and interests. The leaders highlighted ongoing cooperation on issues including defense and security, trade and investment, energy and the environment, and global development.

The White House Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release August 30, 2013

Remarks by President Obama and the Presidents of Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia 2:22 P.M. EDT PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, obviously, I’m very grateful to have my fellow Presidents here, as well as the Vice President. Before I begin, I want to say a few words about the situation in Syria. As you’ve seen, today we’ve released our unclassified assessment detailing with high confidence that the Syrian regime carried out a chemical weapons attack that killed well over 1,000 people, including hundreds of children. This follows the horrific images that shocked us all. This kind of attack is a challenge to the world. We cannot accept a world where women and children and innocent civilians are gassed on a terrible scale. This kind of attack threatens our national security interests by violating well-established international norms against the use of chemical weapons by further threatening friends and allies of ours in the region, like Israel and Turkey and Jordan. And it increases the risk that chemical weapons will be used in the future and fall into the hands of terrorists who might use them against us. So I have said before and I meant what I said, that the world has an obligation to make sure that we maintain the norm against the use of chemical weapons. Now, I have not made a final decision about various actions that might be taken to help enforce that norm. But as I’ve already said, I have had my military and our team look at a wide range of options. We have consulted with allies. We’ve consulted with Congress. We’ve been in conversations with all the interested parties. And in no event are we considering any kind of military action that would involve boots on the ground; that would involve a long-term campaign. But we are looking at the possibility of a limited, narrow act that would help make sure that not only Syria, but others around the world, understand that the international community cares about maintaining this chemical weapons ban and norm. Again, I repeat, we’re not considering any open-ended commitment. We’re not considering any boots-on-the-ground approach. What we will do is consider options that meet the narrow concern around chemical weapons, understanding that there’s not going to be a solely military solution to the underlying conflict and tragedy that’s taking place in Syria. And I will continue to consult closely with Congress. In addition to the release of the unclassified document, we are providing a classified briefing to congressional staff today, and we’ll offer that same classified briefing to members of Congress as well as our international partners. And I will continue to provide updates to the American people as we get more information. With that, I want to welcome President Ilves, President Grybauskaite, and President Berzinš to the White House. These countries that they represent all share very deep ties to the United States, both as allies and because of the extraordinary people-to-people relations that we have with these countries. I want to thank all the Presidents who are here, and their nations, for all that they do to promote democracy not only in their own countries but around the world. The Baltics are among our most reliable allies in NATO, and our commitment to their security is rock-solid. Our soldiers sacrifice together in Afghanistan, and the Baltics, of course, continue to help support our troops as we transition the NATO mission. Today we’re going to spend some time talking about shared commitments to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership negotiations, which will add jobs in the Baltics and the United States. We’re working on development assistance projects, including building institutions and strengthening civil society in the emerging democracies of Eastern Europe and Central Asia. We will obviously have discussions about our NATO relationship and the security concerns that we share together. So, again, I’ve had occasions to meet with all three Presidents in a wide variety of settings and wide variety of summits. They have been outstanding friends to the United States of America. We are very proud of them. And I want to thank each of them for their leadership. We know how far Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have come in just the past two decades, and I know that we’ll accomplish even more in the decades to come. So with that, I want to give each of these leaders a chance to say a few words. We’re going to start with President Ilves. PRESIDENT ILVES: Thank you. I’d actually like to begin by thanking President Obama for inviting us here, and we are quite grateful to the United States and to you personally for your leadership, commitment and support. The main issue on our agenda today is global and regional security, and the question, of course, on everyone’s mind is the situation in Syria. For Estonia, the use of chemical weapons is deplorable. The attack demands a response. Those responsible must be held accountable. Violations cannot be overlooked. When it comes to our security, we appreciate the commitment that the United States has shown to our region and Europe as a whole, and we attach great importance to continued U.S. engagement in European security. The transatlantic security link is unique and enduring as are the common values that underpin it. As a NATO ally, Estonia takes its responsibility for our common defense seriously. We are currently and will maintain committed to NATO’s mission in Afghanistan. We spend 2 percent of our GDP on defense. We also believe in maintaining a strong transatlantic link in other areas, such as trade, cyber and energy security. I look forward to exchanging views on all of these issues, as I also look forward to discussing what we can do together internationally to promote our common values: democracy, human rights, rule of law. We already cooperate in countries that lie to the east and the south of us -- Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia, and Tunisia, as well, just to name a few. I am sure that this global cooperation aimed at helping countries transition from authoritarian to democratic rule will be expanded in the future. Recently, we’ve heard a lot of talk about pivots. Today we are on the verge of a new rebalancing of the U.S. focus, this time to the Nordic-Baltic region. Our region is one of the most secure, stable, and prosperous in Europe. We are proud to be part of it. We are proud of the partnership we have with the United States here, just as we are proud of our alliance and the enduring friendship of the American people. PRESIDENT OBAMA: Madam President. PRESIDENT GRYBAUSKAITÈ: So adding in line, I would like to emphasize that to go with the matter of security in the region, we are talking about economic security in the region. And here, especially on energy security, the United States plays a very serious role. We opened in our region already, in Vilnius, the NATO Center of Excellence for Energy Security, and bilaterally with the United States, the Center for Nuclear Security. And this is important because we are on the borders of NATO with some other not-so-secure regions, and why this involvement of the United States is so important for all of our region. And of course, as a country which presides today the European Union’s Council, we are engaged very much in starting negotiations on the free trade agreement between the United States and European Union. And I’m very happy that we got one meeting, and now we were thinking October for a second one. And I think that it is a generational challenge and opportunity for all of us -- for United States and Europe -- to move fast these kinds of relations and to have very efficient and resultative outcome. And I hope that we will be able to do it fast. So together with the military new challenges, we are trying to battle new economic challenges together with the cyber challenges, which our region all the time receives and receives. And I want to say that every day, every day practically we see this aggressiveness and new forms of challenges our region is facing, so why I just can also confirm that Baltic and Nordic cooperation is a new phenomena -- I would say unique phenomena in Europe, which is very much reliable and you can find from us as being -- we are strategic partners for the United States. PRESIDENT OBAMA: Mr. President. PRESIDENT BERZINŠ: This week is important for American people, 50th anniversary of March on Washington. As I say, for us, this is 15 years over when Baltic-American Charter was signed. This is the right moment to review and to move forward. For us, we are thankful to you giving your presidential time to the determined goals of the Baltic nation -- U.S.-led military exercise in Baltics strengthen Nordic -- the distribution network to Afghanistan. British-American Freedom Fund, which helps Baltic students to study in American universities. Of course, we see -- together, at the same time being very active in Europe -- we will become members of eurozone on the 1st of January. We are actually working at the same time to become members of OECD. And of course, our focus is to look for new possibilities in Europe using our past experience. We are focusing to Central Asia countries and also to Eastern Partnership countries. And this is particularly important in relations to Afghanistan and to develop this country in a peaceful manner. Latvia has past crisis, but at the same time, we have to do much, much more. And having this really good NATO support and such partners as U.S., we can move forward. And it’s clear that today’s meeting is a reason and demonstration of the stable, long-term interest of the United States and Baltics. And we are proud, free, and at peace. Thank you. PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you so much. Q Mr. President, is your decision on Syria imminent? And why did you feel like it's appropriate to move forward without formal authorization from either the United Nations or Congress, particularly given that the British Parliament had an opportunity to vote? PRESIDENT OBAMA: We are still in the planning process. And obviously, consultations with Congress as well as the international community are very important. And my preference obviously would have been that the international community already acted forcefully. But what we have seen, so far at least, is a incapacity at this point for the Security Council to move forward in the face of a clear violation of international norms. And I recognize that all of us -- here in the United States, in Great Britain, in many parts of the world there is a certain weariness given Afghanistan; there's a certain suspicion of any military action post-Iraq. And I very much appreciate that. On the other hand, it's important for us to recognize that when over a thousand people are killed, including hundreds of innocent children, through the use of a weapon that 98 or 99 percent of humanity says should not be used even in war, and there is no action, then we're sending a signal that that international norm doesn't mean much. And that is a danger to our national security. And, obviously, if and when we make a decision to respond, there are a whole host of considerations that I have to take into account, too, in terms of how effective it is. And given the kind of options that we're looking at, they would be very limited and would not involve a long-term commitment or a major operation. We are confident that we can provide Congress all the information and get all the input that they need, and we're very mindful of that. And we can have serious conversations with our allies and our friends around the world about this. But, ultimately, we don't want the world to be paralyzed. And, frankly, part of the challenge that we end up with here is that a lot of people think something should be done, but nobody wants to do it. And that's not an unusual situation. And that's part of what allows over time the erosion of these kinds of international prohibitions, unless somebody says: No, when the world says we're not going to use chemical weapons, we mean it. And it would be tempting to leave it to others to do it. And I think I've shown consistently and said consistently my strong preference for multilateral action whenever possible. But it is not in the national security interests of the United States to ignore clear violations of these kinds of international norms. And the reason is because there are a whole host of international norms out there that are very important to us. We have currently rules in place dealing with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We have international norms that have been violated by certain countries, and the United Nations has put sanctions in place. But if there's a sense that over time nobody is willing to actually enforce them, then people won't take them seriously. So I'm very clear that the world generally is war-weary. Certainly, the United States has gone through over a decade of war. The American people, understandably, want us to be focused on the business of rebuilding our economy here and putting people back to work. And I assure you, nobody ends up being more war-weary than me. But what I also believe is that part of our obligation as a leader in the world is making sure that when you have a regime that is willing to use weapons that are prohibited by international norms on their own people, including children, that they are held to account. END 2:40 P.M. EDT

Meanwhile, according to CNN, dated August 30th, 2013, reported that President Obama considers that No boots on the ground in Syria yet. The President Comments on the ongoing situation in Syria, saying any operation would be a "limited, narrow attack."

CNN reported that Obama told reporters he had yet to make a final decision, but hinted at a military strike that sources and experts say would entail cruise missiles fired from U.S. Navy ships at Syrian command targets -- but not at any chemical weapons stockpiles.

"It is not in the national security interests of the United States to ignore clear violations" of what he called an "international norm" banning the use of chemical weapons, Obama said at a meeting with visiting heads of Baltic nations Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.

He called the Syrian attack a "challenge to the world" that threatens U.S. allies Israel, Turkey and Jordan while increasing the risk of such weapons falling into the hands of terrorists.

President Bashar al-Assad's government has claimed that jihadists fighting with the rebels carried out the chemical weapons attacks on August 21 to turn global sentiments against it, a claim dismissed by Obama and others who say there is no evidence to support that claim. see more detail contents and more news videos via CNN.

In the meantime, 30 August 2013 – United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon started consultations with UN Member States as chemical weapons team wraps up probe

30 August 2013 – As the situation in Syria continues to rapidly evolve, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon cut short an official visit in Europe to return to the world body’s New York Headquarters for a series of consultations with Member States today, while UN inspectors are wrapping up their initial investigation into the possible use of chemical weapons in the war-torn country.

UN Spokesperson Martin Nesirky told reporters that Mr. Ban returned to New York last night “with precisely with the aim of reaching out to Member States and he started that…just a short while ago with the permanent members of the Security Council,” China, France, Russia the United Kingdom and the United States.

Meanwhile, the inspection team led by Swedish scientist Dr. Åke Sellström today visited a military government hospital in Damascus. Since arriving in Syria on 18 August, the team has visited the affected sites, as well as field hospitals, interviewed victims and doctors, and collected biomedical samples. The sites visited include the location of an alleged 21 August attack in the Ghouta area outside Damascus, where more than 300 civilians were reportedly killed.

“They are now packing up, they will be leaving Damascus and leaving Syria tomorrow,” Mr. Nesirky told reporters. The team is heading to The Hague, the headquarters of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapon (OPCW), which is assisting the probe, along with the UN World Health Organization (WHO).

The samples will be taken for analysis in designated laboratories in Europe. While the spokesperson did not specify which laboratories, he did note that none are located in countries represented by the permanent Security Council members.

“Dr. Sellstrom’s team is doing its utmost to expedite the process of analysis, but while keeping this in mind, they also have to keep in mind something else which is the need for rigorous attention to maintaining the integrity of the process, in other words, the scientific side of this process,” Mr. Nesirky stressed.

Dr. Sellström, as the team leader, will remain in Europe to oversee the analysis. He will also be in close contact with Mr. Ban to brief him on the progress.

“We have to be very clear here that before the mission can draw any conclusions about this incident, the evaluation of all available information including the laboratory analysis of all samples must be completed,” Mr. Nesirky stressed.

He added that the mission “will proceed to complete its fact-finding activities of all pending, credible allegations” and would return to investigate the three initial incidents.

Once analysis of the samples is completed, a report will be given to Mr. Ban who will share the results with all Member States, and the Security Council.

Responding to questions, Mr. Nesirky said that as of now, there was no timeline on when that final report would be completed and passed on to the Secretary-General. “The focus is on completing that analysis of the event from the 21st of August, and everybody concerned, including the Syrian authorities, agreed that his should be a priority,” he said reiterating that the team would return to Syria to complete its inspection of other sites.

Mr. Ban is due to meet tomorrow in New York with UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs Angela Kane, who had been in Damascus meeting with the Syrian Government to facilitate access for the team of inspectors. She is expected to brief the UN chief on the work of the mission and the way ahead.

Meanwhile, As tensions continue to ratchet up regarding the crisis in Syria, United Nations agencies today reiterated their commitment to continue providing emergency relief for Syrians inside the country, as well as for displaced persons, despite facing various security challenges. In a briefing to reporters in Geneva, officials from the World Food Programme (WFP), the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), World Health Organization (WHO) and UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) all said they would continue to carry out their operations and deliver basic supplies and services to those affected by the conflict.

UN reported that there are currently some 1,000 UN national and international staff inside Syria.

Since fighting began in March 2011 between the Syrian Government and opposition groups seeking to oust President Bashar Al-Assad as many as 100,000 people have been killed, almost 2 million have fled to neighbouring countries and a further 4 million have been internally displaced. In addition, at least 6.8 million Syrian require urgent humanitarian assistance, half of whom are children.

----

August 31st 2013
President Obama will address the situation in Syria from the White House at 1:15 PM today. If US is ready for the Critical Chemical Situation to support for Syria, Defense budget is going to needs up scale and more budget to be distributed than what they have already cut so much....

There are some options that President Obama may have to take....

According to CNN dated, August 31st, 2013, by Tom Foreman:
Washington (CNN) -- As more than one pundit has noted, President Barack Obama now has three choices in Syria: Bad, worse, and horrible. At least the evidence is steadily stacking up to suggest that is the case.

Last year, Obama made it clear that the United States would take action if Syria crossed "a red line" by using chemical weapons in its civil war. And there's evidence that it has.

What's not clear is what kind of action the United States will or should take.

Some of the players in that troubled country's civil war are more unsavory than others, but there appears to be no clear or reliable "good side" behind which the president might deploy U.S. military might at this moment.

Indeed, military, political, and diplomatic analysts widely agree that every potentially positive move on the table is freighted with negative side effects.

"I think there are no good options in Syria," says retired Army Gen. James "Spider" Marks, a CNN contributor. "There is an array of bad options and you have to take the least bad option that is out there."

So let's break down those options, including some that have already come and gone in this tortured march toward a possible military engagement:

Option 1: Ground troops

The White House called this a non-starter from the get go. You don't have to be a political scientist to know that American voters are exhausted by more than a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and would show little or no tolerance for more boots on the ground in the Middle East.

Furl the flag, lieutenant; no one is going anywhere tonight.

What do Syria's neighbors think?

Option 2: Establishing a no-fly zone

Yes, it might work, but the administration has shown little taste for that, either. Maintaining such a presence over the months it might take to have an impact would be hideously expensive, and would involve endangering U.S. pilots with highly uncertain results in a battle that many Americans find confusing at best, baffling at worst.

Option 3: Arming the rebels

This is a monkey trap in which the United States has been snared before.

Some brave rebel group proclaiming its love of freedom and democracy arises to oppose a distant tyrant. America rewards the rhetoric with training, missiles and munitions. The coup is accomplished and suddenly, to paraphrase Woody Allen, the oppressed start looking a lot like the oppressors and they no longer return your phone calls.

In Syria it is even more complicated.

As the civil war has droned on against President Bashar al-Assad, interlopers affiliated with terrorist groups have become big-leaguers.

"Al Qaeda's affiliate in Syria, Jabhat al-Nusra, is generally acknowledged to be the most effective force fighting," says CNN National Security Analyst Peter Bergen who adds, "Al-Nusra's military prowess and close ties to al Qaeda make it a potentially serious threat to U.S. interests in the region."

Bergen: Syria is a problem from hell for the U.S.

Syria watchers roundly agree that no other rebel group is currently positioned to take control of the country. In other words, if the United States pushes too hard or too fast to overthrow al-Assad (even though in the long run, American officials do want him gone) the U.S. risks helping terror groups take power.

And you know what they say about the devil you know...

Option 4: Securing United Nations' support

Not going to happen without some other major developments in Syria. Russia and China have left no doubt that they will oppose any effort at the U.N. to approve a strike, and other countries have hardly shown much appetite for the subject.

Why Russia, China, and Iran are standing by Syria

President Obama calls it an "incapacity" on the part of the U.N., but there is no sign that the name-calling will change anything.

Does the public care about U.N. support?

Option 5: Assembling a coalition without the U.N.

A week ago, newscasts were buzzing with speculation about a nascent coalition, perhaps born of NATO allies -- a daring group of nations ready to stand with the United States as it punished al-Assad.

Secretary of State John Kerry is ballyhooing support from the Arab League, Turkey, and France, saying "We are not alone in our will to do something."

One by one, however, names have slipped off of the list from this support group. And with the British Parliament now having rejected the idea of Britain's military getting involved, Obama is looking more and more like the lone commander charging the hill while his allies hunker down in the trenches.

Option 6: Firing missiles from warships in the Mediterranean

Yes, it is pretty much down to that now, and even that option is complicated.

Make no mistake: Cruise missiles are magnificent, virtually unstoppable weapons capable of pinpoint, devastating strikes. However, all the days of wrangling have given the Syrians an immense amount of time to hide their own weapons, secure their airplanes, and disperse critical command and control assets.

Should the Tomahawks start flying, they may well find themselves crashing down into an inordinate number of empty buildings, according to Gen. Marks -- or worse, into places packed with civilians.

What's more, Syria's allies such as Iran could respond to what would undoubtedly be called an act of war by stepping up aid to al-Assad, and he could emerge with a stronger military as a result.

At home the situation is not much better.

The White House has blitzed the airwaves and the Internet with official statements. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has declared the military ready to go. Secretary Kerry has described the lurid pictures of chemical attack victims, saying "All of them show and report victims with breathing difficulties, people twitching with spasms, coughing, rapid heartbeats, foaming at the mouth, unconsciousness, and death..."

President Obama himself sat down with PBS to explain the broader, regional implications of allowing Syria to use chemical weapons with impunity.

"This is a volatile country in a very volatile region. We've got allies bordering Syria. Turkey is a NATO ally, Jordan a close friend that we work with a lot. Israel is very close by. We've got bases throughout the region. We cannot see a breach of the nonproliferation norm that allows, potentially, chemical weapons to fall into the hands of all kinds of folks."

But none of it seems to have mattered much.

The president faces stiff opposition in Congress. Democrats, like Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger of Maryland, are saying that America "cannot be the lone sheriff of the whole world. The United States must be careful in how it proceeds and must act together with a coalition of countries."

Republicans, like Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, seem disturbed by the administration's lack of clarity on the mission and timetable. "The administration informed us that they have a 'broad range of options' for Syria," he says, "but failed to layout a single option."

As for the public, an NBC poll has found only half of Americans support any kind of military action against Syria, and 80% say it should happen only with congressional approval.

So we're back to where we started: The choices are dreadful and would be for any president, Democratic or Republican; the outcomes are wildly uncertain; and the consequences -- no matter which direction he turns -- are likely to be grave.

Against this backdrop of unspeakable acts and unfathomable causes and effects, perhaps it is small wonder that Obama keeps saying, "I have not made a final decision."

Although in the very act of doing that, he is committing to one choice not mentioned so far: Waiting.

Waiting to see if some new evidence, some new ally, some new intelligence clears the smoke over Syria and makes plain a way forward.

President Obama will address the situation in Syria from the White House at 1:15 PM today. If US is ready for the Critical Chemical Situation to support for Syria, Defense budget is going to be increased up and scale further and more budget to be distributed than what they have already cut so much ....for Protecting from the terrors, keeping peace around the world gloval peace security and even keeping homeland security...safe and strong.

According to the White House Press, Press Briefing by Principal Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest, dated 8/29/2013, The President today conducted a phone call with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. This is part of the series of communications that the President has initiated around the situation in Syria. The President has called a number of other allies in Europe and some of US partners in the region, and that international consultation is ongoing and will continue in the days ahead. Congress is getting briefed early this evening by a series of administration officials on the unclassified intelligence reports on Syria which the President believes it's important to consult with Congress.

For Immediate Release August 31, 2013

Statement by the President on Syria

Rose Garden

1:52 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon, everybody. Ten days ago, the world watched in horror as men, women and children were massacred in Syria in the worst chemical weapons attack of the 21st century. Yesterday the United States presented a powerful case that the Syrian government was responsible for this attack on its own people.

Our intelligence shows the Assad regime and its forces preparing to use chemical weapons, launching rockets in the highly populated suburbs of Damascus, and acknowledging that a chemical weapons attack took place. And all of this corroborates what the world can plainly see -- hospitals overflowing with victims; terrible images of the dead. All told, well over 1,000 people were murdered. Several hundred of them were children -- young girls and boys gassed to death by their own government.

This attack is an assault on human dignity. It also presents a serious danger to our national security. It risks making a mockery of the global prohibition on the use of chemical weapons. It endangers our friends and our partners along Syria’s borders, including Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq. It could lead to escalating use of chemical weapons, or their proliferation to terrorist groups who would do our people harm.

In a world with many dangers, this menace must be confronted.

Now, after careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets. This would not be an open-ended intervention. We would not put boots on the ground. Instead, our action would be designed to be limited in duration and scope. But I'm confident we can hold the Assad regime accountable for their use of chemical weapons, deter this kind of behavior, and degrade their capacity to carry it out.

Our military has positioned assets in the region. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has informed me that we are prepared to strike whenever we choose. Moreover, the Chairman has indicated to me that our capacity to execute this mission is not time-sensitive; it will be effective tomorrow, or next week, or one month from now. And I'm prepared to give that order.

But having made my decision as Commander-in-Chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I'm also mindful that I'm the President of the world's oldest constitutional democracy. I've long believed that our power is rooted not just in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And that’s why I've made a second decision: I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people's representatives in Congress.

Over the last several days, we've heard from members of Congress who want their voices to be heard. I absolutely agree. So this morning, I spoke with all four congressional leaders, and they've agreed to schedule a debate and then a vote as soon as Congress comes back into session.

In the coming days, my administration stands ready to provide every member with the information they need to understand what happened in Syria and why it has such profound implications for America's national security. And all of us should be accountable as we move forward, and that can only be accomplished with a vote.

I'm confident in the case our government has made without waiting for U.N. inspectors. I'm comfortable going forward without the approval of a United Nations Security Council that, so far, has been completely paralyzed and unwilling to hold Assad accountable. As a consequence, many people have advised against taking this decision to Congress, and undoubtedly, they were impacted by what we saw happen in the United Kingdom this week when the Parliament of our closest ally failed to pass a resolution with a similar goal, even as the Prime Minister supported taking action.

Yet, while I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective. We should have this debate, because the issues are too big for business as usual. And this morning, John Boehner, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell agreed that this is the right thing to do for our democracy.

A country faces few decisions as grave as using military force, even when that force is limited. I respect the views of those who call for caution, particularly as our country emerges from a time of war that I was elected in part to end. But if we really do want to turn away from taking appropriate action in the face of such an unspeakable outrage, then we must acknowledge the costs of doing nothing.

Here's my question for every member of Congress and every member of the global community: What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price? What's the purpose of the international system that we've built if a prohibition on the use of chemical weapons that has been agreed to by the governments of 98 percent of the world's people and approved overwhelmingly by the Congress of the United States is not enforced?

Make no mistake -- this has implications beyond chemical warfare. If we won't enforce accountability in the face of this heinous act, what does it say about our resolve to stand up to others who flout fundamental international rules? To governments who would choose to build nuclear arms? To terrorist who would spread biological weapons? To armies who carry out genocide?

We cannot raise our children in a world where we will not follow through on the things we say, the accords we sign, the values that define us.

So just as I will take this case to Congress, I will also deliver this message to the world. While the U.N. investigation has some time to report on its findings, we will insist that an atrocity committed with chemical weapons is not simply investigated, it must be confronted.

I don't expect every nation to agree with the decision we have made. Privately we’ve heard many expressions of support from our friends. But I will ask those who care about the writ of the international community to stand publicly behind our action.

And finally, let me say this to the American people: I know well that we are weary of war. We’ve ended one war in Iraq. We’re ending another in Afghanistan. And the American people have the good sense to know we cannot resolve the underlying conflict in Syria with our military. In that part of the world, there are ancient sectarian differences, and the hopes of the Arab Spring have unleashed forces of change that are going to take many years to resolve. And that's why we’re not contemplating putting our troops in the middle of someone else’s war.

Instead, we’ll continue to support the Syrian people through our pressure on the Assad regime, our commitment to the opposition, our care for the displaced, and our pursuit of a political resolution that achieves a government that respects the dignity of its people.

But we are the United States of America, and we cannot and must not turn a blind eye to what happened in Damascus. Out of the ashes of world war, we built an international order and enforced the rules that gave it meaning. And we did so because we believe that the rights of individuals to live in peace and dignity depends on the responsibilities of nations. We aren’t perfect, but this nation more than any other has been willing to meet those responsibilities.

So to all members of Congress of both parties, I ask you to take this vote for our national security. I am looking forward to the debate. And in doing so, I ask you, members of Congress, to consider that some things are more important than partisan differences or the politics of the moment.

Ultimately, this is not about who occupies this office at any given time; it’s about who we are as a country. I believe that the people’s representatives must be invested in what America does abroad, and now is the time to show the world that America keeps our commitments. We do what we say. And we lead with the belief that right makes might -- not the other way around.

We all know there are no easy options. But I wasn’t elected to avoid hard decisions. And neither were the members of the House and the Senate. I’ve told you what I believe, that our security and our values demand that we cannot turn away from the massacre of countless civilians with chemical weapons. And our democracy is stronger when the President and the people’s representatives stand together.

I’m ready to act in the face of this outrage. Today I’m asking Congress to send a message to the world that we are ready to move forward together as one nation.

Thanks very much.

END 2:02 P.M. EDTR

------------------

President’s decision-making process is continue to engage with Members as the President reaches a decision on the appropriate U.S. response to the Syrian government’s violation of international norms against the use of chemical weapons. Senior Administration Officials participating on August 29th, 2013 call included National Security Advisor Susan Rice, Secretary of State John Kerry, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Sandy Winnefeld. The call lasted 90 minutes and 15 Members asked questions of the assembled Administration Officials.

According to DOD, President Obama is supporting a U.S. Military Strike against Syrian Regime targets which in response to the regime's critical situation of chemical weapons for own people although, President Obama is waiting to see the result of the congressional support of vote for the result. see more detail report by By Karen Parrish American Forces Press Service.

WASHINGTON, Aug. 31, 2013 – President Barack Obama said today he supports a U.S. military strike against Syrian regime targets in response to the regime’s use of chemical weapons against its own people, but he called on Congress to debate and vote on how America should react to “the worst chemical weapons attack of the 21st century.”

At the White House Rose Garden, Obama spoke of the Aug. 21 attack on Damascus suburbs that, he noted, killed more than 1,000 people, including several hundred children -- “young girls and boys gassed to death by their own government.”

“Ten days ago, the world watched in horror as men, women and children were massacred in Syria,” the commander in chief said. “ … Yesterday, the United States presented a powerful case that the Syrian government was responsible for this attack on its own people.”

The president said U.S. intelligence reports “show the Assad regime and its forces preparing to use chemical weapons, launching rockets into highly populated suburbs of Damascus, and acknowledging that a chemical weapons attack took place. And all of this corroborates what the world can plainly see: hospitals overflowing with victims; terrible images of the dead.”

Obama called the attack “an assault on human dignity” that also presents a serious danger to U.S. national security and “risks making a mockery of the global prohibition on the use of chemical weapons.”

Syria is currently embroiled in a bitter civil war pitting President Bashar Assad and his regime against the rebel opposition. The situation presents a danger to U.S. friends and partners on Syria’s borders, Obama said, such as Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq.

The Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons could lead to their escalated use in the region, he said, or their proliferation to terrorist groups intent on harming the United States.

“In a world with many dangers, this menace must be confronted,” the president said.

Obama said after careful deliberation, he has decided “that the U.S. should take military action against Syrian regime targets.” Such an intervention would be limited in scope and duration and would not place U.S. boots on the ground inside Syria, he said.

“I’m confident we can hold the Assad regime accountable for their use of chemical weapons, deter this kind of behavior, and degrade their capacity to carry it out,” he said.

Obama said the United States has military assets in the Middle East, and he noted that Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, “has informed me that we are prepared to strike whenever we choose.”

Dempsey has also advised “that our capacity to execute this mission is not time-sensitive,” the president said.

”It will be effective tomorrow, or next week, or one month from now,” Obama said. “And I'm prepared to give that order.”

Obama added, however, that as president of “the world's oldest constitutional democracy,” he has also decided that as leader of a representational government, “I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people's representatives in Congress.”

He said he has spoken with U.S. Senate and House leaders, “and they've agreed to schedule a debate and then a vote as soon as Congress comes back into session.”

The president said his administration stands ready to inform Congress “what happened in Syria and why it has such profound implications for America's national security.”

He added that he is confident that action need not wait on United Nations inspectors.

“I'm comfortable going forward without the approval of a United Nations Security Council that, so far, has been completely paralyzed and unwilling to hold Assad accountable,” Obama said.

As a consequence, he added, many people “have advised against taking this decision to Congress, and undoubtedly, they were impacted by what we saw happen in the United Kingdom this week when the Parliament of our closest ally failed to pass a resolution with a similar goal, even as the Prime Minister supported taking action."

Yet, any U.S. military actions against the Syrian regime will be more effective if they follow a debate in Congress and a vote, Obama said.

“We should have this debate, because the issues are too big for business as usual,” he said.

A government that considers even limited military force faces a grave decision, Obama acknowledged.

“I respect the views of those who call for caution, particularly as our country emerges from a time of war that I was elected in part to end,” he said. “But if we really do want to turn away from taking appropriate action in the face of such an unspeakable outrage, then we must acknowledge the costs of doing nothing.”

The president said his question to Congress and the global community is this: “What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price? What's the purpose of the international system that we've built if a prohibition on the use of chemical weapons that has been agreed to by the governments of 98 percent of the world's people and approved overwhelmingly by the Congress of the United States is not enforced?”

He continued, “… We cannot raise our children in a world where we will not follow through on the things we say, the accords we sign, the values that define us.”

The president said his message to the world is that “an atrocity committed with chemical weapons is not simply investigated, it must be confronted.”

Obama said he knows Americans are weary of war.

“We’ve ended one war in Iraq,” he said. “We’re ending another in Afghanistan. And the American people have the good sense to know we cannot resolve the underlying conflict in Syria with our military. In that part of the world, there are ancient sectarian differences, and the hopes of the Arab Spring have unleashed forces of change that are going to take many years to resolve. And that's why we’re not contemplating putting our troops in the middle of someone else’s war.”

The United States will continue to support the Syrian people through pressure on the Assad regime, commitment to the opposition, care for the displaced, and pursuit of a political resolution “that achieves a government that respects the dignity of its people,” Obama said.

American values dictate that the nation “cannot and must not turn a blind eye to what happened in Damascus,” he said.

“So to all members of Congress of both parties, I ask you to take this vote for our national security,” Obama said. “… I’ve told you what I believe, that our security and our values demand that we cannot turn away from the massacre of countless civilians with chemical weapons.

“I’m ready to act in the face of this outrage,” he added. “Today I’m asking Congress to send a message to the world that we are ready to move forward together as one nation.”

-----------------------------

According to CNN, Russia has major trade deals with Syria and is sending a delegation to Washington for "kialogue" with members of Congress, the Kremlin said Monday.

Meanwhile, CNN, dated September 3rd, 2013, reported President Barack Obama leaves Tuesday night for the G20 summit in St. Petersburg, Russia. President Obama is scheduled to meet with Russia.

Yahoo News reported that Russia's President Vladimir Putin stated to journalists Putin rejects US's Syria chemical use claim, and demanded proof as he visits Russia's Far Eastern Khabarovsk region, in Khabarovsk, the region's capital, on August 31, 2013.

Russia's President Vladimir Putin on Saturday dismissed claims that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons, demanding that the United States provide proof rather than taking rash action.

Speaking after the United States released an intelligence report, Putin rejected US use of intercepts of Syrian communications as evidence, saying that they could not be used to take "fundamental decisions" like using military force on Syria.

And he rubbished the notion that the Syrian army used chemical weapons, saying to do so would defy "common sense."

"Syrian government troops are on the offensive and have surrounded the opposition in several regions," he said in the Far Eastern city of Vladivostok.

"In these conditions, to give a trump card to those who are calling for a military intervention is utter nonsense."

Russia, Syria's vocal and powerful ally, has vowed to block any action against the regime of Syria's Bashar al-Assad in the UN Security Council, where it is a permanent member.

Putin said he was sure the alleged attack was "nothing but a provocation" by those who want to drag other countries into the Syrian conflict, and demanded proof this was not the case.

"Regarding the position of our American colleagues, friends, who affirm that government troops used weapons of mass destruction, in this case chemical weapons, and say that they have proof, well, let them show it to the United Nations inspectors and the Security Council," he said.

Saying that such evidence is classified "does not stand up to criticism" and disrespects other countries, Putin said. "If there is evidence, it must be presented. If they don't show it, that means there is none."

"Talk that these are once again some kind of intercepts of some kind of communications that don't prove anything cannot be used as a basis for such fundamental decisions like using force against a sovereign state," he said.

It was Putin's first public reaction to the US assertion that the Syrian government used chemical weapons in the suburbs of Damascus on August 21, killing 1,429 people.

US President Barack Obama has called the alleged attack "a challenge to the world", and said he is considering a "limited, narrow act", while stressing no final decision has been taken on unleashing military strikes against the regime.

Putin, who said he had not discussed Syria with Obama since the alleged attack, called on the US leader not to initiate another military conflict, citing action in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya.

"Would it be in the interest of the US to yet again damage the international security system, the foundations of international law? Would it strengthen the international prestige of the US?" Putin said, asking that decisions on military action be taken "without haste".

The Kremlin has said Putin is not planning to meet Obama separately at the summit since Washington scrapped the US President's plans for a state visit to Moscow ahead of the G20.

Russia's foreign ministry said that the US ambassador to Moscow presented the US case against Syria to deputy foreign minister Sergei Ryabkov on Saturday and was told that any use of force would be "an act of aggression."

Russia had also welcomed Friday's rejection by the British parliament of military action against the Syrian regime.

"Over the last few years, everyone, including me, has gotten used to the Western community deciding things without much discussion... and according to the wishes and position of the main partner, the United States," Putin said

"If this time there is some kind of glitch, to me that is unexpected" and "shows that even in Britain... there are people that rely on national interests and common sense and value their sovereignty," he said.

However, Sept 3rd, according USA Today news, reported by Jim Michaels, Michele Chabin and Kim Hjelmgaard, USA TODAY that Russia first reported traces of ballistic 'objects' launched in the central Mediterranean.

JERUSALEM — Tensions over Syria ratcheted up a notch on Tuesday after Israel tested an anti-missile system in the central Mediterranean with technical assistance from the United States.

Russia's Defense Ministry initially sounded an alarm by reporting that it had detected traces of ballistic "objects" launched from an area in the central Mediterranean and moving in an easterly direction.

After some initial confusion over who was responsible, the Israeli military said it was behind the launch and that it was carrying out a joint missile test with the United States.

Israel's Defense Ministry said in a statement the test of its "new version of the Sparrow target missile" was "successful."

Pentagon press secretary George Little, in a statement, acknowledged a U.S. role in the test, which he said was "long planned to help evaluate the Arrow Ballistic Missile Defense system's ability to detect, track, and communicate information about a simulated threat to Israel."

The Arrow anti-missile system, which was developed by the Israeli firm Rafael in conjunction with Boeing, detects and tracks a Sparrow target missile in such tests.

The Pentagon statement described the U.S. role in the test as providing "technical assistance and support" to Israel and "had nothing to do with United States consideration of military action to respond to Syria's chemical weapons attack."

Mordechai Kedar, previously of the Israel Defense Force's military intelligence wing, said the test was likely carried out "to signal to the Syrians that everybody knows what Syria is doing, and that the regime could pay a very high price" for these atrocities.

The development comes amid heightened tensions in the region as Congress prepares to hold a vote on whether the U.S. should take military action in Syria for the alleged use of chemical weapons by the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

"There is no doubt that this was a warning shot," Kedar said. "There is more military and intelligence cooperation and coordination between the U.S. and Israel than ever before."

Earlier, Russia's state-run Interfax news agency said the "targets fell into the sea" and the Russian embassy in Syria said there was no sign of a missile attack or explosions in Damascus. Moscow said the launch was detected at 10:16 a.m. local time (2:16 a.m. ET).

Sparrow constitutes one layer of Israel's four-layer anti-missile defense system, according to Israel's Hayom newspaper. The four layers are "the Iron Dome, David's Sling (currently in development), the Arrow 2 and the Arrow 3 (in development)," Hayom reported. U.S. says it gave Israel technical help in missile test -

On the other side, Yahoo News shows that Russian President Vladimir Putin on Saturday dismissed claims that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons, demanding that the United States provide proof rather than taking rash action. Speaking after the United States released an intelligence report, Putin rejected US use of intercepts of Syrian communications as evidence, saying that they could not be used to take "fundamental decisions" like using military force on Syria. And he rubbished the notion that the Syrian army used chemical weapons, saying to do so would defy "common sense." "Syrian government troops are on the offensive and have surrounded the opposition in several regions," he said in the Far Eastern city of Vladivostok. "In these conditions, to give a trump card to those who are calling for a military intervention is utter nonsense." Russia, Syria's vocal and powerful ally, has vowed to block any action against the regime of Syria's Bashar al-Assad in the UN Security Council, where it is a permanent member. Putin said he was sure the alleged attack was "nothing but a provocation" by those who want to drag other countries into the Syrian conflict, and demanded proof this was not the case. "Regarding the position of our American colleagues, friends, who affirm that government troops used weapons of mass destruction, in this case chemical weapons, and say that they have proof, well, let them show it to the United Nations inspectors and the Security Council," he said. Saying that such evidence is classified "does not stand up to criticism" and disrespects other countries, Putin said. "If there is evidence, it must be presented. If they don't show it, that means there is none." "Talk that these are once again some kind of intercepts of some kind of communications that don't prove anything cannot be used as a basis for such fundamental decisions like using force against a sovereign state," he said. It was Putin's first public reaction to the US assertion that the Syrian government used chemical weapons in the suburbs of Damascus on August 21, killing 1,429 people. US President Barack Obama has called the alleged attack "a challenge to the world", and said he is considering a "limited, narrow act", while stressing no final decision has been taken on unleashing military strikes against the regime. Putin, who said he had not discussed Syria with Obama since the alleged attack, called on the US leader not to initiate another military conflict, citing action in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. "Would it be in the interest of the US to yet again damage the international security system, the foundations of international law? Would it strengthen the international prestige of the US?" Putin said, asking that decisions on military action be taken "without haste". The Kremlin has said Putin is not planning to meet Obama separately at the summit since Washington scrapped the US President's plans for a state visit to Moscow ahead of the G20. Russia's foreign ministry said that the US ambassador to Moscow presented the US case against Syria to deputy foreign minister Sergei Ryabkov on Saturday and was told that any use of force would be "an act of aggression." Russia had also welcomed Friday's rejection by the British parliament of military action against the Syrian regime. "Over the last few years, everyone, including me, has gotten used to the Western community deciding things without much discussion... and according to the wishes and position of the main partner, the United States," Putin said. "If this time there is some kind of glitch, to me that is unexpected" and "shows that even in Britain... there are people that rely on national interests and common sense and value their sovereignty," he said. Meanwhile, Secretary of General, Ban Ki-moon says UN chemical weapons experts working ‘around the clock’ to analyze evidence. 3 September 2013 – Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon announced today that all biomedical and environmental samples gathered by United Nations inspectors at sites of possible chemical weapons use in Syria are now arriving at designated laboratories in Europe. Speaking to the press at UN Headquarters in New York, Mr. Ban said that the Mission, led by Swedish scientist Dr. Åke Sellström, has worked “around the clock” since returning from Syria over the weekend to prepare the materials it gathered for analysis. All the samples will arrive at the laboratories by tomorrow. "We are doing our utmost to expedite the process," he added. “Since the horrendous attacks in the Ghouta area of Damascus two weeks ago, the [Mission] has been working urgently to establish the facts regarding the nature and extent of any use of chemical weapons, Mr. Ban said, underscoring that, as the first probe of allegations of the use of weapons of mass destruction in the 21st century, “the Mission’s success is in everyone’s interest.” President Obama has initiated around the situation in Syria. The President already has called a number of other allies in Europe and some of US partners in the region, and that international consultation is ongoing and will continue in the days ahead, continue to consult with Congress waiting to be voted by the congress in order to taking care of the critical human lives to save and protect in Syria. President Obama is confident that U.S Congress will prevent the camical issues to save the human lives. For Immediate Release September 3, 2013 Remarks by the President Before Meeting with Members of Congress on the Situation in Syria Cabinet Room 9:51 A.M. EDT THE PRESIDENT: I want to thank the leaders of both parties for being here today to discuss what is a very serious issue facing the United States. And the fact that I've had a chance to speak to many of you, and Congress as a whole is taking this issue with the soberness and seriousness that it deserves, is greatly appreciated and I think vindicates the decision for us to present this issue to Congress. As I've said last week, as Secretary Kerry made clear in his presentation last week, we have high confidence that Syria used, in an indiscriminate fashion, chemical weapons that killed thousands of people, including over 400 children, and in direct violation of the international norm against using chemical weapons. That poses a serious national security threat to the United States and to the region, and as a consequence, Assad and Syria needs to be held accountable. I've made a decision that America should take action. But I also believe that we will be much more effective, we will be stronger, if we take action together as one nation. And so this gives us an opportunity not only to present the evidence to all of the leading members of Congress and their various foreign policy committees as to why we have high confidence that chemical weapons were used and that Assad used them, but it also gives us an opportunity to discuss why it's so important that he be held to account. This norm against using chemical weapons that 98 percent of the world agrees to is there for a reason: Because we recognize that there are certain weapons that, when used, can not only end up resulting in grotesque deaths, but also can end up being transmitted to non-state actors; can pose a risk to allies and friends of ours like Israel, like Jordan, like Turkey; and unless we hold them into account, also sends a message that international norms around issues like nuclear proliferation don't mean much. And so I'm going to be working with Congress. We have set up a draft authorization. We’re going to be asking for hearings and a prompt vote. And I’m very appreciative that everybody here has already begun to schedule hearings and intends to take a vote as soon as all of Congress comes back early next week. So the key point that I want to emphasize to the American people: The military plan that has been developed by the joint chiefs and that I believe is appropriate is proportional. It is limited. It does not involve boots on the ground. This is not Iraq and this is not Afghanistan. This is a limited, proportional step that will send a clear message not only to the Assad regime, but also to other countries that may be interested in testing some of these international norms, that there are consequences. It gives us the ability to degrade Assad’s capabilities when it comes to chemical weapons. It also fits into a broader strategy that we have to make sure that we can bring about over time the kind of strengthening of the opposition and the diplomatic and economic and political pressure required so that ultimately we have a transition that can bring peace and stability not only to Syria but to the region. But I want to emphasize once again: What we are envisioning is something limited. It is something proportional. It will degrade Assad’s capabilities. At the same time, we have a broader strategy that will allow us to upgrade the capabilities of the opposition, allow Syria ultimately to free itself from the kinds of terrible civil wars and death and activity that we’ve been seeing on the ground. So I look forward to listening to the various concerns of the members who are here today. I am confident that those concerns can be addressed. I think it is appropriate that we act deliberately, but I also think everybody recognizes the urgency here and that we’re going to have to move relatively quickly. So with that, to all of you here today, I look forward to an excellent discussion. Q Mr. President, are you prepared to rewrite the authorization, and does that undercut any of your authority, sir? THE PRESIDENT: I would not be going to Congress if I wasn’t serious about consultations, and believing that by shaping the authorization to make sure we accomplish the mission we will be more effective. And so long as we are accomplishing what needs to be accomplished, which is to send a clear message to Assad degrading his capabilities to use chemical weapons, not just now but also in the future as long as the authorization allows us to do that, I’m confident that we’re going to be able to come up with something that hits that mark. Q Are you confident that you'll get a vote in favor of action? THE PRESIDENT: I am. Thank you, guys. END 9:56 P.M. EDT World Leaders are backing up U.S. President Obama for the critical chemical crisis to handle. According to AP, dated Sept 2nd, 2013, Reported by Adrian Croft, Tom Koerkemeier; editing by Luke Baker: President Francois Hollande has backed a call from President Barack Obama for a military strike against Syrian President Bashar Assad's government in retaliation for the chemical attack. Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault hosted lawmakers, his defense and foreign ministers and intelligence and security officials Monday to discuss Syria. France is "determined to take action against the use of chemical weapons by the regime of Bashar Assad, and to dissuade it from doing so again," Ayrault said after the meeting. "This act cannot go without a response." Ayrault added that France would not act alone and that Hollande was "continuing his work of persuasion to bring together a coalition as soon as possible." The intelligence estimate also said it didn't appear to be the first time that chemical weapons were used in Syria this year. It said French intelligence services had collected urine, blood, soil and munitions samples from two attacks in April — in Saraqeb and Jobar — that confirmed the use of sarin gas. "These past events and the simultaneous and massive use of chemical agents in the night of Aug. 21, 2013 in the Damascus suburbs confirm that the Syrian regime deliberately crossed a line," it said. "Our services have information ... leading us to believe that other actions of this nature could be carried out again." France's parliament is to debate Syria on Wednesday but no vote is scheduled. The French constitution doesn't require such a vote for Hollande to be able to authorize military action. Reuters, dated Sept 2nd, 2013 - NATO's secretary-general said on Monday he had seen evidence convincing him Syrian authorities were behind a deadly chemical weapons attack and said it would send a "dangerous signal to dictators" if the world did not respond firmly. However, Anders Fogh Rasmussen said it was up to individual NATO countries to decide how they would respond to the attack and he did not envisage any NATO role beyond existing plans to defend NATO member Turkey, which borders Syria. "I have been presented with concrete information and, without going into details, I can tell you that personally I am convinced, not only that a chemical attack has taken place ..., but I am also convinced that the Syrian regime is responsible," Rasmussen told a news conference. U.S. President Barack Obama has said he will seek congressional authorization for punitive action against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad after what Washington said was a sarin gas attack on August 21 that killed more than 1,400 people. On August 24th, 2013, Al Jazeera interviews Michael Stephens a Researcher at RUSI Qatar about Chemical Weapons in Syria and the reaction of Iran's President Hassan Rouhani to allegations of their use.. Rasmussen said there was "agreement that we need a firm international response in order to avoid that chemical attacks take place in the future. It would send, I would say, a dangerous signal to dictators all over the world if we stand idly by and don't react." But Rasmussen said he saw no further role for NATO in the Syria crisis, beyond defending Turkey. "If a response to what has happened in Syria were to be a military operation, I'd envisage a very short, measured, targeted operation, and you don't need the NATO command and control system to conduct such a short, measured, tailored, military operation," he said. On September 4th, 2013, according to LONDON, Reuters, Reported By Andrew Osborn; Editing by Stephen Addison - Prime Minister David Cameron said on Wednesday he believed the Syrian government would use chemical weapons against its own people again if the United States stepped back from taking military action against it. When asked by an opposition Labour party lawmaker whether he would push for a ceasefire in Syria rather than a "bombing raid", Cameron told parliament that U.S. President Barack Obama had issued a clear warning to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on chemical weapons and was right to stick to it. "I would just ask her to put herself for a moment in the shoes of the president of the United States," Cameron told the lawmaker during his weekly question and answer session in parliament. "He set a very clear red line, that if there was large-scale chemical weapons use something had to happen. To ask the president of the United States, having set that red line, having made that warning, to step away from it I think that would be a very perilous suggestion to make because in response I think you would see more chemical weapons attacks from the regime." Prime Minister David Cameron repeated that Britain would take no part in any military action against Syria after he lost what turned out to be a vital parliamentary vote on the issue last week, but said the world still needed to take a tough line on Assad's "revolting" use of chemical weapons. United States diplomatic cables revealed that two Indian firms aided Syrian chemical and biological weapons makers in trying to obtain Australia Group-controlled equipment. One cable stated that India "has a general obligation as a Chemical Weapons Convention State Party to never, under any circumstances, assist anyone in the development of chemical weapons". In 2012, Iranian and North Korean officials and scientists were brought to bases and testing areas to aid in the development and use of chemical weapons. Syrian chemical weapons production facilities have been identified by Western nonproliferation experts at approximately 5 sites, plus one suspected weapons base: al-Safira (Scud missile base), Hama (Scud missile base), Homs, Latakia, and Palmyra. Report shows that a number of reasons have been postulated for Syria's adoption of a chemical weapon strategy in the 1980s which led to act as a deterrent to Israeli use of nuclear weapons against Syria to compensate for the loss of Egypt as a military ally after the signing of the Egypt–Israel Peace Treaty in 1979, after recognising the limitations of Syrian air power against Israel in the 1982 Lebanon War, Syria adopted an alternative missile strategy, which required a non high-explosive warhead to compensate for lack of missile accuracy and to act as a deterrent to its powerful neighbour Turkey in any possible dispute. On 21 August 2013, the area of Ghouta was the scene of an alleged Assad government chemical weapons attack that caused the deaths of hundreds to 1,400 people. The following day, a Syrian man who asked to remain anonymous described the horrific scene he witnessed near his home outside of Damascus. He said that the scene was proof of a chemical attack against the Syrian people by forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad. JIC has assessed that the Syrian regime used lethal CW on at least 14 occasions from 2012. Additionally concluding that the attack on 21 August 2013, was undertaken by the Syrian regime, concluding that "there are no plausible alternative scenarios to regime responsibility".

September 3rd, 2013, New York Times shows that WASHINGTON — President Obama won the support on Tuesday of Republican and Democratic leaders in the House for an attack on Syria, giving him a foundation to win broader approval for military action from a Congress that still harbors deep reservations.

Speaker John A. Boehner, who with other Congressional leaders met Mr. Obama in the Oval Office, said afterward that he would “support the president’s call to action,” an endorsement quickly echoed by the House majority leader, Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia.

On Tuesday evening, Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee agreed on the wording of a resolution that would give Mr. Obama the authority to carry out a strike against Syria, for a period of 60 days, with one 30-day extension. A committee vote on the measure could come as early as Wednesday.

Before his departure, the White House intensified what has become the most extraordinary lobbying campaign of Mr. Obama’s presidency as it deployed members of his war council and enlisted political alumni of his 2008 campaign to press the argument with the public.

“This is not the time for armchair isolationism,” said Secretary of State John Kerry, who answered sharp questions and defended the administration’s strategy for Syria in nearly four hours of sometimes sharp exchanges before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Mr. Kerry stirred some confusion about the potential scope of American military involvement when he tried to carve out an exception to a proposed Congressional prohibition on the use of ground troops in Syria — something Mr. Obama and other officials have long ruled out as a general principle.

If Syria were to fall into complete chaos and if the chemical weapons of President Bashar al-Assad’s government there were at risk of falling into the hands of a militant group like Al Nusra, Mr. Kerry said, “I don’t want to take off the table an option that might or might not be available to a president of the United States to secure our country.”

Later, under questioning by Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, the ranking Republican, Mr. Kerry walked back his comment, insisting that he had only been speaking about a hypothetical case. “Let’s shut that door now as tight as we can,” Mr. Kerry said, without quite doing so. “There will not be American boots on the ground with respect to the civil war.”

The Senate resolution — released on Tuesday night by Mr. Corker and the committee’s chairman, Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey — would limit the president’s options and prohibit the use of ground forces. Any strike, it says, should be “tailored” to only deter Syria from using chemical weapons again and to cripple its capacity to do so.

The resolution would prohibit “boots on the ground” and require “the Obama administration to submit their broader plan for Syria,” Mr. Corker said in a statement.

Mr. Menendez added, “We have an obligation to act."

Senator Rand Paul, the Kentucky Republican, said that Mr. Obama might go through with an attack if Congress failed to authorize it. Mr. Kerry said that he did not know what Mr. Obama would decide but that the president had the authority to do so under the Constitution.

-------------------

On September 6th, 2013, Ambassador to the United Nation, Samantha Power, briefed: Remarks by Ambassador Samantha Power, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, on Syria at the Center for American Progress, Washington D.C.

The following is as delivered on September 6th, 2013 Highlights of U.N. Ambassador Power's Remarks on Syria:

Samantha Power U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations U.S. Mission to the United Nations Washington, DC September 6, 2013 AS DELIVERED Good afternoon. I’m very glad to be back in Washington this afternoon, and among so many friends here at the Center for American Progress. As you know, my topic today is Syria, which presents one of the most critical foreign policy challenges we face. Syria is important because it lies at the heart of a region critical to U.S. security, a region that is home to friends and partners and one of our closest allies. It is important because the Syrian regime possesses stores of chemical weapons that they have recently used on a large scale and that we cannot allow to fall into terrorists’ hands. It is important because the Syrian regime is collaborating with Iran, and works in lockstep with thousands of extremist fighters from Hezbollah. And Syria is important because its people – in seeking freedom and dignity -- have suffered unimaginable horror these last two and a half years. But I also recognize how ambivalent Americans are about the situation there. On the one hand, we Americans share a desire, after two wars, which have taken 6,700 American lives and cost over $1 trillion dollars, to invest taxpayer dollars in American schools and infrastructure. Yet on the other hand, Americans have heard the President’s commitment that this will not be Iraq, this will not be Afghanistan, this will not be Libya. Any use of force will be limited and tailored narrowly to the chemical weapons threat. On the one hand, we share an abhorrence for the brutal, murderous tactics of Bashar al-Assad. Yet on the other hand, we are worried about the violent extremists who, while opposed to Assad, have themselves carried out atrocities. On the one hand, we share the deep conviction that chemical weapons are barbaric, that we should never again see children killed in their beds, lost to a world that they never had a chance to try to change. Yet on the other hand, some are wondering why – given the flagrant violation of an international norm – it is incumbent on the United States to lead, since we cannot and should not be the world’s policeman. Notwithstanding these complexities – notwithstanding the various concerns that we all share – I am here today to explain why the costs of not taking targeted, limited military action are far greater than the risks of going forward in the manner that President Obama has outlined. Every decision to use military force is an excruciatingly difficult one. It is especially difficult when one filters the Syria crisis through the prism of the past decade. But let me take a minute to discuss the uniquely monstrous crime that has brought us to this crossroads. What comes to mind for me is one father in al-Ghouta saying goodbye to his two young daughters. His girls had not yet been shrouded, they were still dressed in the pink shorts and leggings of little girls. The father lifted their lifeless bodies, cradled them, and cried out “Wake up...What would I do without you?... How do I stand this pain?” As a parent, I cannot begin to answer his questions. I cannot begin to imagine what it would be like to feel such searing agony. In arguing for limited military action in the wake of this mass casualty chemical weapons atrocity, we are not arguing that Syrian lives are worth protecting only when they are threatened with poison gas. Rather, we are reaffirming what the world has already made plain in laying down its collective judgment on chemical weapons: there is something different about chemical warfare that raises the stakes for the United States and raises the stakes for the world. There are many reasons that governments representing 98% of the world’s population – including all 15 members of the UN Security Council – agreed to ban chemical weapons. These weapons kill in the most gruesome possible way. They kill indiscriminately – they are incapable of distinguishing between a child and a rebel. And they have the potential to kill massively. We believe that this one attack in Damascus claimed more than 1,400 lives, far more than even the worst attacks by conventional means in Syria. And we assess that, although Assad used more chemical weapons on August 21 than he had before, he has barely put a dent in his enormous stockpile, and the international community has clearly not yet put a dent in his willingness to use them. President Obama, Secretary Kerry, and many members of Congress have spelled out the consequences of failing to meet this threat. If there are more chemical attacks, we will see an inevitable spike in the flow of refugees, on top of the already two million in the region, possibly pushing Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey or Iraq past their breaking points. The fourth largest city in Jordan right now is already the Zaatari refugee camp. Half of Syria’s refugees are children, and we know what can happen to children who grow to adulthood without hope or opportunity in refugee camps; the camps become fertile recruiting grounds for violent extremists. And beyond Syria, if the violation of a universal agreement to ban chemical weapons is not met with a meaningful response, other regimes will seek to acquire or use them to protect or extend their power, increasing risks to American troops in the future. We cannot afford to signal to North Korea and Iran that the international community is unwilling to act to prevent proliferation or willing to tolerate the use of weapons of mass destruction. If there are no consequences now for breaking the prohibition on chemical weapons, it will be harder to muster an international consensus to ensure that Hizballah and other terrorist groups are prevented from acquiring or using these weapons themselves. People will draw lessons if the world proves unwilling to enforce the norms against chemical weapons use that we have worked so diligently to construct. And Israel’s security is threatened by instability in the region and its security is enhanced when those who would do it harm know that the United States stands behind its word. That’s why we’ve seen Israel’s supporters in the United States come out in support of the President’s proposed course of action. These are just some of the risks of inaction. But many Americans and some Members in Congress have legitimately focused as well on the risks of action. They have posed a series of important questions, and I would like to use the remainder of my remarks to address a few of them. Some have asked, given our collective war-weariness, why we cannot use non-military tools to achieve the same end. My answer to this question is: we have exhausted the alternatives. For more than a year, we have pursued countless policy tools short of military force to try to dissuade Assad from using chemical weapons. We have engaged the Syrians directly and, at our request, the Russians, the UN, and the Iranians sent similar messages. But when SCUDS and other horrific weapons didn’t quell the Syrian rebellion, Assad began using chemical weapons on a small-scale multiple times, as the United States concluded in June. Faced with this growing evidence of several small-scale subsequent attacks, we redoubled our efforts. We backed the UN diplomatic process and tried to get the parties back to the negotiating table, recognizing that a political solution is the best way to reduce all forms of threat. We provided more humanitarian assistance. And on chemical weapons specifically, we assembled and went public with compelling and frightening evidence of the regime’s use. We worked with the UN to create a group of inspectors and then worked for more than six months to get them access to the country, on the logic that perhaps the presence of an investigative team in the country might deter future attacks. Or if not, at a minimum, we thought perhaps a shared evidentiary base could convince Russia or Iran – itself a victim of Saddam Hussein’s monstrous chemical weapons attacks in 1987-1988 – to cast loose a regime that was gassing its people. We expanded and accelerated our assistance to the Syrian opposition. We supported the UN Commission of Inquiry. Russia, often backed by China, has blocked every relevant action in the Security Council, even mild condemnations of the use of chemical weapons that did not ascribe blame to any particular party. In Assad’s cost-benefit calculus, he must have weighed the military benefits of using this hideous weapon against the recognition that he could get away with it because Russia would have Syria’s back in the Security Council. And on August 21 he staged the largest chemical weapons attack in a quarter century while UN inspectors were sitting on the other side of town. It is only after the United States pursued these non-military options without achieving the desired result of deterring chemical weapons use, that the President concluded that a limited military strike is the only way to prevent Assad from employing chemical weapons as if they are a conventional weapon of war. I am here today because I believe – and President Obama believes – that those of us who are arguing for the limited use of force must justify our position, accepting responsibility for the risks and potential consequences of action. When one considers pursuing non-military measures, we must similarly address the risks inherent in those approaches. At this stage, the diplomatic process is stalled because one side has just been gassed on a massive scale and the other side so far feels it has gotten away with it. What would words – in the form of belated diplomatic condemnation – achieve? What could the International Criminal Court really do, even if Russia or China were to allow a referral? Would a drawn out legal process really affect the immediate calculus of Assad and those who ordered chemical weapons attacks? We could try again to pursue economic sanctions, but – even if Russia budged – would more asset freezes, travel bans, and banking restrictions convince Assad not to use chemical weapons again when he has a pipeline to the resources of Hezbollah and Iran? Does anybody really believe that deploying the same approaches we have tried for the last year will suddenly be effective? Of course, this isn’t the only legitimate question being raised. People are asking, shouldn’t the United States work through the Security Council on an issue that so clearly implicates international peace and security? The answer is, of course, yes. We would if we could, but we can’t. Every day for the two and a half years of the Syrian conflict, we have shown how seriously we take the UN Security Council and our obligations to enforce international peace and security. Since 2011, Russia and China have vetoed three separate Security Council resolutions condemning the Syrian regime’s violence or promoting a political solution to the conflict. This year alone, Russia has blocked at least three statements expressing humanitarian concern and calling for humanitarian access to besieged cities in Syria. And in the past two months, Russia has blocked two resolutions condemning the generic use of chemical weapons and two press statements expressing concern about their use. We believe that more than 1,400 people were killed in Damascus on August 21, and the Security Council could not even agree to put out a press statement expressing its disapproval. The international system that was founded in 1945 —a system we designed specifically to respond to the kinds of horrors we saw play out in World War II—has not lived up to its promise or its responsibilities in the case of Syria. And it is naive to think that Russia is on the verge of changing its position and allowing the UN Security Council to assume its rightful role as the enforcer of international peace and security. In short, the Security Council the world needs to deal with this urgent crisis is not the Security Council we have. Many Americans recognize that, while we were right to seek to work through the Security Council, it is clear that Syria is one of those occasions – like Kosovo – when the Council is so paralyzed that countries have to act outside it if they are to prevent the flouting of international laws and norms. But these same people still reasonably ask: Beyond the Security Council, what support does the United States have in holding Assad accountable? While the United States possesses unique capabilities to carry out a swift, limited, and proportionate strike so as to prevent and deter future use of chemical weapons, countries around the world have joined us in supporting decisive action. The Arab League has urged international action against Syria in response to what it called the “ugly crime” of using chemical weapons. The NATO Secretary General has said that the Syrian regime “is responsible” and that “we need a firm international response to avoid that chemical attacks take place in the future.” The Organization of Islamic Cooperation blamed the Syrian government for the chemical attacks and called for “decisive action.” And eleven countries at the G-20 Summit today called for a “strong international response” and noted their “support for efforts undertaken by the United States and other countries to reinforce the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons.” As I have found over the last week at the UN, the more that countries around the world are confronted with the hard facts of what occurred on August 21, the more they recognize that the steep price of impunity for Assad could extend well beyond Syria. The President's decision to seek congressional support has also given the United States time to mobilize additional international support, and there is no question that authorization by our Congress will help strengthen our case. One of the most common concerns we have heard centers less on the how or when of intervention, but on the what. Some Americans are asking, how can we be sure that the United States will avoid a slippery slope that would lead to full-scale war with Syria? On the other hand, others are asking, if the U.S. action is limited, how will that have the desired effect on Assad? These are good and important questions. The United States cannot police every crisis any more than we can shelter every refugee. The President has made it clear: he is responding militarily to a mass casualty chemical weapons incident; any military action will be a meaningful, time-limited response to deter the regime from using chemical weapons again – and to degrade its ability to do so. From the start of the Syrian conflict, the President has consistently demonstrated that he will not put American boots on the ground to fight another war in the Middle East. The draft resolution before Congress makes this clear. President Obama is seeking your support to employ limited military means to achieve very specific ends – to degrade Assad’s capacity to use these weapons again, and deter others in the world who might follow suit – and the United States has the discipline as a country to maintain these limits. Limited military action will not be designed to solve the entire Syria problem -- not even the most ardent proponents of military intervention in Syria believe that peace can be achieved through military means. But this action should have the effect of reinforcing our larger strategy for addressing the crisis in Syria. By degrading Assad's capacity to deliver chemical weapons, we will also degrade his ability to strike at civilian populations by conventional means. In addition this operation, combined with ongoing efforts to upgrade the military capabilities of the moderate opposition, should reduce the regime’s faith that they can kill their way to victory. In this instance, the use of limited military force can strengthen our diplomacy – and energize the efforts by the UN and others to achieve a negotiated settlement to the underlying conflict. Let me add a few thoughts in closing. I know I have not addressed every doubt that exists in this room, in this town, in this country, or in the broader international community. This is the right debate for us to have. We should be asking the hard questions and making deliberate choices before embarking upon action. There is no risk-free door #2 that we can choose in this case. Public skepticism of foreign interventions is an extremely healthy phenomenon in our democracy, a check against the excessive use of military power. The American people elect leaders to exercise judgment, and there have been times in our history when presidents have taken hard decisions to use force that were not initially popular, because they believed our interests demanded it. From 1992, when the Bosnian genocide started, till 1995, when President Clinton launched the air strikes that stopped the war, public opinion consistently opposed military action there. Even after we succeeded in ending the war and negotiating a peace settlement, the House of Representatives, reflecting public opinion, voted against deploying American troops to a NATO peacekeeping mission. There is no question that this deployment of American power saved lives and returned stability to a critical region of the world and a critical region for the United States. We all have a choice to make. Whether we are Republicans or Democrats, whether we have supported past military interventions or opposed them, whether we have argued for or against such action in Syria prior to this point, we should agree that there are lines in this world that cannot be crossed, and limits on murderous behavior, especially with weapons of mass destruction, that must be enforced. If we cannot summon the courage to act when the evidence is clear, and when the action being contemplated is limited, then our ability to lead in the world is compromised. The alternative is to give a green light to outrages that will threaten our security and haunt our conscience, outrages that will eventually compel us to use force anyway down the line, at far greater risk and cost to our own citizens. If the last century teaches us anything, it is this. Thank you so much. ### ------------------------------- The U.S. Mission’s Political Section works in support of the office of the U.S. Permanent Representative to advance United States foreign policy interests at the United Nations. Divided into geo-political areas, the Political Section helps formulate and articulate the United States position on all political and security matters under discussion at th United Nations. Meanwhile, September 6th, 2013, Secretary of General Ban Gi-moon Urged political solution on Syria crisis and stated that “I must warn that ill-considered military action could cause serious and tragic consequences, and with an increased threat of further sectarian violence,” Mr. Ban said in his remarks at the Humanitarian Initiative on Syria, held on the margins of the G20 summit. “We should explore ways to avoid further militarization of the conflict and revitalize the search for a political settlement instead.” The Secretary-General also appealed to world leaders to increase support for humanitarian operations in Syria and in its neighbouring countries, which are hosting more than 2 million refugees. He noted that relief operations inside the country are only 44 per cent funded, while the refugee appeal is funded at only 40 per cent. “No one could have imagined two years ago that Syria would end up in this unending misery. UN staff on the ground report palpable fear as the population fears imminent acceleration and deepening of the conflict,” Mr. Ban said. “This is a humanitarian crisis of unprecedented proportions in recent history. The world must do everything within its powers to stop the suffering of the Syrian people.” 5 September 2013 – With the world focused on the possible use of chemical weapons in Syria, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the joint United Nations-Arab League Envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, reiterated to leaders attending the Group of 20 (G20) summit in St. Petersburg the need to “push even harder” for a political solution to end the bloodshed in the war-torn Middle Eastern country. Addressing world leaders at a working dinner, Mr. Ban urged the leaders of the Permanent Five members of the Security Council – China, France, Russia, United Kingdom and United States – as well as from some of the Council's non-permanent members to “discharge their responsibility fully and for the sake of the people of Syria. He also reminded the Council members that they have a “collective responsibility to mankind” to act, but reiterated that as they debate courses of action, any decision “should be taken within the framework of the UN Charter, as a matter of principle.” Highlighting the human toll of the conflict, Mr. Ban reiterated that more than 100,000 people have died, 4.25 million people have been displaced within the country, and at least another two million are now refugees. Secretary of General for UN, Ban Ki-moon urgently asked the leaders gathered to fill the nearly $4.4 billion gap for humanitarian and refugee efforts in Syria and neighbouring countries – particularly Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey – as well as in North African. All of which had been “generous in hosting Syrian refugees.” Mr. Brahimi, the Joint Special Representative of the UN and the League of Arab States for Syrian, said that the Syrian crisis had reached such an “urgent” stage that the Secretary-General thought it might be one of the questions to be addressed either by the G20 itself or on the margins of the summit. UN reported that the biomedical and environmental samples collected by Swedish scientist Dr. Åke Sellström and his team at sites in Syria where chemical weapons were allegedly used on 21 August, have now arrived at four laboratories in Europe for analyses. Mr. Ban said scientists are working “around the clock” to ensure a rapid result but one that also respects the highest professional standards and without compromising its integrity. Once results are available, Mr. Ban noted that he would report them “promptly” to the Security Council and all 193 UN Member States. Earlier 5 September 2013 – Mr. Ban met on its sidelines with the President of the Republic of Korea, Park Geun-hye. In addition to discussing developments in Syria, Mr. Ban and Ms. Park discussed the Korean peninsula, in specific, ROK's proposed world peace park in the Demilitarized Zone. UN Secretary of General, Ban Ki-moon also expressed sincere appreciation to ROK President, Park Geun-hye for the country's $6 million contribution to the UN World Health Organization (WHO) to assist children in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK). In a meeting with the President of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev, Mr. Ban commended Kazakhstan's long-standing constructive cooperation with the UN and the role it plays internationally in the context of nuclear non-proliferation and religious tolerance. He and President Nazarbayev also discussed the situation in Syria, as well as the important roles played by the Organization, as well as Afghanistan and regional cooperation, on water management. The MDGs will be a focus at the high-level gathering of the General Assembly later this month at the UN Headquarters in New York. Mr. Ban is expected to speak about the MDGs and the post-2015 sustainable development on September 6th, 2013 in remarks to the G20. St. Petersburg, Russia, 6 September 2013 - Secretary-General's remarks at meeting on the humanitarian crisis in Syria [as prepared for delivery} First of all, I want to thank Prime Minister David Cameron and the Government of the United Kingdom for hosting this morning’s meeting. We are all extremely worried and we all want to see an end to the suffering of the people of Syria. This is a humanitarian crisis of unprecedented proportions in recent history. The world must do everything within its powers to stop the suffering of the Syrian people. Let us use this united recognition of the problem as our starting point for focused and positive action. It is critical that the plight of the people remains at the forefront of our considerations. The humanitarian situation in Syria is dire and continues to deteriorate. As you know, more than 4.25 million people have been displaced within Syria and another two million people have fled the country. Despite the insecurity and dangers to its staff in Syria, the United Nations and its partners remain committed to stay and deliver. The UN family has 4,500 staff in Syria. Millions are being assisted on a monthly basis and the UN is working hard to ensure equitable distribution on the basis of need, irrespective of whether it is Government or Opposition controlled territories. Over two million people have reached through UN-led cross line convoys into the hardest to reach areas of the conflict zones. Yet the response continues to be inhibited by limitations to access, insecurity, and serious financial shortfalls. My Emergency Relief Coordinator, Valerie Amos, whom I have sent to Syria this week to understand the situation and to encourage the Government of Syria to do more, has transmitted to the President of the Security Council key humanitarian requests which include: Respecting obligations to protect civilians; Lifting of bureaucratic hurdles so that humanitarian actors can better do their jobs; For the parties to appoint empowered interlocutors for humanitarian actors; Ensuring safe passage on key routes or agreement on localized humanitarian cease fires. On the ground, conditions remain difficult in terms of security. Mortar attacks in Damascus alone are frequent and close. Valerie Amos has had a positive series of meetings with the Syrian authorities this week and we hope to get movement on visas and simplifying procedures. But there is not yet any definite movement on issues of humanitarian access. Nonetheless, our staff are there and are doing a commendable job. Your support in exercising leverage on all parties to facilitate humanitarian access is critical. Relief agencies must be able to reach people in need, wherever they are. We must do more to impress upon all parties their international humanitarian law obligations to protect civilians. The humanitarian response is also hampered by a lack of funding. The Syria response is only 44 per cent funded and the World Food Programme has already been forced to reduce the size of its food parcels to keep pace with the growing numbers in need. If additional funding isn’t urgently received, there will be a break in the food pipeline in October. The refugee appeal for neighbouring countries is also severely underfunded at only 40 per cent, this adds to the enormous pressures on Host countries, who are shouldering an unfair burden in this crisis. UN country teams in Syria and neighbouring countries have developed contingency plans should the situation deteriorate further in the coming days and weeks. I must stress however, that funding shortages mean that stocks are limited in the case of Lebanon to days and for Jordan to approximately two weeks. We also must help the neighbours of Syria who have generously hosted Syrian refugees. I therefore appeal to you to work with new and emerging donors to increase their support to the UN appeals and to find new and creative ways to provide further support as current aid budgets are unable to keep pace with the ever-growing needs. No one could have imagined two years ago that Syria would end up in this unending misery. UN staff on the ground report palpable fear as the population fears imminent acceleration and deepening of the conflict. As some flee the country, others dig in to fight. I must warn that ill-considered military action could cause serious and tragic consequences, and with an increased threat of further sectarian violence. Thus, we must put an end to the atrocities the Syrian people continue to suffer. We should explore ways to avoid further militarization of the conflict and revitalize the search for a political settlement instead. In this spirit, we are determined to renew our efforts to rapidly convene the Geneva conference for Syria as soon as possible. A viable political outcome in Syria must see the full implementation of the Geneva Communiqué. I sincerely hope that all of us here at the G20 summit, but also in the Security Council, recognise the need for a political solution to a tragic and prolonged humanitarian crisis.. Chemical weapons have been used in Syria on more then one occasion, shocking the international community. The Syria Chemical attack was an alleged chemical attack on 19 March 2013, which resulted in at least 26 fatalities including 16 government soldiers and 10 civilians, and more than 86 injuries. Immediately after the incident the Syrian government and opposition accused each other of carrying out the attack, but neither side presented clear documentation. The Syrian government asked the United Nations to investigate this particular incident, but disputes over the scope of the investigation (as the UN and others wanted to investigate other alleged incidents in addition) led to lengthy delays. In the interim, the Syrian government invited its ally Russia to visit Khan al-Assal and having taken samples Russia told the UN that they believed the attack involved the use of sarin, a conclusion which matched that reached by the United States. However, Russia held the opposition responsible, while the US held the government responsible. UN investigators finally arrived on the ground in Syria in August (with a mandate excluding the evaluation of culpability for chemical weapons attacks), but their arrival coincided with the much larger-scale 2013 Ghouta attacks which took place on 21 August, pushing the Khan al-Assal investigation "onto the backburner" according to a UN spokesman. As of early September the UN had yet to report its conclusions. In August 2012, the United States warned that the use of such weapons was a "red line" for the Ba'athist government, and would result in "enormous consequences" if crossed. Similarly, France and the United Kingdom have warned of severe consequences for the use of chemical weapons, with France in particular promising a "massive and blistering" response. On 23 December 2012, Al Jazeera released unconfirmed reports that a gas attack killed 7 civilians in the rebel-held al-Bayyada neighbourhood of Homs. Followed by Foreign Policy magazine report of an alleged leaked by US State Department claiming Syrian military likely used poison gas in that incident, however, US National Security Council refuted the reports saying that this incidents "has not been consistent with what we believe to be true about the Syrian chemical weapons program. On 19 March 2013, the Khan al-Assal chemical attack took place, initially reported on Syrian state news agency, SANA. That missiles containing "chemical materials" may have been fired into the Khan al-Assal district in Aleppo and the Al Atebeh suburbs of Damascus, resulting in 25 dead. Both sides accusing each other of carrying out the attack, but neither side presented clear documentation. On 13 April, The Times reported that British military scientists have found forensic evidence of chemical weapons being used in the conflict, after examining a soil sample smuggled out of Syria. On 23 April 2013, the New York Times reported that the British and French governments had sent a confidential letter to the United Nations Secretary General, claiming that there was evidence that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons in Aleppo, Homs, and perhaps Damascus. Israel also claimed that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons on 19 March near Aleppo and Damascus. On 29 April, another chemical attack was reported, this time in Saraqib, in which 2 died and 13 were injured. On 5 May, Turkish doctors said initial test show no traces of sarin had been found in the blood samples of victims. French intelligence acquired blood, urine, earth and munitions samples from victims or sites of attacks on Saraqeb, on 29 April 2013, and Jobar, in mid April 2013. The analysis carried out confirms the use of sarin. On 30 May, Turkish newspapers widely reported that Turkish security forces have arrested people linked to al-Nusra Front in the southern provinces of Mersin and Adana near the Syrian border and allegedly confiscated 2 kg of sarin. However later that day, the governor of Adana said that a chemical was found amd sent away for investigation, denied media reports about Sarin, adding that most involved have been already released. A chemical weapons attack by the Syrian government in the Zamalka district of Damascus was reported by the Syrian Support Group on 24 June 2013. On 5 August, another chemical attack by the Syrian army was reported by the opposition, who documented the injured with video footage. The activists claim up to 400 people were effected by the attack in Adra and Houma of the Damascus suburbs. The content of the chemicals used has not been identified yet. On 25 August, the Syrian government agreed to allow UN investigators to visit the site of the attacks. The UN inspection team (which included personnel of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and the World Health Organization arrived to the site of the attacks, despite being fired upon by an unknown party while underway. UN officials say that inspectors have gathered "valuable" evidence. On 26 August the inspectors reached some sites, but after an hour and a half, were ordered by the Syrian government to return due to 'safety concerns', and the inspectors could not reach the six main sites. According to Russian Ground Forces Air Defense commander Major General Alexander Leonov, Syria's Russian-supplied air defenses are sophisticated and effective. Overcoming them, as would be required in the event of the threatened military intervention should Syria use chemical weapons, would be a major challenge for US and NATO forces In response, President Obama cautioned the Syrian government that any deployment of its chemical weapons would cross a “red line” and invite an immediate response by the West. U.S. and Israeli officials fear that the chemical sites could be looted, leading to weapons being sold or given to radical Islamists or to Iranian-backed Hezbollah fighters. A single crate of artillery shells or a few barrels of chemical precursors would contain enough lethal poisons for a series of terrorist attacks, weapons experts say. Gen. Salim Idriss. (AP). The shipments will be sent to an umbrella group known as the Supreme Military Council, which is overseen by Gen. Salim Idriss, a Syrian military defector and former military academy teacher. Idriss will act as a conduit of weapons deliveries to various rebel groups. The groups include: Syrian Liberation Front: A separate alliance that wants Islamist rule in Syria but is regarded as moderate and pragmatic. Syrian Islamist Front: Advocates the creation of an Islamic state Jabhat al-Nusra: An offshoot of al-Qaeda in Iraq that the Obama administration lists as a terrorist group. Ahrar al-Sham: Embraces jihadist ideology and supports the imposition of austere, Taliban-like Islamic rule. Because of Chemical attack and all of these, Terrorists prevention of global security, national and home land Defense budget crisis while defense budget have been already way deep down cut, humanitarian Aids crisis have been increased and all of these needs taking care as soon as possible if not, dominos effect will be increased including the global economic and global climate crisis, and environmental issues will be the world most never expected diseases, chemical reaction will be the most fearful situation will be with no prevention time will make world scares situation. Earlier preventing, cleaning environmental issues will be the better to preventing the chemical situation will make better and peaceful mind of no more gas chamber of Jews and like terrors of WWII situation .... Other Source: RT: Russia releases key findings on chemical attack near Aleppo indicating similarity with rebel-made weapons. 9 September 2013 – United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today said that two-and-half years of conflict in Syria have produced only “embarrassing paralysis” in the Security Council and that he was considering proposals to the 15-member body in the search for a political solution. In his first press conference since returning to New York from the G20 Summit in St. Petersburg, Mr. Ban said that should a UN weapons team confirm use of chemical agents in the 21 August incident in Syria, it would be an “abominable crime” and the international community “would certainly have to do something about it.” “The Syrian people need peace,” he declared. “Should Dr. Sellström’s report confirm the use of chemical weapons, then this would surely be something around which the Security Council could unite in response - and indeed something that should merit universal condemnation,” Mr. Ban told reporters. The UN chief added that he is already considering “certain proposals that I could make to the Security Council” when presenting the investigation team’s report. Those include urging the Council to demand the immediate transfer of Syria’s chemical weapons and chemical precursor stocks to places inside Syria where they can be safely stored and destroyed, Mr. Ban said. He also urged Damascus to become a party to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which is the implementing body of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). Syria is not a party CWC, but it is a party to the Geneva (Protocol) of 1925 which prohibits the use of chemical and biological weapons, according to the OPCW. In response to a question about how quickly the UN can act, if Syria agrees to a transfer of its alleged chemical weapons stock under international control, Mr. Ban said he is sure that the international community will take “very swift action” to make safely store and destroy the chemical weapons stocks. Meanwhile, the biomedical and environmental samples taken by the UN chemical weapons inspection team have been undergoing analysis in Europe since last week. Mr. Ban has said he would promptly share the results of the analyses with the 15-member Security Council and all 193 Member States. Addressing journalists, the UN chief again reiterated the need to come together for a so-called Geneva II conference, which would include representatives of Syrian parties as well as senior United States, Russian and UN officials, to find a political path out of the crisis in the country. A political solution “is the only viable option at this time”, Mr. Ban said, adding that he and Joint UN-Arab League Special Representative Lakhdar Brahimi, who was also in St. Petersburg, have been working very closely with Moscow and Washington to get all parties to the table. The UN chief noted that Syria dominated the G20 talks “in a way no other political development has ever done.” In addition to those discussions at the summit and on the sidelines, Mr. Ban said there was progress on growth, jobs, trade and investment. Mr. Ban said he was “encouraged” by the response to this call for concentrated actions to achieve the eight anti-poverty targets known as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), define a global development agenda beyond 2015, and addressing climate change. He looks forward to building on the G20 discussions at the high-level General Assembly debate later this month at the UN Headquarters in New York. On same day, According to The Guardian News, reported by Julian Borger and Patrick Wintour, The Russian foreign minister says Moscow will push Syria to place its chemical weapons under international control. Sergey Lavrov said on Monday that if such a move would help avert a possible US strike on Syria, Russia would start work 'immediately' to persuade Syria to relinquish control over its chemical arsenal: Russia opened up a possible diplomatic solution to the Syrian chemical weapons crisis on Monday with a pledge to persuade the Assad regime to hand over its chemical arsenal to international supervision to be destroyed. Russia's new initiative was announced by its foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, hours after the US secretary of state, John Kerry, suggested that the Syrian government could avert punitive US air strikes in retaliation for an alleged chemical attack on 21 August, if it surrendered "every single bit" of its arsenal by the end of the week. However, Kerry added that Assad "isn't about to do it", and the state department hastily issued a clarification saying that apparent ultimatum was "rhetorical" rather than a concrete bargaining position. But Lavrov appeared to seize on the idea as a means of averting US military intervention. "If the establishment of international control over chemical weapons in that country would allow avoiding strikes, we will immediately start working with Damascus," he said. "We are calling on the Syrian leadership to not only agree on placing chemical weapons storage sites under international control, but also on its subsequent destruction and fully joining the treaty on prohibition of chemical weapons," Lavrov said after a meeting with his Syrian counterpart, Walid al-Moallem. He added that he has already handed over the proposal to Moallem and expected a "quick, and, hopefully, positive answer". Moallem was quoted by the French Press Agency as welcoming the Russian proposal. Both ministers said they looked forward to publication of a report by UN weapons inspectors on the 21 August attack on a rebel-held area east of Damascus called Ghouta, which the US says killed more than 1,400 people. The French government has also said it would wait for the UN report, being prepared by a Swedish scientist, Åke Sellström, before making a final decision on taking part in military action. The Sellström report is unlikely to come before the end of this week, diplomatic sources said. The samples brought back from a two-week visit are being studied in four European laboratories, to ensure that the result is conclusive. Sellström only has a mandate to state whether chemical weapons were used, not who used them. However, his report will include interviews with survivors and observations on the missiles or other delivery systems used in what the UN is saying will be an "evidence-based narrative" of the attack. "Should Dr Sellström's report confirm the use of chemical weapons, then this would surely be something around which the security council could unite in response – and indeed something that should merit universal condemnation, Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary general, said on Monday. "I am already considering certain proposals that I could make to the security council when presenting the investigation team's report. There would be a need for accountability, both to bring to justice those who used them – should Dr Sellström confirm their use – and to deter anyone else from using these abhorrent methods of warfare. There would be a need for greater security regarding any chemical weapons stocks. In the UK parliament, David Cameron responded positively, but cautiously to Russia's move, saying if it was a genuine offer, it should be regarded as a big step forward. Number 10 initially indicated that the Kerry proposal was not serious, pointing out that the idea had not been raised during the lengthy discussion on Syria at the G20 dinner in Saint Petersburg. They added the focus should be on Assad's record with chemical weapons. But in a Commons debate on the G20 and Syria, Cameron said it would be "hugely welcome" if the Assad regime were to hand over its chemical weapons stockpile.- -------------------------------- Syria is one of only 7 states which are not party to the Chemical Weapons Convention. However, it is party to the 1925 Geneva Protocol prohibiting the use of chemical weapons in war but has nothing to say about production, storage or transfer compare to the North Korea that North Korea is not a signatory of CWC and has never officially acknowledged the existence of its offensive CW program. Nevertheless, the country is believed to possess a substantial arsenal of chemical weapons. It reportedly acquired the technology necessary to produce tabun and mustard gas as early as the 1950s. Syrian officials have stated that they feel it appropriate to have some deterrent against Israel's similarly non-admitted nuclear weapons program when questioned about the topic, but only on July 23, 2012, the Syrian government acknowledged for the first time that it had chemical weapons Independent assessments indicate that Syrian production could be up to a combined total of a few hundred tons of chemical agent per year. Syria reportedly manufactures Sarin, Tabun, VX, and mustard gas types of chemical weapons Syrian chemical weapons production facilities have been identified by Western nonproliferation experts at approximately 5 sites, plus one suspected weapons base Al Safir (Scud missile base) piled in Cerin, Hama, Homs, Latakia, and Palmyra. In July 2007, a Syrian arms depot exploded, killing at least 15 Syrians. Jane's Defence Weekly, a U.S. magazine reporting on military and corporate affairs, believed that the explosion happened when Iranian and Syrian military personnel attempted to fit a Scud missile with a mustard gas warhead. Syria stated that the blast was accidental and not chemical related. On July 13, 2012, the Syrian government moved its stockpile to an undisclosed location. In September 2012, information emerged that the Syrian military had begun chemical weapons tests and was reinforcing and resupplying a base housing these weapons located east of Aleppo in August. On March 19, 2013, news emerged from Syria indicating the first use of chemical weapons since the beginning of the Syrian uprising. On August 21, 2013, testimony and photographic evidence emerged from Syria indicating a large-scale chemical weapons attack on Ghouta, a populated urban center.Even chemical weapons stockpile. The Russian foreign minister says Moscow will push Syria to place its chemical weapons under international control. President Obama calls Russian proposal on Syria a positive development. According to USA Today News Contributing: Associated Press., dated Sept. 9th, 2013, The Syrian government said Monday it welcomes a proposal by Russia to avoid a U.S.military strike in Damascus by placing its chemical weapons under international monitors. The statement by Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moualem came in response to a proposal put forth Monday by his Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, as a way to defuse the crisis over the use of chemical weapons. The two foreign ministers held talks in Moscow on Monday. "I state that the Syrian Arab Republic welcomes the Russian initiative, motivated by the Syrian leadership's concern for the lives of our citizens and the security of our country, and also motivated by our confidence in the wisdom of the Russian leadership, which is attempting to prevent American aggression against our people," Moualem said. Moualem did not say whether his country would agree to what Russia was asking. Lavrov said he hoped to receive a "fast and positive answer." The Russian foreign minister said that if such a move would help avert a possible U.S. strike on Syria, Russia will start work "immediately" to persuade Syria to give up control of its chemical arsenals. In Washington, the White House said Monday it will "want to take a hard look" at the Russian proposal. "We'll talk to the Russians about it," said deputy national security adviser Tony Blinken. Blinken said the proposal comes in the "context of U.S. action and the pressure the president is exerting." In Philadelphia, former secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Syria surrendering chemical stockpiles would be an "important step" to averting a U.S. military strike, but it can't be an "excuse for delay or obstruction" by the Bashar Assad regime. In Moscow, Lavrov said Russia would urge Syria to concentrate its chemical weapons in certain areas under international oversight, then dismantle them. ASSAD: A U.S. attack would bring 'repercussions' CLINTON: Syria move could be an 'important step' to avert crisis United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon urged Syria to immediately agree to transfer chemical weapons and chemical precursors to a safe place within the country for international destruction. Ban said he would urge the Security Council to demand an immediate chemical weapons transfer if U.N. inspectors determine such weapons were used in an attack Aug. 21 in a suburb of Damascus. "I am sure that the international community will take quick measures to make sure that these chemical weapons reserves are stored in a safe place and are to be destroyed," Ban said. The Obama administration has accused the Assad regime of mounting the attack that killed more than 1,400 people. President Obama has called on Congress to back a limited strike against Syria in response. Lavrov said U.N. chemical weapons experts should complete their probe of the attack and present their findings to the U.N. Security Council. "We have agreed to push for the soonest return of inspectors," Lavrov said. Moualem said his government was ready to host the U.N. team and insisted that Syria is ready to use all channels to convince the Americans it wasn't behind the attack. He said Syria was ready for "full cooperation with Russia to remove any pretext for aggression." Syria is one of only five countries — including Angola, North Korea, Egypt and South Sudan — that have not signed the Chemical Weapons Convention drawn up in 1992. The arms control treaty, signed by 189 countries, bans the use and production of chemical weapons and calls for their destruction. Burma, also known as Myanmar, and Israel have signed the agreement but not ratified it. In London, Secretary of State John Kerry was asked if Assad could do anything to avoid a military strike. "Sure. He could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week," he said. "Turn it over. All of it, without delay. And allow the full and total accounting for that. But he isn't about to do it." State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki was asked whether Kerry's remarks amounted to an ultimatum. "Secretary Kerry was making a rhetorical argument about the impossibility and unlikelihood of Assad turning over chemical weapons he has denied he used," she said in a statement. "His point was that this brutal dictator with a history of playing fast and loose with the facts can not be trusted to turn over chemical weapons; otherwise, he would have done so long ago. That's why the world faces this moment." Meanwhile, President Obama calls that The Russian foreign minister says Moscow will push Syria to place its chemical weapons under international control. In an interview with Charlie Rose for CBS' This Morning, Assad denied using chemical weapons to attack his own people, but he would neither confirm nor deny his government kept such weapons. If they exist, he said they are "in centralized control." Syria has denied launching the attack Aug. 21, insisting along with its ally Russia that the attack was launched by the rebels to drag the United States into war. Assad told CBS his troops were attacked by chemical weapons and were not the aggressors. "Our soldiers in another area were attacked chemically," he told Rose. "Our soldiers. They went to the hospital — as casualties because of chemical weapons." Lavrov said Russia will continue to promote a peaceful settlement and may try to convene a gathering of all Syrian opposition figures to join negotiations. He said a U.S. attack on Syria would deal a fatal blow to peace efforts. Lavrov wouldn't say how Russia could respond to a U.S. attack on Syria, saying, "We wouldn't like to proceed from a negative scenario and would primarily take efforts to prevent a military intervention." President Vladimir Putin said Moscow would keep providing assistance to Syria in case of U.S. attack, but he and other Russian officials have made clear that Russia has no intention to engage in hostilities. Syria President, Assad, in his interview with CBS, said the United States would face "repercussions" in the event of an attack. USA Today news, AP reported that In an interview with Charlie Rose for CBS' This Morning, Syria President, Assad denied using chemical weapons to attack his own people, but he would neither confirm nor deny his government kept such weapons. If they exist, he said they are "in centralized control." Syria has denied launching the attack Aug. 21, insisting along with its ally Russia that the attack was launched by the rebels to drag the United States into war. Syria President, Assad told CBS his troops were attacked by chemical weapons and were not the aggressors. "Our soldiers in another area were attacked chemically," he told Rose. "Our soldiers. They went to the hospital — as casualties because of chemical weapons." Lavrov said Russia will continue to promote a peaceful settlement and may try to convene a gathering of all Syrian opposition figures to join negotiations. He said a U.S. attack on Syria would deal a fatal blow to peace efforts. Lavrov wouldn't say how Russia could respond to a U.S. attack on Syria, saying, "We wouldn't like to proceed from a negative scenario and would primarily take efforts to prevent a military intervention." President Vladimir Putin said Moscow would keep providing assistance to Syria in case of U.S. attack, but he and other Russian officials have made clear that Russia has no intention to engage in hostilities. Syria President, Assad, in his interview with CBS, said the United States would face "repercussions" in the event of an attack  Meanwhile, President Obama calls Russian proposal on Syria a positive development CNN had also interview with President Obama on a same day. President Obama: 'Breakthrough' is possible on Syria. Washington (CNN) -- Russia's proposal for Syria to surrender its chemical weapons to international control was a "potentially positive development," but could be a stall tactic, President Barack Obama told CNN on Monday. "We're going to run this to ground," Obama said in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, adding that the United States will work with Syrian ally Russia and the international community "to see if we can arrive at something that is enforceable and serious." A 'breakthrough' on the horizon? Obama said the new proposal that emerged Monday from Russia resulted from his threat to attack Syria for violating an international ban on using chemical weapons, as his administration contends occurred on August 21 in suburban Damascus He and Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke about the Syrian chemical weapons and the U.S. push for a military response at last week's G20 summit in St. Petersburg, Obama told Blitzer. "We have not seen these kinds of gestures up until now," the president said. "The fact that the U.S. administration and I have said we are serious about this, I think, has prompted some interesting conversations." The Russian proposal could lead to a "breakthrough," but would require follow-up while maintaining pressure on Syria and Russia by continuing his push for Congress to authorize a military attack, Obama said. Latest developments "We have not seen these kinds of gestures up until now," the president said. "The fact that the U.S. administration and I have said we are serious about this, I think, has prompted some interesting conversations." The Russian proposal could lead to a "breakthrough," but would require follow-up while maintaining pressure on Syria and Russia by continuing his push for Congress to authorize a military attack, Obama said. CNN Poll: Most Americans don't want Obama to attack In an apparent response to some lawmakers who have questioned U.S. interests in a potential military strike, Obama said Syria's chemical weapons "pose a significant threat to all nations and to the United States, in particular." "That's why 98 percent of humanity have said we don't use these. That protects our troops, and it protects children like the ones that we saw in those videos inside of Syria," the president said, referring to video footage that showed people writhing near death. The U.S. government says more than 1,400 people died in the attack. Obama to keep beating the drum on Syria Obama will make a televised address from the White House on Tuesday night as part of the administration's offensive to build support for military action in Syria. His interview with CNN was one of six television interviews on Monday in his effort to reach the public directly. "If we can accomplish this limited goal without taking military action, that would be my preference," Obama said. "On the other hand, if we don't maintain and move forward without a credible threat of military pressure, I don't think we'll actually get the kind of agreement I'd like to see." Obama told ABC that there was no time limit for an agreement. Hillary Clinton weighs in Syria welcomed Russia's proposal Monday, paving the way for a possible diplomatic solution to the crisis that comes amid Syria's two-year civil war that has killed more than 100,000 people, according to U.N. estimates. Obama acknowledged that an agreement on the Russian proposal may not solve Syria's underlying civil war, "but it does solve the problem that I'm trying to focus on right now, which is making sure that you don't have over 400 children gassed indiscriminately by these chemical weapons." When asked by PBS about Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's claim that the U.S. is lying about his use of chemical weapons, Obama said there can be no diplomatic solution if the Syrian president keeps make statements that are "untrue." "I think that if we can come up with a mechanism to get these under control, verify and enforce that they are not being used, then we should do everything we can to pursue that," Obama said. "But ... that's not going to happen if Assad thinks that he can lie his way through this and eventually the world forgets the images of those children who were gassed." Al-Assad's military lacks capability, Obama said Obama also sought to tamp down the specter of a threat from Assad for the United States to "expect every action" in retaliation for potential military strikes in Syria. "Mr. Assad doesn't have a lot of capability. He has capability relative to children, he has capability relative to an opposition that is still getting itself organized and are not professional trained fighters," Obama said. "He doesn't have a credible means to threaten the United States." However, Obama said it was possible for Iran and Hezbollah to launch "asymmetrical strikes," but dismissed them as nothing more than "the kinds of threats that we are dealing with around the world." He told NBC that he had yet to decide how he would proceed if Congress voted against authorizing force. In light of the upcoming anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks, Obama said the date brings heightened security, but he cautioned that "we're not going to be able to protect ourselves 100 percent of the time against every threat" and that the key was to be prepared without over-reacting. -------------------------------------- Chemical crisis issues have been discussed between Russia President Putin and President Obama since G20 summit on September 5, 201.3 in Saint Petersburg. The White House Office of the Press Secretary     For Immediate Release   September 9, 2013 Statement on Additional Countries in Support of September 6 Joint Statement on Syria On September 6, the United States and 10 other countries issued a joint statement on Syria, condemning in the strongest terms the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons on August 21 in the suburbs of Damascus and calling for a strong international response. The statement explicitly supports the efforts undertaken by the United States and other countries to reinforce the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons. Since the issuance of that statement, additional countries (marked by an asterisk) have signed on to the statement and publicly support its content. The countries now formally supporting this statement are: Albania* Australia Canada Croatia* Denmark* Estonia* France Germany* Honduras* Hungary* Italy Japan Republic of Korea Kosovo* Latvia* Lithuania* Morocco* Qatar* Romania* Saudi Arabia Spain Turkey United Arab Emirates* United Kingdom United States We welcome additional countries expressing their support for this statement and our continued efforts to hold the Assad regime accountable and enforce the international norm against the use of chemical weapons. The statement will continue to be updated and can be found at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/foreign-policy/syria. Text of Joint Statement on Syria: The international norm against the use of chemical weapons is longstanding and universal. The use of chemical weapons anywhere diminishes the security of people everywhere. Left unchallenged, it increases the risk of further use and proliferation of these weapons. We condemn in the strongest terms the horrific chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus on August 21st that claimed the lives of so many men, women, and children. The evidence clearly points to the Syrian government being responsible for the attack, which is part of a pattern of chemical weapons use by the regime. We call 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. Those who perpetrated these crimes must be held accountable. Signatories have consistently supported a strong UN Security Council Resolution, given the Security Council's responsibilities to lead the international response, but recognize that the Council remains paralyzed as it has been for two and a half years. The world cannot wait for endless failed processes that can only lead to increased suffering in Syria and regional instability. We support efforts undertaken by the United States and other countries to reinforce the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons. We commit to supporting longer term international efforts, including through the United Nations, to address the enduring security challenge posed by Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles. Signatories have also called for the UN fact finding mission to present its results as soon as possible, and for the Security Council to act accordingly. We condemn in the strongest terms all human rights violations in Syria on all sides. More than 100,000 people have been killed in the conflict, more than 2 million people have become refugees, and approximately 5 million are internally displaced. 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. We have contributed generously to the latest United Nations (UN) and ICRC appeals for humanitarian assistance and will continue to provide support to address the growing humanitarian needs in Syria and their impact on regional countries. We welcome the contributions announced at the meeting of donor countries on the margins of the G20. We call upon all parties to allow humanitarian actors safe and unhindered access to those in need. European signatories will continue to engage in promoting a common European position.

Meanwhile, International pressure has been building for a military strike on Syria in the wake of an alleged chemical weapons attack in a Damascus suburb. The West has laid the blame at the feet of President Assad, as UN experts collected chemical samples on-site. Tuesday, September 10 20:19 GMT: A total of 33 countries have now signed a joint statement on Syria condemning the chemical attack on August 21 and blaming the Syrian government for it, the White House said. Eight more countries voiced their support of the “efforts undertaken by the United States and other countries to reinforce the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons.” 20:07 GMT: US Secretary of State John Kerry will meet Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Geneva to discuss Syria's chemical weapons on Thursday, US officials told Reuters. Lavrov is expected to share Russia’s proposals on securing Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles under international control for review by the US administration. 19:14 GMT: The Russian Foreign Ministry said that Secretary of State John Kerry and Minister Sergey Lavrov have agreed on a possible bilateral meeting soon to discuss initiative on Syria’s chemical weapons. “The two have agreed to work together, including the possibility of holding a bilateral meeting in the coming days to discuss concrete ways of fulfilling the initiative of putting Syrian chemical weapons under international control,” the Foreign Ministry said following a phone call between Lavrov and Kerry. Russia’s proposal to remove Syrian chemical weapons is expected to be formally sent to the US later on Tuesday, John Kerry said after the call. Regardless giving up the chemical Poison, Syria still in danger and fighting which has been for over 40 years fighting and killing.....CBS reported on September 8th, 2013 via youtube: According to DOD, By Karen Parrish, American Forces Press Service, Forces Ready for Syria Contingencies, Dempsey Says WASHINGTON, Sept. 10, 2013 – U.S. forces are positioned and plans are in place for a range of military options against Bashar Assad’s regime in Syria, America’s top general testified today before the House Armed Services Committee. Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke before the committee along with Secretary of State John F. Kerry and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel on authorization to use military force in Syria, which President Barack Obama has asked Congress to grant. The general noted that Obama has determined that a limited military response to Assad’s use of chemical weapons -- in one instance killing 1,400 Syrians, including some 400 children -- is in America’s national security interest. Chemical weapons have long been outlawed under international agreements, one dating back to 1925, that prohibit their assembly, stockpiling or use. “We've reached the point at which Assad views chemical weapons as just another military tool in his arsenal, a tool he's willing to use indiscriminately,” Dempsey said. “And that's what makes this so dangerous -- dangerous for Syria, dangerous for the region, and dangerous for the world.” Dempsey said he has prepared at the president’s request a list of target packages to meet the objectives of deterring the Assad regime’s further use of chemical weapons and degrading its military capability to deliver chemical weapons. “We have both an initial target set and subsequent target sets, should they become necessary,” the chairman said. “The planned strikes will disrupt those parts of Assad's forces directly related to the chemical attack of 21 August, degrade his means of chemical weapons delivery, and finally, degrade the assets that Assad uses to threaten his neighbors and to defend his regime.” Dempsey added the strikes will send Assad a deterrent message that the United States can “hold at risk the capabilities he values most.” U.S. forces are ready to carry out the orders of the commander in chief, he said. Dempsey acknowledged that because of sequestration-mandated spending cuts, “the force that sits behind the forward-deployed force” faces readiness issues. But a limited operation in Syria to defend the nation’s security interests is feasible, he said. “I am concerned not about [funding] this operation, but in general that unforeseen contingencies will be impacted in the future if sequestration continues,” he said. Dempsey noted the limited nature of the planned strikes should decrease the potential for miscalculation and escalation, as well as minimize collateral damage. “However, we are postured to address a range of contingencies and we're prepared to support our friends in the region should Assad choose to retaliate,” he added. U.S. troops are exceptionally well trained and prepared, the general told the panel. “I'm honored to represent them,” he said. “If called to execute, your military will respond.”

September 10, 2013 at  9:00 PM ET, President Obama addressed the nation from the East Room of the White House. The President delivered about the United States' response to the Syrian regime's use of chemical weapons that killed more than 1,400 civilians — including more than 400 children.” The White House Office of the Press Secretary     For Immediate Release   September 10, 2013 Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation on Syria East Room 9:01 P.M. EDT THE PRESIDENT:  My fellow Americans, tonight I want to talk to you about Syria -- why it matters, and where we go from here. Over the past two years, what began as a series of peaceful protests against the repressive regime of Bashar al-Assad has turned into a brutal civil war.  Over 100,000 people have been killed.  Millions have fled the country.  In that time, America has worked with allies to provide humanitarian support, to help the moderate opposition, and to shape a political settlement.  But I have resisted calls for military action, because we cannot resolve someone else’s civil war through force, particularly after a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The situation profoundly changed, though, on August 21st, when Assad’s government gassed to death over a thousand people, including hundreds of children.  The images from this massacre are sickening:  Men, women, children lying in rows, killed by poison gas.  Others foaming at the mouth, gasping for breath.  A father clutching his dead children, imploring them to get up and walk.  On that terrible night, the world saw in gruesome detail the terrible nature of chemical weapons, and why the overwhelming majority of humanity has declared them off-limits -- a crime against humanity, and a violation of the laws of war. This was not always the case.  In World War I, American GIs were among the many thousands killed by deadly gas in the trenches of Europe.  In World War II, the Nazis used gas to inflict the horror of the Holocaust.  Because these weapons can kill on a mass scale, with no distinction between soldier and infant, the civilized world has spent a century working to ban them.  And in 1997, the United States Senate overwhelmingly approved an international agreement prohibiting the use of chemical weapons, now joined by 189 governments that represent 98 percent of humanity. On August 21st, these basic rules were violated, along with our sense of common humanity.  No one disputes that chemical weapons were used in Syria.  The world saw thousands of videos, cell phone pictures, and social media accounts from the attack, and humanitarian organizations told stories of hospitals packed with people who had symptoms of poison gas. Moreover, we know the Assad regime was responsible.  In the days leading up to August 21st, we know that Assad’s chemical weapons personnel prepared for an attack near an area where they mix sarin gas.  They distributed gasmasks to their troops.  Then they fired rockets from a regime-controlled area into 11 neighborhoods that the regime has been trying to wipe clear of opposition forces.  Shortly after those rockets landed, the gas spread, and hospitals filled with the dying and the wounded.  We know senior figures in Assad’s military machine reviewed the results of the attack, and the regime increased their shelling of the same neighborhoods in the days that followed.  We’ve also studied samples of blood and hair from people at the site that tested positive for sarin. When dictators commit atrocities, they depend upon the world to look the other way until those horrifying pictures fade from memory.  But these things happened.  The facts cannot be denied. The question now is what the United States of America, and the international community, is prepared to do about it.  Because what happened to those people -- to those children -- is not only a violation of international law, it’s also a danger to our security. Let me explain why.  If we fail to act, the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons.  As the ban against these weapons erodes, other tyrants will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas, and using them.  Over time, our troops would again face the prospect of chemical warfare on the battlefield.  And it could be easier for terrorist organizations to obtain these weapons, and to use them to attack civilians. If fighting spills beyond Syria’s borders, these weapons could threaten allies like Turkey, Jordan, and Israel.  And a failure to stand against the use of chemical weapons would weaken prohibitions against other weapons of mass destruction, and embolden Assad’s ally, Iran -- which must decide whether to ignore international law by building a nuclear weapon, or to take a more peaceful path. This is not a world we should accept.  This is what’s at stake.  And that is why, after careful deliberation, I determined that it is in the national security interests of the United States to respond to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike.  The purpose of this strike would be to deter Assad from using chemical weapons, to degrade his regime’s ability to use them, and to make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use. That's my judgment as Commander-in-Chief.  But I’m also the President of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy.  So even though I possess the authority to order military strikes, I believed it was right, in the absence of a direct or imminent threat to our security, to take this debate to Congress.  I believe our democracy is stronger when the President acts with the support of Congress.  And I believe that America acts more effectively abroad when we stand together. This is especially true after a decade that put more and more war-making power in the hands of the President, and more and more burdens on the shoulders of our troops, while sidelining the people’s representatives from the critical decisions about when we use force. Now, I know that after the terrible toll of Iraq and Afghanistan, the idea of any military action, no matter how limited, is not going to be popular.  After all, I've spent four and a half years working to end wars, not to start them.  Our troops are out of Iraq.  Our troops are coming home from Afghanistan.  And I know Americans want all of us in Washington -- especially me -- to concentrate on the task of building our nation here at home:  putting people back to work, educating our kids, growing our middle class. It’s no wonder, then, that you're asking hard questions.  So let me answer some of the most important questions that I've heard from members of Congress, and that I've read in letters that you've sent to me. First, many of you have asked, won’t this put us on a slippery slope to another war?  One man wrote to me that we are “still recovering from our involvement in Iraq.”  A veteran put it more bluntly:  “This nation is sick and tired of war.” My answer is simple:  I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria.  I will not pursue an open-ended action like Iraq or Afghanistan.  I will not pursue a prolonged air campaign like Libya or Kosovo.  This would be a targeted strike to achieve a clear objective:  deterring the use of chemical weapons, and degrading Assad’s capabilities. Others have asked whether it's worth acting if we don’t take out Assad.  As some members of Congress have said, there’s no point in simply doing a “pinprick” strike in Syria. Let me make something clear:  The United States military doesn’t do pinpricks.  Even a limited strike will send a message to Assad that no other nation can deliver.  I don't think we should remove another dictator with force -- we learned from Iraq that doing so makes us responsible for all that comes next.  But a targeted strike can make Assad, or any other dictator, think twice before using chemical weapons. Other questions involve the dangers of retaliation.  We don’t dismiss any threats, but the Assad regime does not have the ability to seriously threaten our military.  Any other retaliation they might seek is in line with threats that we face every day.  Neither Assad nor his allies have any interest in escalation that would lead to his demise.  And our ally, Israel, can defend itself with overwhelming force, as well as the unshakeable support of the United States of America. Many of you have asked a broader question:  Why should we get involved at all in a place that's so complicated, and where  -- as one person wrote to me -- “those who come after Assad may be enemies of human rights?” It’s true that some of Assad’s opponents are extremists.  But al Qaeda will only draw strength in a more chaotic Syria if people there see the world doing nothing to prevent innocent civilians from being gassed to death.  The majority of the Syrian people -- and the Syrian opposition we work with -- just want to live in peace, with dignity and freedom.  And the day after any military action, we would redouble our efforts to achieve a political solution that strengthens those who reject the forces of tyranny and extremism. Finally, many of you have asked:  Why not leave this to other countries, or seek solutions short of force?  As several people wrote to me, “We should not be the world’s policeman.” I agree, and I have a deeply held preference for peaceful solutions.  Over the last two years, my administration has tried diplomacy and sanctions, warning and negotiations -- but chemical weapons were still used by the Assad regime. However, over the last few days, we’ve seen some encouraging signs.  In part because of the credible threat of U.S. military action, as well as constructive talks that I had with President Putin, the Russian government has indicated a willingness to join with the international community in pushing Assad to give up his chemical weapons.  The Assad regime has now admitted that it has these weapons, and even said they’d join the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits their use. It’s too early to tell whether this offer will succeed, and any agreement must verify that the Assad regime keeps its commitments.  But this initiative has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force, particularly because Russia is one of Assad’s strongest allies. I have, therefore, asked the leaders of Congress to postpone a vote to authorize the use of force while we pursue this diplomatic path.  I’m sending Secretary of State John Kerry to meet his Russian counterpart on Thursday, and I will continue my own discussions with President Putin.  I’ve spoken to the leaders of two of our closest allies, France and the United Kingdom, and we will work together in consultation with Russia and China to put forward a resolution at the U.N. Security Council requiring Assad to give up his chemical weapons, and to ultimately destroy them under international control.  We’ll also give U.N. inspectors the opportunity to report their findings about what happened on August 21st.  And we will continue to rally support from allies from Europe to the Americas -- from Asia to the Middle East -- who agree on the need for action. Meanwhile, I’ve ordered our military to maintain their current posture to keep the pressure on Assad, and to be in a position to respond if diplomacy fails.  And tonight, I give thanks again to our military and their families for their incredible strength and sacrifices. My fellow Americans, for nearly seven decades, the United States has been the anchor of global security.  This has meant doing more than forging international agreements -- it has meant enforcing them.  The burdens of leadership are often heavy, but the world is a better place because we have borne them. And so, to my friends on the right, I ask you to reconcile your commitment to America’s military might with a failure to act when a cause is so plainly just.  To my friends on the left, I ask you to reconcile your belief in freedom and dignity for all people with those images of children writhing in pain, and going still on a cold hospital floor.  For sometimes resolutions and statements of condemnation are simply not enough. Indeed, I’d ask every member of Congress, and those of you watching at home tonight, to view those videos of the attack, and then ask:  What kind of world will we live in if the United States of America sees a dictator brazenly violate international law with poison gas, and we choose to look the other way? Franklin Roosevelt once said, “Our national determination to keep free of foreign wars and foreign entanglements cannot prevent us from feeling deep concern when ideals and principles that we have cherished are challenged.”  Our ideals and principles, as well as our national security, are at stake in Syria, along with our leadership of a world where we seek to ensure that the worst weapons will never be used. America is not the world’s policeman.  Terrible things happen across the globe, and it is beyond our means to right every wrong.  But when, with modest effort and risk, we can stop children from being gassed to death, and thereby make our own children safer over the long run, I believe we should act.  That’s what makes America different.  That’s what makes us exceptional.  With humility, but with resolve, let us never lose sight of that essential truth. Thank you.  God bless you.  And God bless the United States of America. END                    9:17 P.M. EDT. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov opened high-stakes talks on Thursday on disarming Syria's chemical weapons programs although Both Secretary of State John Kerry and counter part of Russian President, Putin, they hoped to revive stalled Syria peace talks to continue during the peace conference at "Geneva 2." see more detail of insite via his remarks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Syria in Geneva, Switzerland on September 12th, 2013  Meanwhile, the Syrian regime has suggested that as part of the standard process they ought to have 30 days to submit data on their technical – on their chemical weapons stockpile: FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: (Via interpreter) (In progress) – delegations that accompany us. Of course, we would like you to have unbiased ideas about what we are going to do. But I think that you understand well before we start to tell you what we are going to do, we should get down to a very serious work, the work which is dedicated to a principled agreement to solve once and for – till the end the Syrian problem and the adhesion of Syria to the convention, to the Chemical Weapons Convention, to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. These documents are officially tabled by Damascus to the corresponding agencies, and we will have to have a look at the corresponding documents with the participation of experts that have all the qualifications and professionalism how to work further, not to postpone this process, in strict compliance with the rules that are established by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. We proceed from the fact that the solution on this problem will make unnecessary any strike on the Syrian Arab Republic, and I am convinced that our American colleagues, as President Obama stated, are firmly convinced that we should follow the peaceful way of resolution of the conflict in Syria. And I should say that we spoke with John by phone several times when we prepared for this meeting. We think that the development of the events gives us an additional opportunity for Geneva 2 in order to move this today’s situation from the stage of military confrontation and to prevent any terroristic threats which is expanding in Syria and in the region, and to convene the conference during which the Syrian parties, in accordance with the Geneva communiques, should agree on the creation of the transition body that will have all the executive functions. And this is our common objectives, and I hope that our today’s and tomorrow work and all other efforts that we are going to continue will help us to move on and to achieve this objective. Thank you for your attention. SECRETARY KERRY: Well, thank you very much, Foreign Minister Lavrov. My privilege to be here with our delegation, and I want to thank you and your delegation on behalf of all the people who hope that diplomacy can avoid military action, and we thank you for coming quickly to Geneva in order to have this important conversation that we will engage in. Over one year ago, President Obama and President Putin directed high-level experts in our governments, both of our governments, to work together to prepare contingencies involving Syria’s chemical weapons. Foreign Minister Lavrov and I have been in regular contact about this issue since my visit to Moscow earlier this year. And as Foreign Minister Lavrov said to me in a phone conversation after St. Petersburg and the meetings there, President Putin and President Obama thought it would be worthwhile for us to work together to determine if there is life in this concept. This challenge obviously took on grave urgency on August 21st when the Syrian regime used chemical weapons in a massive and indiscriminate way against its own citizens. President Obama and dozens of our partners believe that that action is unacceptable, and we have in no uncertain terms made it clear that we cannot allow that to happen again. In light of what has happened, the world wonders and watches closely whether or not the Assad regime will live up to its public commitments that it has made to give up their chemical weapons and whether two of the world’s most powerful nations can together take a critical step forward in order to hold the regime to its stated promises. I have seen reports that the Syrian regime has suggested that as part of the standard process they ought to have within a week to submit data on their technical – on their chemical weapons stockpile. We believe there is nothing standard about this process at this moment because of the way the regime has behaved, because the – not only the existence of these weapons, but they have been used. And the words of the Syrian regime, in our judgment, are simply not enough, which is why we’ve come here in order to work with the Russians and work with Sergey Lavrov and his delegation here in order to make certain that this can, in fact, be achieved. The United States and Russia have had and continue to have our share of disagreements about the situation in Syria, including a difference as to the judgment we just offered with respect to who may have done that. But what’s important as we come here is that there’s much that we agree on. We agree that on August 21st Syrian men, women, and children died grotesque deaths due to chemical weapons. We agree that no one anywhere at any time should employ chemical weapons. And we agree that our joining together with the international community to eliminate stockpiles of these weapons in Syria would be an historic moment for the multilateral nonproliferation efforts. We agree on those things. We agree that it would help to save lives if we could accomplish this, that it would reduce the threat to the region, that it would uphold the norm that was established here in Geneva almost a century ago, and it would achieve the best of our – all of our aspirations for curbing weapons of mass destruction. Foreign Minister Lavrov and I have come to Geneva today to begin to test these propositions, not just on behalf of each of our countries but on behalf of everybody who is interested in a peaceful resolution. So I welcome the distinguished Russian delegation and I am proud that at President Obama’s direction we have a delegation here which I lead of some of our nation’s foremost chemical weapons experts; people who’ve dedicated their lives every day to countering the proliferation of these weapons and to bringing about their eventual elimination from this Earth. The Russian delegation has put some ideas forward, and we’re grateful for that. We respect it. And we have prepared our own principles that any plan to accomplish this needs to encompass. Expectations are high. They are high for the United States, perhaps even more so for Russia to deliver on the promise of this moment. This is not a game, and I said that to my friend Sergey when we talked about it initially. It has to be real. It has to be comprehensive. It has to be verifiable. It has to be credible. It has to be timely and implemented in a timely fashion. And finally, there ought to be consequences if it doesn’t take place. Diplomacy is and always has been President Obama’s and this Administration’s first resort, and achieving a peaceful resolution is clearly preferable to military action. President Obama has said that again and again. Now, it’s too early to tell whether or not these efforts will succeed, but the technical challenges of trying to do this in the context of a civil war are obviously immense. But despite how difficult this is, with the collaboration of our experts and only with the compliance from the Assad regime, we do believe there is a way to get this done. We have come here to define a potential path forward that we can share with our international partners, and together we will test the Assad regime’s commitment to follow through on its promises. We are serious – Mr. Foreign Minister, we are serious, as you are – about engaging in substantive, meaningful negotiations even as our military maintains its current posture to keep up the pressure on the Assad regime. Only the credible threat of force and the intervention of President Putin and Russia based on that has brought the Assad regime to acknowledge for the first time that it even has chemical weapons and an arsenal, and it is now prepared to relinquish it. President Obama has made clear that should diplomacy fail, force might be necessary to deter and degrade Assad’s capacity to deliver these weapons. It won’t get rid of them, but it could change his willingness to use them. The best thing to do, we agree, is remove them altogether. Our challenge here in Geneva is to test the viability of placing Assad’s chemical weapons under international control, removing them from Syria, and destroying them forever. But the United States has also made clear that the deaths of more than 100,000 Syrians and the displacement of millions either internally or as refugees remains a stain on the world’s conscience. We all need to keep that in mind and deal with it. And that is why Foreign Minister Lavrov and I continue to work with Joint Special Envoy Brahimi and ourselves under the auspices of the Geneva communique. The Foreign Secretary just mentioned this and his hopes. We share those hopes that could foster a political solution to a civil war that undermines the stability of the region, threatens our own national security interests, and compels us to act. That is our hope and that is what we fervently hope can come out of this meeting and these negotiations. Thank you very much. FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: With your permission, just two words. (Via interpreter) I’m not prepared with the (inaudible) political statement to (inaudible) the Syrian problem, because our approaches are clear and they are stated in the statements of the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin and in his article in The New York Times. And I’m convinced that all of you read this article and I decided not to lay out here our diplomatic position. The diplomacy likes silence. And we’re intent to find compromises, and I am sure that John, in his presentation of the American position, also showed that they would like to find mutual consensus and be – if we follow this way, I hope that we will achieve all the successes. SECRETARY KERRY: I lost the last part of the – can you give me the last part of the translation, please? Hello? INTERPRETER: Yes, hello. FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: It was okay, John. Don’t worry. (Laughter.) SECRETARY KERRY: You want me to take your word for it? (Laughter.) It’s a little early for that. FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: Okay. Thank you. SECRETARY KERRY: Thanks. PRN: 2013/T14-01. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry delivered remarks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Syria in Geneva, Switzerland Intercontinental Hotel   September 12, 2013 On Setember 13th, 2013, joint press conference was given in Geneva.  UN-Arab League joint envoy says US-Russia talks on Syria ‘extremely important’.     Secretary of General, Ban Ki-moon welcomes US-Russia agreement on Syria's chemical weapons   14 September 2013 – Welcoming the news that Russia and the United States have reached an agreement on a framework for Syria to destroy all of its chemical weapons, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has expressed the hope that the deal will pave the way for a political solution to end the “appalling suffering” of the Syrian people. In a statement released by Mr. Ban's spokesperson in New York, the UN chief welcomed the agreement reached by Russian Federation Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and United States Secretary of State John Kerry on the safeguarding and destruction of Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles. Announcement of the deal comes after three days of intense talks in Geneva, Switzerland, between Mr. Lavrov and Mr. Kerry. It culminates a week of diplomatic activity noted in the media, kicked off by the earlier announcement of Russia's proposal for Damascus to surrender its chemical weapons and place them under international control. Then on Thursday, a UN spokesperson confirmed that the Secretary-General had received a letter from the Syrian Government informing him that President Bassar Al-Assad would sign and abide by the 1992 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction. In the meantime, evidence collected by a UN team probing possible chemical weapons use in Syria on 21 August is being examined by laboratories in Europe. The team, which the Secretary-General has said is “working around the clock,” is expected to submit its report to him in due course. In the statement issued today, Mr. Ban looks forward to learning more of the framework agreed by Russia and the United States and pledges the support of the United Nations in its implementation. “The Secretary-General expresses his fervent hope that the agreement will, first, prevent any future use of chemical weapons in Syria and, second, help pave the path for a political solution to stop the appalling suffering inflicted on the Syrian people,” says the statement. As for talks on a political path out of the more than two year crisis, United Nations-Arab League Joint Representative Lakhdar Brahimi has been pressing ahead with his efforts towards the holding of a long-proposed international peace conference on Syria, commonly referred to as “Geneva II”, after the Swiss city in which it would be held. Just yesterday, Mr. Brahimi hosted at UN Headquarters in Geneva talks with Mr. Lavrov and Mr. Kerry on the convening of the conference. In remarks to the press, the envoy said: “The work you are doing is extremely important in itself […] but also important for all those working with you to bring forward the Geneva conference successfully.” ------------ According to UN report, dated Septedmber 12, 2013 On 12 September 2013 – United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has received a letter from the Government of Syria President Bassar Al-Assad will sign and abide by the 20-year-old international treaty on banning chemical weapons. A statement issued by Mr. Ban’s spokesman in New York confirmed that the UN chief received a letter from Damascus today informing him that “President Al-Assad has signed the legislative decree providing for the accession of Syria to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction of 1992.” “In their letter, the Syrian authorities have expressed their commitment to observe the obligations entailed by the Convention even before its entry into force for Syria,” the UN spokesman says in the statement. “The Secretary-General welcomes this development,” the statement says, noting that, as depository of the Convention, Mr. Ban has long called for universal accession to the treaty. “Given recent events, he hopes that the current talks in Geneva will lead to speedy agreement on a way forward which will be endorsed and assisted by the international community,” the statement concludes.  The statement comes after United States Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov met in Geneva earlier today for further talks on Russia’s proposal for Damascus to surrender its chemical weapons and place them under international control. Lakhdar Brahimi, the Joint UN –Arab League Envoy for Syria also met in Geneva with Mr. Kerry  Meanwhile, evidence collected by a UN team probing possible chemical weapons use in Syria on 21 August is being examined by laboratories in Europe. Mr. Ban has said that scientists are working “around the clock” to ensure a rapid result but one that also respects the highest professional standards and without compromising its integrity.  Results of the analyses will be shared with Mr. Ban, who will then share them with the 15-member Security Council and all 193 Member States. U.S has been working since a few years ago but, has not been working meawhile it is still major consideration of diplomacy which President Obama’s and this Administration’s first resort, and achieving a peaceful resolution is clearly preferable to military action. Although President has ordered U.S. military to maintain their current posture to keep the pressure on Syria President Assad, and to be in a position to respond if diplomacy fails, while President Obama appreciates again to the military and their families for their incredible strength and sacrifices which emphasize of  to accomplish this, that it would reduce the threat to the region, that it would uphold the norm that was established  in Geneva almost a century ago, and it would achieve the best for the nation and global peace mind – U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry delivered remarks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Syria in Geneva, Switzerland which Syrian regime has suggested that as part of the standard process they ought to have within a week to submit data on their technical – on their chemical weapons stockpile. Everyone is hoping this will be peaceful resolution and make the action to achieve as soon as possible so the world and childrens will be in peaceful mind without fearful terrors' attack. UN reported U.N. report to offer 'signs of culpability' in Syria chemical attack: Secretary State, John Kerry,  Emphasized that , For nearly a hundred years, the world has embraced the international norm against the use of chemical weapons.  And the principles that the United States and the Russian Federation have agreed on today can, with accountable follow through, allow us to expedite the elimination of Syria's chemical weapons.  Providing this framework is fully implemented, it can end the threat these weapons pose, not only to the Syrian pople, but also to their neighbours,  to the region and because of the threat of proliferation of this framework can provide greater protection and security to the world.  We said at the outset that to accomplish our goal, this plan had to produce transparency, accountability, timeliness and enforceability. Suzanne Massie, a writer on Russia met with President Ronald Reagan many times between 1984 and 1987. She taught him the Russian Proverb, Doveryai no Proveryai (Trust but Verify) advising him that "The Russians like to talk in proverbs. AAfter Reagan used the phrase to emphasize "the extensive verification procedures that would enable both sides to monitor compliance with the treaty", at the signing of the INF Treaty, on 8 December 1987,  his counterpart General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev responded: "You repeat that at every meeting," to which Reagan answered "I like it." While Reagan quoted Russian proverbs, Mr. Gorbachev quoted Ralph Waldo Emerson. In modern usage, the term covers a variety of monitoring technologies, including others used at the time of SALT I. It continues to appear in subsequent arms control negotiations, which have a general theme called "trust but verify". Verification, in addition to information explicitly supplied from one side to the other, involves numerous technical intelligence disciplines. Measurement and Signature Intelligence (MASINT) techniques, many being especially obscure technical methods, are extremely important parts of verification. Outside of treaties, the techniques described here are critical in overall counterproliferation work. They can gather information on the states, with known or presumed nuclear weapons, that have not ratified (or are withdrawing from) the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT): India, Israel, North Korea and Pakistan. While the techniques here are focused primarily at missile and nuclear weapons limitation, the general principles hold for verification of treaties to counter the proliferation of chemical and biological warfare capabilities: "trust but verify". Following the 2013 Ghouta attacks, Secretary of State John Kerry told a news conference in Geneva on September 14, 2013 that the United States and Russia had agreed on a framework to dispose of Syria's chemical weapons. He said "President Reagan’s old adage about 'Trust but verify' – 'Doveryai no proveryai', I think, is the saying – that is in need of an update. And we have committed here to a standard that says, 'Verify and verify'. ‘Clear and convincing’ evidence of chemical weapons use in Syria, UN team reports 16 September 2013 – A United Nations team probing the possible use of chemical weapons in Syria has found “clear and convincing evidence” that Sarin gas was used in an incident that occurred on 21 August in the Ghouta area on the outskirts of Damascus in which hundreds of people were reportedly killed. “The report makes for chilling reading,” Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told reporters following a closed-door briefing to the Security Council on the team’s work, which concludes that on the basis of evidence obtained during its investigation, “chemical weapons have been used in the ongoing conflict between the parties in [Syria], also against civilians, including children, on a relatively large scale.” The team, led by Swedish scientist Dr. Åke Sellström, also concludes in particular that the environmental, chemical and medical samples collected provide “clear and convincing evidence that surface-to-surface rockets containing the nerve agent Sarin were used in Ein Tarma, Moadamiyah, and Zamalka, in the Ghouta area of Damascus.” Formally known as the Mission to Investigate Allegations of the Use of Chemical Weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic, Dr. Sellström’s team was established by the Secretary-General on 21 March 2013 and was assisted by experts from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). “The results are overwhelming and indisputable. The facts speak for themselves. The United Nations Mission has now confirmed, unequivocally and objectively, that chemical weapons have been used in Syria,” declared Mr. Ban, underscoring that 85 per cent of blood samples from the sites in Ghouta tested positive for Sarin, and the majority of the rocket fragments were also found to be carrying the deadly nerve agent. “There must be accountability for the use of chemical weapons. Any use of chemical weapons by anyone, anywhere, is a crime,’ said Mr. Ban, stressing: “But our message today must be more than: Do not slaughter your people with gas. There must also be no impunity for the crimes being committed with conventional weapons.”  “This is a war crime,” the Secretary-General said, stressing that the incident marked the most serious chemical weapons incident since Saddam Hussein’s attack on the Halabja region of Iraq, and the worst use of weapons of mass destruction in the 21st century. “The international community has a responsibility to hold the perpetrators accountable and to ensure that chemical weapons never re-emerge as an instrument of warfare.” The accession of Syria to the Chemical Weapons Convention and its belated acknowledgement that it possesses chemical weapons are welcome developments that come with strict obligations, the UN chief said. Responding to questions, the Secretary-General said Dr. Sellström’s team had been able to determine objectively that Sarin was used on a relatively large scale. It was the team’s job to determine whether and to what extent chemical weapons were used, not who used them. “It is for others to decide whether to pursue this matter further to determine responsibility. We may all have our own thoughts on this, but I would simply say that this was a grave crime and those responsible must be brought to justice as soon as possible,” he said.  Speaking during the closed-door Council session, the UN chief said the team had interviewed more than 50 survivors, medical personnel and first responders. It applied a rigorous and objective selection process designed to identify survivors who may have been exposed to chemical agents. It assessed these individuals’ symptoms and collected biomedical samples, including from hair, urine and blood.  The Mission also documented and sampled impact sites and munitions, and collected 30 soil and environmental samples – far more than any previous such UN investigation, he said. “The statements by survivors offer a vivid account of the events of 21 August,” said the Secretary-General, noting that survivors reported that following an attack with shelling, they quickly experienced a range of symptoms, including shortness of breath, disorientation, eye irritation, blurred vision, nausea, vomiting and general weakness. “Many eventually lost consciousness. First responders described seeing a large number of individuals lying on the ground, many of them dead or unconscious,” he said. On related developments, Mr. Ban said that Russia and the United States, led by Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Secretary of State John Kerry, held intensive consultations in Geneva last week, along with their experts. He welcomed the understanding they reached regarding the safeguarding and destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles. “I hope the Security Council and the Executive Council of the OPCW can move quickly to consider and implement this plan. I stand ready to support this plan in every way possible, while also fully realizing the complexities of such an undertaking in the midst of a civil war,” he said. “The unity of the Security Council will be crucial. Given the gravity of the situation, I urge the Council to consider ways to ensure enforcement of, and compliance with, the plan through a clear resolution.” Mr. Ban also said that the humanitarian situation in Syria is desperate. Food supplies are dangerously low in some places. “Families face intolerable choices between the risk of remaining in place and the risk of taking flight. Communities that once lived in relative harmony are now torn with sectarian tension.”  “We need to do everything we can to bring the parties to the negotiating table. This is the only path to a durable solution. I stand ready to convene the International Conference on Syria in Geneva as soon as possible,” he said, adding that he looked forward to meeting with Mr. Lavrov and Mr. Kerry on 28 September. He hoped the officials would be able to set a date for the conference at that time. The following link shows the Report on the Alleged Use of Chemical Weapons in the Ghouta Area of Damascus on 21 August 2013. Factsheet summarizing the Secretary-General's report.

Source: White House, UN, DOD, USA Today, Yahoo news, Google news, CNN , ABC news, New York Times,Reuters,  AP, Al Jazeera, ITN, RT, wikipedia, The guardian News and US Mission to the United Nation.

catch4all.com, Sandra Englund August 22nd, 2013, Rev. 23rd, 2013. Rev. August 30th, August 31st, 2013. Sept 3rd, 2013, Sept 4th, 2013. Rev. Sept 8th, 2013, and Sept 9th, 2013, Sept 10th, 2013. Rev. Sept 14th, 2013. Sept 17, 2013 (8:21 AM)