Instead, Britain and the US are likely to have to wait for fresh evidence from further attacks before deciding whether to take a military response against the Assad government.
Philip Hammond, the British defence secretary, revealed the shortcomings in recent reliance on soil and blood samples ahead of talks with his US counterpart Chuck Hagel at the Pentagon on Thursday.
"The confidence that we are seeking degrades over time, and in order to have a properly measured chain of custody we would need to obtain samples after an[other] incident," he said in a briefing at the British embassy.
"If chemical weapons use continues, albeit on a small scale, then I am confident that we can detect further use," added Hammond. "The regime will now be focused on the fact that the west will be looking for evidence."
The British and French governments have led pressure on the US to react to three alleged uses of chemical weapons in Syria, but Hammond's admission before talks at the Pentagon is a sign that western governments do not believe they are going to obtain enough evidence to act right now.
On Tuesday, president Obama said the US would be seeking further information to establish who used nerve agents in Syria and in what circumstances.
But Hammond said the process was also complicated because the three alleged uses of nerve gas that Britain claims to have established took place on a small scale.
"Experimental or tactical use of weapons is a challenge for us because it is more difficult to validate," said Hammond.
The British defence secretary also revealed that the primary diplomatic effort was now on persuading the Russian government to end its support for Assad.
"If we can bring the Russians to the point where there is no doubt [over chemical weapons], then there is the prospect of changing the Russian position for support of Syria.
Hammond said the UK had shared its intelligence directly with the five permanent members of the United Nations security council, including Russia.
The US National Security Council has authorised Pentagon planners to work with the UK ministry of defence on developing options for military intervention, but Hammond conceded there was a "low level of public appetite for intervention" in both countries.
This might change, he suggested, if pictures of mass civilian casualties from a fresh chemical weapons attack by the Syrian regime began to appear on TV screens around the world.
The most likely military response if the evidence hardens would be a decision to provide rebel groups with weapons.
Britain currently supplies non-lethal assistance such as armoured 4x4s, body armour and night-vision goggles, while countries such as Saudi Arabia are know to have supplied guns. But Hammond said the significance of a US decision to lift an arms embargo would be to provide international "leadership" for the rebels.
The UK believes the biggest problems with this approach are the risk of arms falling into the "wrong hands" and the question of whether such a move would be legal.
"Persuading the Russians that it is in their interests to address this problem is key because clearing this roadblock would allow the UN to become the forum and clear the legality problem," said Hammond. "The Russians are not as immune as they perhaps used to be to the moral issue in the use of chemical weapons."
Original Article
Source: guardian.co.uk
Author: Dan Roberts
No comments:
Post a Comment