[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ASSAD'S ABHORRENT CHEMICAL
WEAPONS ATTACKS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 17, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-57
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
or
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
95-127PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida BRAD SHERMAN, California
DANA ROHRABACHER, California GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
JOE WILSON, South Carolina GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
TED POE, Texas BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
MATT SALMON, Arizona KAREN BASS, California
DARRELL E. ISSA, California WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
MO BROOKS, Alabama AMI BERA, California
PAUL COOK, California ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas GRACE MENG, New York
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
RON DeSANTIS, Florida TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
TED S. YOHO, Florida ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
CURT CLAWSON, Florida BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin
DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan
LEE M. ZELDIN, New York
DANIEL DONOVAN, New York
Amy Porter, Chief of Staff Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director
Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
The Honorable Robert Ford, senior fellow, The Middle East
Institute...................................................... 4
Mohamed Tennari, M.D., Idlib coordinator, Syrian-American Medical
Society........................................................ 10
Mr. Farouq Habib, Syria program manager, Mayday Rescue........... 21
Annie Sparrow, M.B.B.S., deputy director human rights program,
Assistant Professor of Global Health, Icahn School of Medicine
at Mount Sinai................................................. 28
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
The Honorable Robert Ford: Prepared statement.................... 6
Mohamed Tennari, M.D.: Prepared statement........................ 12
Mr. Farouq Habib: Prepared statement............................. 23
Annie Sparrow, M.B.B.S.: Prepared statement...................... 30
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 60
Hearing minutes.................................................. 61
Mohamed Tennari, M.D.: Material submitted for the record......... 63
Mr. Farouq Habib: Material submitted for the record.............. 68
Annie Sparrow, M.B.B.S.: Material submitted for the record....... 73
The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress
from the Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement.......... 84
ASSAD'S ABHORRENT CHEMICAL
WEAPONS ATTACKS
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 17, 2015
House of Representatives,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 o'clock a.m.,
in room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward Royce
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Chairman Royce. This hearing will come to order. This
morning we consider the continued use of Bashar al-Assad's
chemical weapons strategy, his use of those chemical weapons on
his own people.
Two years ago, the world was stunned when Assad used sarin
in the suburbs of Damascus--in that attack on that day 1,500
people were killed. In response, President Obama threatened
military action, and the Assad regime agreed to a hastily
brokered deal to remove and destroy what was to be ``all'' of
Syria's substantial stockpile. A year later, President Obama
declared success. In February, Secretary Kerry testified that
``we got . . . all the chemical weapons out of Syria.''
Well, that would be news to two of our witnesses here today
because they've been on the front lines struggling to save the
lives of those targeted by the regime's barrel bombs that are
filled with weaponized chlorine. Dr. Tennari serves in the
field hospital in Idlib Province and Mr. Farouq Habib works
with the Syrian Civilian Defense--a group of volunteer first
responders who dig through the rubble to treat victims.
As the Assad regime loses more territory, the regime has
stepped up its chemical attacks on the civilian population in
opposition controlled areas. What first appeared to be random
and irregular attacks has become a steady, unending series of
chemical attacks with the aim of decimating the middle class in
these civilian populations. And, meanwhile, that same Syrian
middle class tries to hold off ISIS on the ground as ISIS tries
to overrun their position, so they face a one-two punch of ISIS
on their border and Assad's barrel bombs with chlorine coming
down on the population.
Over 8 weeks this spring, Idlib saw 29 chlorine attacks.
Most began just 10 days after the U.N. Security Council passed
a resolution which threatened the use of force against anyone
found to have used chlorine as a weapon. In almost cases, the
chlorine was delivered by barrel bomb from a helicopter. Assad
has seen the world's complacency and decided that he can
literally get away with mass murder of civilians.
Anyone can be a target. The regime will even drop one bomb.
It will then wait for the first responders, and then drop
another one. Many chlorine attacks take place at night when
families have taken cover. A heavy gas, a chlorine gas seeps
down into makeshift bomb shelters. As we'll hear, this toxic
gas has a horrific impact on the human body: Foaming at the
mouth, gasping for breath, and dying slow, agonizing deaths as
the chlorine gas turns to hydrochloric acid in the lungs of the
victims, many of these victims children.
Unfortunately, the administration continues its slow
response. Last month, the President still spoke of needing
further confirmation that it was the Assad regime that is
responsible for the chemical attacks. Let's be clear: Only
Assad's forces have helicopters, only Assad's forces have those
helicopters take off from Assad's bases and routinely drop
barrel bombs on the civilian middle class in areas like Allepo.
Yesterday, Ambassador Power told the committee here that those
responsible for these attacks must be held accountable. Yes,
they must, but when? When will they be held accountable?
U.S. policy has to change. Last month, Ranking Member Engel
and I offered a successful amendment to the defense policy bill
directing the Pentagon to closely examine a no-fly zone over
Syria, denying Assad ownership of the skies. Syrians would no
longer be forced to choose between staying above ground where
they could be killed by the shrapnel Assad packs inside the
barrel bombs, or going below ground where they are more
vulnerable to suffocating from chlorine gas. The daily decision
to go to the market, or to go to the school, or to go to sleep
at night would no longer be a life or death decision.
Of course, the United States can't do this on its own. It
would need strong support and participation from our regional
partners. Many of them have been asking and offering their
support.
The administration should also be looking at other more
immediate, non-military methods that might save lives. Radar
systems for opposition held area could serve as early warning
systems. Air raid sirens could sound the alarm. Sensors could
detect chemical weapons and allow first responders to be
prepared as they rush to aid victims.
This can't just keep going on and on. If nothing is done,
the human tragedy in Syria and the region will reach depths the
world hasn't seen in generations-taking a human toll, harming
our security, and sending a powerful and frightening message
that chemical attacks are tolerated.
I now yield to Ranking Member Engel, an early and intense
critic of the Assad regime and someone who has long worked to
shape Syrian policy toward humanitarian end ever since he first
called to our attention the people in Damascus walking through
the streets saying, ``Peaceful, peaceful,'' in their effort to
reform, and the fact that the Assad regime opened up on the
civilian population with automatic weapons and slaughtered the
population in the streets.
He has long been focused on finding ways to end the civil
war in Syria, and help the suffering of the Syrian people, and
I appreciate his leadership on these issues. Mr. Engel.
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for calling
this hearing. Thank you for your leadership and working so
closely with me to help the Syrian people.
My heart grieves for the Syrian people. I only wish that we
had made some different policy choices in Washington 3 years
ago when the Free Syria Army was begging us to aid and equip
them. And I said then put in legislation that we should have
equipped them, and perhaps things would be different today in
Syria. I know we're still trying to find our way, but when we
didn't equip them, we had the terrorist group, ISIS, move into
the void, and it's just been a disaster. But we still have to
pay attention, and still have to right the wrongs, and still
have to let the Syrian people know that we stand with them,
that we're not forgetting about them, and that we're not going
to stop until these atrocities stop.
Over the last 4 years, the civil war in Syria has cost
hundreds of thousands of lives, left millions displaced and
created a lost generation of Syrian orphans. As their nation
has been torn apart, the Syrian people have faced a stark
choice, flee their country as refugees or live every day under
the threat of Assad's barrel bombs.
Perhaps the worst chapter in this conflict came in August
2013 when the Assad regime used sarin gas to wipe out hundreds
of people in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta. Before this
massacre, only the second time sarin had been used since World
War II, President Obama said that a chemical weapons attack
would be a red line.
As Congress and the administration contemplated military
action, Assad backed down at that point. He agreed to give us
his entire chemical weapons stockpile, and signed the Chemical
Weapons Convention. Last June, the Joint Mission of the
Organization of the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the OPCW,
and the United Nations announced that all of these weapons had
been removed from Syria. But now, true to form, Assad is
testing the international community again.
In September, the OPCW concluded, and I quote, ``with a
high level, a high degree of confidence, that chlorine was
used,'' and this is a quote again, ``systematically and
repeatedly,'' in attacks in Northern Syria. Since then, more
chlorine attacks have been reported. Though not as deadly as
sarin, the use of weaponized chlorine is still a violation of
the Chemical Weapons Convention.
Dropping from the sky in Assad's barrel bombs, these
chlorine attacks have killed or wounded hundreds. Innocent
civilians have lived in terror knowing what to expect when
helicopters appeared on the horizon. No one should have to live
with that kind of fear. That's why Chairman Royce and I offered
a measure which passed the House last month to direct the
Pentagon to take a hard look at the possibility of a no-fly
zone.
In recent months, Assad has appeared increasingly
vulnerable. Sadly, that has only made his tactics more
desperate and violent. Assad remains a magnet for extremists,
and as long as he remains in power, Syria will not find peace.
He holds absolutely no place in Syria's future.
Today's testimony will help us shape U.S. policy toward the
Assad regime at a critical point in the Syrian conflict. I look
forward to hearing from our distinguished panel. I'm glad to
see Ambassador Ford here again, who has been to this committee
a number of times. And, Ambassador, we are always praising your
good work, the good work that you have done in the past, and
the good work that you continue to do. And I look forward to
our other witnesses, as well.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Mr. Engel.
Ambassador Ford, welcome. Ambassador Ford served as the
United States Ambassador to Algeria from 2006 to 2008, and as
the U.S. Ambassador to Syria from 2010 to 2014. Prior to that,
the Ambassador was stationed with the U.S. Foreign Service
throughout the Middle East and North Africa. He is currently a
senior fellow at the Middle East Institute.
Dr. Mohamed Tennari works as the Syrian American Medical
Society's medical coordinator in Idlib, Syria. He performs
emergency medicine in local field hospitals. Dr. Tennari
recently spoke before the United Nations Security Council about
his experiences treating chlorine attack victims in Syria. Over
the years, we've had the opportunity tragically to see the
photographs that he has taken of children that he's treated who
perished under the gas attacks.
Mr. Farouq Habib is a program manager at Mayday Rescue
which is a nonprofit organization that provides support to
Syria's Civil Defense. Mr. Habib is a leading activist in
Syria, and in 2012 was invited to speak on humanitarian
confidence-building measures at the U.N. General Assembly.
Dr. Annie Sparrow is currently deputy director of the human
rights program in the Department of Global Health at the Icahn
School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York. Dr. Sparrow has
been documenting health crisis on the Syrian borders since
2012.
And without objection, all of your statements will be made
part of the record, and our members here will have 5 calendar
days to submit any statements to you, or any questions, or any
extraneous material that they might want to submit in the
record.
So, we will begin with Ambassador Ford, and we'll ask each
of you to summarize in 5 minutes for your opening statement.
Ambassador Ford.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT FORD, SENIOR FELLOW, THE
MIDDLE EAST INSTITUTE
Ambassador Ford. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Engel, and
other distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the
invitation today, and it's a real honor to be on this panel
with the other members. I'm looking forward very much to seeing
what they present.
I would like to thank you very much for having this
hearing. As you noted, it's an important gesture to Syria and
Syrian civilians, and it is the right and decent thing to do,
but it's also really important for our national security
because the Islamic State in its recruiting efforts, its
propaganda highlights that western countries like the United
States don't care about Syrian civilian casualties, and western
countries don't care that Assad is dropping chemical weapons on
civilians. So, this hearing is an important step in deflecting
that Islamic State recruitment propaganda.
I'd like to just make a couple of quick points. First, in
the very bitter war of attrition in Syria, the military
situation is slowly but very steadily turning against President
Assad and his regime. His forces are running out of manpower,
and as that dynamic goes forward, the Syrian regime will more
and more want to use chemical weapons to make up for manpower
shortages. They are using them more now than they did 2 years
ago, and they are not deterred from using them. Let me say that
again. They are not deterred from using them.
Now, after the horrors of World War I, the second point I
want to make is that there has long been an international
consensus not to use chemical weapons, including chlorine gas.
The Syrian Government is using chlorine gas with impunity, and
other states like North Korea are observing that impunity. We
need to understand that an international consensus forged after
World War I is steadily eroding.
The third point I'd like to make: Ambassador Power and her
team at the United Nations State Department are admirably
trying to forge a new international consensus to stop this use
of chlorine gas. The United Nations Security Council, even
Russia and China, approved Resolution 2209 in March. That
resolution warned the parties in the Syrian conflict that the
international community would act under Chapter 7 of the U.N.
Charter against any party in the Syrian conflict that is using
chemical weapons. And as you mentioned, the Organization to
Prohibit Chemical Weapons has already stated that they are
being used in Syria. The problem is the OPCW investigative team
had no mandate to determine which side in the conflict is using
chemical weapons. So, Ambassador Power with other members of
the Security Council now are trying to forge a mandate to
determine how an investigative committee, an investigative team
would determine that responsibility.
Countries like Russia and Iran, both of whose armies in
wars past have suffered horrible chemical weapons attacks, have
an interest in working with us to stop this violation of a
longstanding international norm.
Finally, if the United Nations Security Council cannot act,
and we have seen Russian vetoes before, then the United States
needs to be ready to act within a smaller coalition. We could
help Syrians identify and interdict chemical weapons attacks.
We could also act with regional states to impose a no-fly zone,
if necessary, to stop chemical weapons attacks. A no-fly zone
would both save lives, and if properly negotiated and properly
implemented, would actually facilitate getting to national
political negotiations.
It's important to keep our eyes focused on priorities now
in the short term to stop attacks that violate longstanding
international norms, and in the long term to use any
applications of force, direct or indirect, to move toward a
political settlement in Syria. Ultimately, only a political
settlement will really protect Syrian civilians.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Ford follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Ambassador.
Dr. Tennari.
STATEMENT OF MOHAMED TENNARI, M.D., IDLIB COORDINATOR, SYRIAN-
AMERICAN MEDICAL SOCIETY
[The following testimony was delivered through an
interpreter.]
Dr. Tennari. Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Engel, and
honorable members of the committee on the House Foreign Affairs
Committee, on behalf of the Syrian-American Medical Society and
on behalf of Syrian medical professionals, and on behalf of the
Syrian people, I thank you for the opportunity to speak in
front of you today.
I have traveled here today from my Province of Idlib in
order to witness in front of you about the experiences of the
chemical weapons use that I witnessed in Syria.
Four years ago, I helped establish a field hospital in
Sarmin, in Idlib Province. This is our fourth building after
the first two were destroyed by Assad bombing. The Syrian
Government systematically targets hospitals and ambulances in
all non-government controlled areas. Even our field hospital
that we operate in today has been subject to the bombing of the
Assad regime 17 times, not to mention the systematic targeting
of physicians in Syria on a regular basis only for being out
there and treating people.
I, myself, was arrested at the beginning of the revolution
twice in 2011. My other medical colleagues have not been as
lucky as I, and more of my friends are dead than those that are
left alive.
Over the last 4 years we have seen horrific violence
against the civilians in Syria. That was in the form of barrel
bombs, missile attacks, and regular shelling. In the past 3
months we have experienced a new type of terror, and that is in
the form of barrel bombs that contain chemical weapons. Since
March 16th of this year, we have documented 31 attacks using
poisonous gas in Idlib Province, where more than 380 Syrian
civilians were injured by it. Ten of them died of suffocation.
The last attack was yesterday in Allepo in a small town.
I remember well the night of March 16th when the first
attack of poisonous gas was used. I heard helicopters over my
house around 8:45 p.m., and I heard on my walkie-talkie the
reports that there was another chemical attack that had just
happened. I left my house immediately to head to the field
hospital, and as soon as I left the house, I could smell
chlorine bleach in the air. As soon as I arrived at the
hospital there were many victims that had beaten me there, and
all of them had symptoms of being subjected to suffocating,
poisonous gas.
Dozens of people experienced difficulty breathing, and
their eyes and throats were burning. They were also secreting
saliva and foam from their mouth. We were laying bodies on the
floor because all of our beds were completely full, and our
small hospital turned into a place of chaos and screaming. We
started treating them by giving them oxygen gas and inhalers,
as well as using different antidotes like Atropine and
Intropine.
As soon as we finished treating this first wave of people,
we received another wave of people that came from another
attack that hit Sarmin. From those who came in with that second
wave, I saw my own friend, Mr. Waref Taleb. He, his wife, his
mother, and three of his children under the age of three all
came in with injuries. The three kids were all suffering from
symptoms of being exposed to poisonous gas as they arrived. And
this is a video from that night.
[Video played.]
Dr. Tennari. This is the Town of Sarmin. This is the
children that have been exposed to poisonous gas tonight. The
reason they're on top of each other is because the hospital had
no room for any more victims.
Everything that we did for them was not enough to save
their lives. The barrel bomb had fallen through the ventilation
shaft in their house and has turned their house and their
basement into a gas chamber.
I wish that this event was something that is unique or a
one-time thing, but this is a regular event that goes on. On
April 16th, only--very soon after this--1 month after this
attack, I testified in front of the United Nations Security
Council. Less than 2 hours after I finished my testimony I got
another call saying that there was another chlorine attack,
another poison gas attack that happened in Idlib Province. And
as I sit here in front of you, I fear again that I may get a
call in a couple of hours that tells me there was another
chemical attack that has happened in my town.
These chlorine-filled bombs are falling regularly over
civilian areas, and this is what we call collective punishment
by the Assad regime against the opposition. And although these
attacks are not causing a huge amount of death, it has caused a
lot of terror within the populations forcing people to become
internally displaced and refugees. And this is what I consider
the goal of the Assad regime in these attacks: To help displace
the populations.
In reaction to these chemical attacks by the regime, the
international community gave us some medicines, including
Atropine. And this is incredibly disappointing. That means the
international community knows that the Assad regime will be
using chemical weapons attacks against us, and will do nothing
to prevent it. What we need is not Atropine, what we need is
urgent help to stop these aerial attacks.
I can tell you as a doctor that the number one cause of
death of people in Syria are the explosive barrel bombs. And
our number one and our main ask is for the international
community to help protect us from these aerial attacks. And if
it means using a no-fly zone, that would so be it. I ask you to
please work closely and urgently with the White House to figure
out a plan to help stop these aerial attacks that are regularly
bombarding us.
I want to thank the committee for its leadership in
addressing this important topic of ongoing chemical attacks in
Syria. I hope bearing witness in front of you today can help
show the dire need for immediate aid to help the civilians in
Syria, and I hope that you move to take urgent action to end
the barrel bombs and the chemical attacks in Syria. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Tennari follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Dr. Tennari.
We go now to Mr. Habib.
STATEMENT OF MR. FAROUQ HABIB, SYRIA PROGRAM MANAGER, MAYDAY
RESCUE
Mr. Habib. Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Engel, and
distinguished members of the committee, allow me first to thank
you for giving me this opportunity to testify about the ongoing
tragedy that the Syrian people are living through, particularly
those who are the victims of the attacks of the chemical
weapons, despite multiple international resolutions that
prohibit using these horrific weapons.
My name is Farouq Habib. When the Syrian revolution began,
I was working as a banker in a private Syrian bank. My belief
that my people have the right to live with dignity and freedom
obliged me to join the peaceful movement to defend the human
rights in Syria. Currently, I'm working for Mayday Rescue,
managing the training and equipping program for rescue teams in
Syria known as the White Helmets.
Through my years of activism inside Syria since the
beginning of the revolution, I personally witnessed deliberate
attacks by the regime forces against civilians, hospitals, and
rescue teams that were initially working spontaneously.
Later, Syrians, particularly those in liberated areas, had
to establish civil defense groups with only the tools available
to them in order to respond to the intense and indiscriminate
attacks. I now work with this organization to assist in
responding to these attacks. Through my job, I constantly work
with field search and rescue teams to determine their needs and
find solutions for the challenges they face. Therefore, I
closely monitor the attacks, particularly those carried out by
unconventional weapons, as they pose the greatest challenge.
These teams have faced an exceptional challenge with the
regime's use of barrel bombs as a horrific tool to impose
collective punishment against communities out of the regime's
control. These TNT-filled weapons which eject nails, metal
scrap, and other random cheap and harmful shrapnel take dozens
of innocent lives every day, but for many Syrians have become
merely traditional weapons compared to the more advanced bombs
the regime developed by adding chlorine gas, which is
inexpensive and readily available. This primitive, cheap, and
indiscriminate weapon has become a source of constant panic
among Syrian civilians due to the fear it spreads when people
hear the news of its use in nearby areas.
This dirty chemical weapon causes physical injuries that
show through symptoms like suffocating and fainting, and can
lead to death if the injured are not attended to in due course.
These weapons are most dangerous if inhaled by people stranded
in small spaces, and that is what happens to those stranded
under the rubble of buildings that collapse on top of their
residence due to the force of barrel bombs.
Starting from the 16th of March this year, the regime
resumed its chemical attacks against the opposition areas. Only
10 days after the U.N. Security Council Resolution 2209, which
reaffirmed the prohibition and use of chlorine gas as a weapon
and classified it as chemical warfare. The resolution also
warned of taking action under Chapter 7 in the event it's used
again in Syria. This resolution is related to a previous
resolution, 2113, which was released in 2015, and that called
for destroying Syria's chemical weapons, and also for taking
action under Chapter 7 in the event the chemical weapons are
used. Resolution 2209 is also related to the 2014 Resolution
2139 which prohibits using conventional barrel bombs as weapons
in Syria due to their indiscriminate nature.
Unfortunately, during the 3 months that followed Resolution
2209, the number of chlorine attacks was more than double those
in the entire previous year. Yes, I repeat again. The number of
chlorine attacks was more than double those in the entire
previous year just after the Security Council resolution.
Between March 16th and June 9th in 2015, Syria's Civil
Defense Teams responded to 23 air raids, during which 46 barrel
bombs containing chlorine gas were dropped. And, of course, the
actual number of the chemical attacks was even higher.
I don't think that anyone among this audience here today
has the slightest degree of uncertainty about the identity of
the perpetrator. There are hundreds of pieces of evidence
including photographs, videos, and testimonies like the ones I
attach here proving that this gas spreads from the aerially
dropped barrel bombs, usually delivered by helicopters. As
everyone knows, and as Ambassador Samantha Power has repeatedly
noted, the Assad regime is the only one using helicopters in
Syria excluding, of course, the coalition forces.
Ladies and gentlemen, when I was struggling in Homs for
democracy, I and my colleagues believed that there were nations
around the world that supported the spread of democracy. I
believed, and I organized others to rise up and challenge the
dictatorship of Bashar al Assad, and have been waiting for 4
years for my faith in the values on which this great country
was founded to be demonstrated.
The dictator of Syria claims that he is fighting the
Islamic State, but only last week both he and the Islamic State
were attacking together the armed opposition in Northern
Allepo. And just a few hours ago, the regime used chemical
weapons again in Allepo City, itself.
The legitimacy of the international community crumbles when
it becomes merely ink on paper, forgotten in drawers of
bureaucracy to become fatal.
As the greatest power in today's world, the United States,
along with other international powers that chant human rights
slogans and spread the values of justice and democracy, should
move immediately to stop the killing machine operated by the
Assad regime against the Syrian people. This can be done
through imposing a no-fly zone that would prevent the regime's
aircraft from continuing to drop chemical barrel bombs. A no-
fly zone would also help to create a safe haven for civilians.
No one can no longer use as an excuse the Security Council's
inability to impose its resolutions because in reality, for
oppressed people everywhere, it has become the Insecurity
Council due to its blatant failure to protect them. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Habib follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Chairman Royce. Doctor.
STATEMENT OF ANNIE SPARROW, M.B.B.S., DEPUTY DIRECTOR HUMAN
RIGHTS PROGRAM, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF GLOBAL HEALTH, ICAHN
SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT MOUNT SINAI
Dr. Sparrow. Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Engel,
distinguished members of the committee, thank you for inviting
me to speak today.
For 2 years now, I've been traveling to the Syrian border
where I do three things. As a critical care pediatrician, I
train doctors inside Syria. As a doctor experienced in wars,
many wars, I track and document the violations of medical
neutrality and other human rights violations. And as a global
health specialist, I track the devastating public health
consequences which are, indeed, a consequence of the way Assad
has chosen to fight this war by targeting civilians, by
attacking doctors, by destroying hospitals and other civilian
infrastructure that is vital to health. And it's no accident
that since March the 16th when the chlorine attacks renewed
that the assaults on hospitals was likewise escalated.
We know that after the chemical massacre August 2013, Assad
was forced to give up his stockpiles of sarin but,
unfortunately, that doesn't work for chlorine, because unlike
sarin, chlorine has legitimate and deeply important uses, the
most important of which is its ability to decontaminate our
drinking water. Syrians need it, just as America does. In fact,
the way Assad has even withheld chlorine from opposition
territory has fueled epidemics of disease, such as the polio
outbreak of 2013 which then spread to Iraq. This in itself is
an indirect method of biological warfare.
And on top of that, chlorine is easy to manufacture. It's
even cheaply made from readily available industrial
ingredients. Many of these bombs we know are made domestically,
so forcing Assad to give up stockpiles just doesn't work here.
We have to stop Assad using it as a chemical weapon. And let me
be quite clear here, using chlorine to kill and terrorize
people makes it into a chemical weapon, a violation of the
Chemical Weapons Convention, and Obama's redline even when the
substance also has legitimate uses.
As you've heard, these bombs are delivered simply by
rolling them out of helicopters, which is the same way the
barrel bombs, a far more effective way of killing people, are
delivered. But together, the barrel bombs and the chlorine
bombs create maximum trauma and terror. And the way he is using
both currently to target civilians and hospitals is
spectacularly effective in driving the exodus of millions of
refugees and compounding this public health crisis, which has
regional and global repercussions.
Germs don't need passports. We've seen that very clearly
with polio and Ebola. Assad's denial of chlorine and his use of
it as a chemical weapon puts us all in danger.
We know that U.N. Security Council isn't working because of
the Russian veto, so here's where the U.S. working with its
willing partners can come up with its own response. We've
talked a little today about a no-fly zone. I believe at this
stage the most practical approach is a highly specific no-fly
zone.
Assad may have valid uses for transporting troops to fight
ISIS, but neither the barrel bombs nor chemical weapons are
used to fight ISIS. They're not used to fight any combatants.
Some of you will have seen on the maps that these attacks are
nowhere near ISIS, or even front lines, and so they can be
stopped without impeding Assad's or our own ability to fight
ISIS.
First of all, establishing a limited no bombing civilian
zone is enforceable because the bombs are rolled out of these
slow-moving helicopters over Northwestern Syria predominantly,
easily accessible from the coast, well within reach of U.S.
boats.
Secondly, it's pragmatic because we know Assad is
responsive to the credible threat of force. We know he does.
It's strategic because it undermines one of ISIS' most powerful
tools of recruitment, that it alone can offer protection from
Assad's atrocities. It's responsible because it mitigates the
flow of refugees which gets at global security. But most
importantly, creating a no bomb zone would stop the most
important tools that are being used to slaughter and terrorize
Syrian civilians, especially the children who are the most
vulnerable, as you've seen, to these toxic gases, and whose
small bodies are literally ripped apart by the hideous shrapnel
filling these explosive barrel bombs.
I'm a doctor, and I'm very familiar with death, but I have
never seen a more obscene way to kill children. I've never
watched so many suffer in such an obscene manner. Syrian
children and Syrian civilians deserve protection, and the
United States can provide it.
I really hope this committee today will prevail upon the
Obama administration to act to do so. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Sparrow follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Annie. I appreciate that, Dr.
Sparrow. Thank you very much for your very concise arguments
that you laid out. I thank all the witnesses for all that
they've tried to do in this humanitarian crisis over the years.
One of the questions I was going to ask you is that I know
that the Turkish Government raised the issue of a no-fly zone
when asked to help. Their point was there's a humanitarian
crisis in terms of the number of refugees from the cities
coming over our border. It looks to me is that what primarily
drives that, one of the issues that really drives it is the
dropping of these barrel bombs from these MI-17 Helicopters.
It seems to me, as you laid out that argument, Annie, that
there is a very effective way that Turkish, Jordanian, UAE,
U.S., French, Canadian, and British air power in the region can
simply check or chase out of the skies these helicopters, these
Russian-made helicopters that, you know, are cumbersome and
slow to move, but they're effective at one thing, just as those
old Antonov planes that dropped barrel bombs are effective at
doing. They're not effective using against military forces,
particularly, but they can be enormously effective in use
against civilian populations in dropping things like barrel
bombs on cities. And because we have a circumstance now where
the blowback is such that those who are fighting ISIS in places
like Allepo have to have this two-front war of battling ISIS on
the ground, while looking up over their shoulder up to the
skies to see when the Assad regime is going to again hit them,
because his preoccupation is carrying out his effort which
slowly drives the Syrian people, you know, over the border into
Turkey, or into Jordan. And it would seem as though the logical
thing to do would be to ground those helicopters and those
Antonov planes when they do things like this; just chase them
out of the sky and put an end to this. But for that to happen
it takes a decisive decision to act, a decisive decision to say
no, you won't drop chemical weapons any longer.
Anyway, your thoughts on that, Dr. Sparrow.
Dr. Sparrow. Thank you, Chairman Royce. Indeed, this is the
main driver of the flow of refugees. If you can put a map up,
it's easy to see that these are civilian areas, and our
preoccupation with ISIS is distracting us from these systematic
assaults on civilian homes, and neighborhoods, and hospitals,
and schools.
In the last month alone, there have been 35 attacks by the
government on hospitals by air strikes. No one else has this
air capacity. So the civilians are being driven out, the
children are dying, they have to seek healthcare, and the
doctors are dying in the hospitals. There are so many ways to
die in Syria. So many of my colleagues have been forced to
leave, and our best bet at mitigating this in so many ways, as
I said, we can do it from the sea. We can just chase them out
of the skies.
After the sarin attack, Assad didn't bomb anyone for 10
days because of the credible threat of use of force. That's
really significant. To chase them out of the skies means the
creation of a humanitarian space enabling us the safe passage
of humanitarian aid or medicines. We allow children and people
to stay inside Syria, and this is important because no one
wants to be a refugee. Turkey has 2 million refugees already,
of the 4 million refugees, at least. We don't need more
refugees, and they don't want to be refugees. We can enable
them to stay safely in their own country, and curb these
obscene breaches of humanity that are such effective tools of
terror and destruction so easily in a way that unites us all,
and a very practical consensus that doesn't involve shooting
down or fixed wing aircraft. It's just stopping those
helicopters, as you described, which push those barrels out,
just as they did in Darfur with the genocide of civilians.
There's nowhere to hide.
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Dr. Sparrow. Dr. Tennari, your
thoughts on what could be done in order to stop the helicopter
attacks that drop the barrel bombs?
Dr. Tennari. The air strikes are focused mostly on hitting
civilians. We haven't seen, for example, these air strikes used
in such focus against militant groups on the ground, or
training camps, and so on. What we need to end these attacks is
to establish a no-fly zone.
Some may argue, including in yesterday's testimony of
Ambassador Power, that implementing a no-fly zone may aid
extremism. Although I have great respect for Ambassador Power,
I do not agree with her on this. I live in Syria, and I never
see these helicopters and airplanes used against extremists or
against training camps, and so on. All we see is these planes
and helicopters being used against hospitals, against schools,
and against general civilian populations. And I don't know how
saving the lives of these civilians and ending this can in any
way help extremists.
Chairman Royce. Thank you. I think my time has expired.
I'll go to Mr. Engel.
Mr. Engel. Well, I want to thank all of our witnesses. Each
of you really gave outstanding testimony, and I'm not usually
speechless, but after watching those pictures of the children
dying, I'm speechless. I just don't know what to say. We had an
earlier hearing in this committee probably about less than a
year ago where we had a photographer who smuggled his pictures
out of Syria, and we saw something very similar: Bodies after
bodies, hundreds, and hundreds, and hundreds, and hundreds of
dead bodies obviously killed by gas and other horrific things.
And it just really disgusts me that, you know, the United
Nations--I'm from New York. The United Nations, they sit and
they spin their wheels, and this type of murder of civilians
keeps going on, and the world is silent.
Ambassador Ford, let me ask you. Obviously, the use of
chlorine gas is a violation, a serious allegation under the
Chemical Weapons Convention. What should be the consequences of
this violation in your opinion?
Ambassador Ford. Ideally, what we would like, Congressman
Engel, is for the persons responsible in the Syrian military
chain of command to be held accountable. To do that, we need
two things. We need, one, an investigation with a mandate to
determine responsibility. You know, there are people up in New
York, you were just talking about the United Nations. There are
still countries in New York that are arguing that the Syrian
opposition is responsible for chemical weapons attacks, not the
Syrian Government, so it's important that some kind of an
investigative team have a mandate to go do that. I know
Ambassador Power is trying to work that now.
Second thing in order to hold people accountable is, we
need to get, finally, to some kind of a settlement in Syria
where officers responsible for these attacks are ultimately
produced for justice. That will have to be part of a larger
settlement.
Mr. Engel. You know, last September the Organization for
the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons concluded, as I said in my
statement, ``with a high degree of confidence,'' that's their
words, that ``chlorine was used systematically and
repeatedly,'' that's their words, in attacks in Northern Syria.
But what puzzles me is that the OPCW did not attribute
responsibility to the Assad regime. It just boggles my mind.
I'd like your comment on that.
Ambassador Ford. Exactly, Congressman. They did not have a
mandate to determine responsibility; although, if you read
between the lines of their report where they mentioned that the
eyewitness accounts consistently spoke of the chemical weapons
being delivered by helicopters. That, in a sense, points the
finger squarely at the regime, even if the Organization's
report did not specifically say the Syrian Government did the
attacks, or carried them out.
But I think in order to get some kind of Chapter 7 action
out of the Security Council we will actually need a very
blatant statement that says it is, in fact, the Syrian
Government that is doing this. Were we able to get that
statement, I think it would be much more difficult for any
country in the Security Council to use a veto.
Mr. Engel. You know, President Obama was set to launch
military strikes in 2013 in August. I remember that really
well, against Syria if the regime were to use chemical weapons.
Obviously, when they announced plans to dispose of its weapons,
the administration backed away from its threats to strike.
You know, when there is inaction on the part of the United
States and other countries of the free world, I think that
dictators and despots use that as a carte blanche to continue
to do what they have done, and I'm afraid that we're seeing
more and more of that.
Dr. Sparrow, do you want to add anything to your testimony?
I thank you for your good work, and pleased that we have you as
a witness.
Dr. Sparrow. Thank you. I believe we still have an
opportunity to act, and every day there are more barrel bombs.
Yesterday, 21 kids were killed with their moms at summer camp.
We get tired almost of talking about these attacks because
there are so many, and the brutality goes on.
We now have an opportunity to do something that is very
practical, doesn't involve boots on the ground, and actually
enables a consensus to mitigate this crisis in so many ways.
And even to focus on Northwestern Syria as a starting point, it
does send a clear message that we don't want to tolerate this
brutal breach of humanity any longer. And it is a radicalizing
factor toward ISIS, so we can be strategic here in so many
ways, and be clear that a sea-based no-fly zone doesn't curb
any efforts, Assad's, our own, the coalition's ability to fight
ISIS; rather, it stops the radicalization, but most
importantly, it does protect the civilians. This means Muslim
kids, Christian kids, Alawites, Druze, all those children are
still in Syria and they all deserve protection, too.
The permanent psychological fallout of these chemical
weapons doesn't go away. An awful thing about bombing with gas
is that you can't hear the explosion, you can only find out
about it when it comes with the smell. It sinks, that's why
it's done at night. If you bomb a hospital, a lot of the
hospitals are actually in basements, so you're actually
contaminating the hospital. There's nowhere to hide, and you
don't know.
Last year, he bought canisters from China, so it was easy
just to roll canisters of liquid chlorine which vaporized under
pressure, but this year we see this domestic production, these
improvised chlorine bombs made out of easy ingredients like
hydrochloric acid, potassium permanganate, so it's so easy to
make. We have to do something that actually stops the aerial
onslaught, because that is the key here to really mitigating
the worst humanitarian crisis.
Mr. Engel. Well, thank you. You know, people who say that
ISIS is our real enemy and somehow we should look the other way
with Assad because he's the one standing up to ISIS should
watch this hearing, and hopefully they change their minds.
Chairman Royce. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Engel. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Royce. Mr. Engel, from what I've seen in watching
the aerial campaign over Allepo, it is, in fact, the Assad
regime. I think you might agree that in dropping the barrel
bombs on the Free Syrian Army and on the civilian population in
Allepo, while at the same time ISIS is attacking Allepo on the
outskirts of the city he, in fact, is working hand in glove
with ISIS, because his goal, seemingly, is to drive the
civilian population out of all of these areas using ISIS on the
ground to do it, since ISIS doesn't attack his forces or rarely
does, and carries out their objection or their focus,
seemingly, on the civilian population, which is his target, as
well. It seems to me that the Syrian people have two enemies in
this. One is Assad, and the other is ISIS.
Mr. Engel. Well, that's a very astute observation which I
concur. And let me conclude by thanking Dr. Tennari and Mr.
Habib for your courage in coming here, and for letting the
world know what's really going on in Syria. We really
appreciate it and, hopefully, with a better future for the
Syrian people, both of you will be regarded as heroes in the
future for bringing your message to the rest of the world. We
stand with you, and we hope that the Syrian people will soon be
free of this scourge from Assad. Thank you.
Chairman Royce. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen is the chairwoman of
the Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
There should be no doubt that Assad is, in fact, the one
responsible for the horrific humanitarian crisis, the violence,
the killing in Syria. I think those who still say it's the
opposition, they're looking for an excuse to be a non-actor,
and a person who is enabling Assad to continue with these
atrocities like the use of chemical weapons and barrel bombs
against innocent civilians.
I see no urgency, however, from the Obama administration
aimed at pressuring Assad to go. We could be destroying and
neutralizing Assad's air capabilities, sanctioning Assad, his
military officials, or any other entity, including the Russians
and the Iranians, that are supporting him, and we could be
focusing our efforts here in Congress to passing a substantive
authorization of the use of military force in AUMF that not
only authorizes military force against ISIL, but also against
Assad, al-Nusra, and any other terrorist entity operating in
Syria.
Our Train and Equip Program in Syria may not be enough.
According to the latest reports, only 2,000 fighters have been
identified, 400 have been vetted, only 90 have begun training,
and DOD says that the program is not aimed at attacking Assad.
We've got to change our strategy in Syria because attempting to
degrade and defeat ISIL while forcing the very ones we are
training and equipping to promise, they have to promise to not
attack Assad, makes little, if any, sense.
In the meantime, the Assad regime has been responsible for
30 chlorine bomb attacks from March to June, just in that time
span. While the first chemical weapons attacks in Syria were
reportedly with sarin gas, subsequent attacks, as we know, have
all been with chlorine. So, I wanted to ask the panelists,
first, is there any evidence of other chemical weapons being
used in Syria today other than chlorine? And, also, in his
latest book, former Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren has said
that the Russian plan to remove chemical weapons from Syria
originated with an Israeli minister. Ambassador Ford, I wanted
to know how you would characterize the Obama administration's
handling of the whole situation from the red line, if you cross
it, we're not going to forget about that. We're going to take
action, and then nothing happens, to the plan to remove
chemical weapons. And what role might Israel have played in all
of this? And, lastly, it's well known that Russia continues to
prop up the Assad regime. What leverage do we have in the U.S.
over Russia to persuade it to change its calculus on Assad, and
assist in removing him from power? And what about the other
countries in the region, what could they do, as well?
Ambassador?
Ambassador Ford. Thank you, Congresswoman. With respect to
Ambassador Oren's comments about the Israeli role, from where I
sat inside the State Department in the autumn of 2013, I did
not see a visible Israeli role, and so I just can't comment on
what he wrote in his book. It wasn't visible to us at the upper
working level, shall I say.
With respect to what happened in 2013, in retrospect,
obviously, laying out a red line and then not enforcing it has
hurt our credibility not only inside Syria, but it certainly
has not acted to deter Assad, and it's probably hurt us
regionally and internationally. It's just a matter of record.
I would also add that I came up to this committee with
Secretary Kerry, and it was a hard sell here on Capitol Hill at
the time, Congresswoman, so----
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Some of us were there trying to help
out----
Ambassador Ford. It's not to excuse----
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen [continuing]. But the team sort of left
the field.
Ambassador Ford. It's not to excuse policy decisions, it is
simply to say that policy decisions are hard.
I think going forward, as I said in my opening statement,
it's really important to figure out how to deter Assad. I don't
think that he can be deterred without some kind of indirect or
direct military action. The totality of my Syrian contacts for
years have described his regime as really paying attention only
to military, whether it be American or other, to military
actions. Thank you.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Just quickly comment on how you evaluate
the Training and Equip Program that we have going in Syria now.
Ambassador Ford. I think you're referring to the one that's
using the Department of Defense Program monies. And I have two
comments on it. Number one, the scale of it is not enough, even
to really affect the Islamic State which deploys in Syria
somewhere between 15-, 20-, 25,000 fighters. For us to inject
2-, 3-, 4-, or 5,000 I don't think is going to make a huge
difference. And I'm not even talking about the logistical
problems that force would have.
But more broadly speaking, Congresswoman, I do not think we
will be successful convincing many Syrian experienced and
capable fighters to pledge only to fight the Islamic State and
not to fight the Assad regime. I don't excuse the Syrians in
that, but I think it's important for Americans to understand
that the Assad regime is responsible for the deaths of maybe
150,000 to 200,000 people in Syria. The Islamic State is
horrible, it's brutal, it's awful, it's killed maybe 4,000 to
5,000 Syrians. So, if you're sitting where a Syrian sits, the
Assad regime's brutality is worse even than that of the Islamic
State, as horrible as it is.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Chairman Royce. We'll go now to Mr. Brad Sherman.
Mr. Sherman. The moral dilemma that America faces in this
circumstance is far more complex than we face almost anywhere
else. The path of righteousness is far from clear. It would
help our moral dilemma if ISIS and Assad were secret allies,
and they were acting as such last year, but this year the ISIS
forces have engaged Assad and taken territory.
It would be easier for us from a moral dilemma standpoint
if Assad was killing people mostly with gas, but as Dr. Tennari
points out, it is the explosive bombs that are killing most of
the civilians, and causing terrible death, dismemberment.
Dropping explosive bombs is the number one tactic of the United
States in military actions this century. Dropping bombs with
explosives is entirely legal if you're aiming at legitimate
military targets, not only at other combatants, but also at
legitimate strategic targets like refineries.
So then for these explosive bombs, the issue is whether
Assad is deliberately striking civilians, and the evidence is
overwhelming that he is. But the fact this his explosive bombs
are shaped like barrels is not legally or morally significant.
The fact that he is using the explosives dropped from airplanes
is not illegal. The fact that he is targeting civilians is.
It's, I think, wrong to say that the United States has done
nothing to help the Syrian people. Through our actions, perhaps
not carefully scripted, Assad has been deprived of his sarin
gas, his mustard gas, his nerve agents. If he still had these
and was willing to use them, he would have killed hundreds of--
100 times and more, more people than had been killed by the
chlorine gas.
Providing Atropine is, I think, not to be dismissed;
though, of course, it is not enough to stop the death.
Although, a no-fly zone would not stop the chlorine death, and
the chlorine can be delivered on the ground, as well. So, the
issue is a no-fly zone, and how we might tailor that.
I would point out that the AUMF that we're operating under,
and which we should be revising in this committee, authorizes
virtually any action against Sunni extremists, and does not
authorize any action against the extreme Shiites, including
Assad who, as the Ambassador points out, has killed well more
than 150,000 people.
As to us dealing with hitting Assad, and thereby depriving
ISIS of a recruiting tool, they've got many recruiting tools,
and if they're able to seize more territory from Assad and put
their flag up in this or that Syrian town, that will also be a
recruiting tool. But I think the Shiite extremists are more
dangerous to America, and as Ambassador Ford points out, have
killed far more Middle East civilians than has ISIS, and that
the question is how do we craft a no-fly zone.
Is there--but, first, Ambassador Ford, we've heard that the
strategic reason Assad is using these tactics against civilians
is to force them to leave. What military advantage is he trying
to get? Where is he trying to get them to leave from? Where is
he trying to get civilians to go to, and how does that help
him?
Ambassador Ford. Congressman, the reason the Assad regime
is targeting civilians the way it is, is it's literally trying
to drain the sea that supports the Armed Opposition. So, they
have been quite unsuccessful in defeating the Armed Opposition
fighters, and they have turned with ever greater ferocity on
the civilians that support them. And that's why they're trying
to depopulate Eastern Allepo, for example, because that is
where the Armed Opposition has one of its strongholds.
Mr. Sherman. So, they're aiming to depopulate all Sunni
areas of Syria, or only particular neighborhoods where they
think there's strong support for the Opposition?
Ambassador Ford. They're, obviously, not trying to
depopulate urban areas under regime control. But where the
regime is not in control, Congressman, the Opposition is, it's
a national opposition, it's national in size, national in
scope, and so they will target almost any place from the south
to the north, to the east and the west.
Mr. Sherman. So, wherever there are civilians under
Opposition control, Assad assumes those civilians want to be
under Opposition control, support the Opposition, and is trying
to turn them into residents of camps in Turkey and elsewhere.
Ambassador Ford. Correct. If civilians in a particular area
do not themselves fight against the Armed Opposition, then they
are for the regime fair targets.
Mr. Sherman. Good. I want to try to sneak in one more
question with Dr. Sparrow.
Would our no-fly zone efforts in order to prevent the use
of chemical weapons need to be only against helicopters, or
would we also need to shoot down his fixed wing aircraft?
Dr. Sparrow. As you pointed out, Congressman, this chlorine
is being delivered overwhelmingly from the air. It's not like
sarin which required sophisticated ground missiles to deliver
it. It's coming from the air, it's being rolled out, whether in
canisters or homemade bombs. And as I said, it's very easy, so
it is not requiring fixed wing aircraft. It's the----
Mr. Sherman. No, no. I'm asking, if Assad's helicopters
were grounded, would that solve the problem, or would his fixed
wing aircraft also deliver these barrel bombs filled with
chlorine gas?
Dr. Sparrow. Fixed aircraft will keep on killing, but these
are civilian targets. And I say that because chemical weapons
never kill as many as conventional weapons. In World War I,
they killed 100,000 of the 10 million dead, but they are so
effective at scattering people, driving them out. In wars of
attrition, they're a beautiful tool, a very strategic tool, and
they are consistent with their strategy. So, a fixed wing
aircraft can keep on attacking ISIS in Deir ez-Zor, or Kobani,
but this strategy will protect civilians.
Mr. Sherman. So, you're proposing just an anti-helicopter
strategy?
Dr. Sparrow. Yes.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you.
Chairman Royce. Let's see. Next in the queue, Mr. Ted Poe
of Texas.
Mr. Poe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for being
here. I'm a little out of breath.
Ambassador Ford, my questions are directed primarily to
you. If we have time, we'll have all of the witnesses weigh in
on it.
What is the U.S. policy regarding Assad?
Ambassador Ford. In brief, Congressman.
Mr. Poe. Yes, in brief.
Ambassador Ford. The United States views him, I think in
his official policy, the President has stated it many times
that he has no legitimacy, and he should step aside in favor of
a new national unity transition government. The problem, very
frankly, is that's a nice strategy, but there are no tactics
for making that happen.
Mr. Poe. Let me ask you about the tactics. Going all the
way back to Gerald Ford, reiterated by Jimmy Carter, Ronald
Reagan, President Bush, all issued statements or Executive
Orders regarding the fact that the United States does not
assassinate heads of state. Is that generally our policy?
Ambassador Ford. Yes, sir, it is.
Mr. Poe. Now, in 2011, NATO bombed the house where Gaddafi
was staying but missed him, and then later in October he was
killed. I'm not sure we know who actually was responsible for
that, but--so, why doesn't the United States, if Assad is so
bad, he's killed 200,000 of his own people, and put that in
perspective. Americans lost 400,000 in World War II killed,
military, so that's a lot of folks, 200,000. Why don't we just
assassinate him? And then we get rid of him; he's gone, he's
the bad guy, he's gone. But why don't we do that?
Ambassador Ford. As you said, Congressman, it's not our
policy to assassinate people. With respect to Libya, there was
a United Nations Security Council resolution which authorized
Chapter 7 action. We don't have that in Syria.
Mr. Poe. Okay.
Ambassador Ford. Which has been a factor in the
administration's considerations. I think going forward, while I
don't advocate assassinating President----
Mr. Poe. And I'm not saying we should, either. I'm just
asking the question.
Ambassador Ford. Yes. But I think in going forward, to the
extent that the United States remains committed only to
operating under Chapter 7 approved by the Security Council, the
United States will almost certainly not be able to influence
events on the ground in Syria. And that, in turn, poses risks
to our own national security.
Mr. Poe. Okay. Why hasn't OPCW said who's responsible for
the chemical attacks? Why haven't they done that?
Ambassador Ford. Their mandate was only to (a) oversee the
dismantling of the declared Syrian chemical weapons program,
and (2) to investigate in an intrusive manner where other sites
that were not declared but might be potential chemical weapons
facilities. And, in fact, they discovered four, but they never
had a mandate. They never--let me say that again. They never
had a mandate to determine who was responsible for using
chemical weapons.
Mr. Poe. All right. Let me reclaim my time. Do they have
the ability to say who is responsible right now? Could they say
who is responsible, or would they say we don't know?
Ambassador Ford. If they were here today, Congressman, they
would say they don't know.
Mr. Poe. They don't.
Ambassador Ford. Because they have no mandate to label
anyone responsible.
Mr. Poe. So, if we gave them a mandate to say who is
responsible, and they said Assad was responsible, then
technically the U.N. could weigh in on this?
Ambassador Ford. Correct.
Mr. Poe. Okay.
Ambassador Ford. And it may be that, ultimately, it'll be
impossible to get the OPCW that mandate, Congressman, and so I
think this is one of the things being discussed in New York is,
is there another way to get an investigative team with that
mandate.
Mr. Poe. All right. Thank you, Ambassador. Reclaiming my
time.
Let's go back to Assad; removing Assad. I'm not saying we
ought to assassinate him. Just the U.S. policy is not to get
rid of him. But let's say he is gone tomorrow, he's out of
town, he's gone. Would that result in chaos, turmoil, or
tranquility in Syria, or pick a different word?
Ambassador Ford. It could be either one. It is possible
that his departure would facilitate getting to the national
political negotiation that I talked about, because he has
refused, he has refused to negotiate, and his instructions to
his delegation in Geneva 15 months ago was not to negotiate.
However, that will require some pressure from us on the Armed
Opposition----
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Ambassador.
Ambassador Ford [continuing]. Be willing to negotiate.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Judge Poe.
Mr. Poe. I'd like to ask one question.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Absolutely.
Mr. Poe. Isn't ISIS just as bad as Assad if they were in
control?
Ambassador Ford. In some ways the Islamic State is even
worse, but they will not be in control of Syria, even if Assad
does fall.
Mr. Poe. Thank you.
Ambassador Ford. They will not----
Mr. Poe. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. We'll turn to Mr. Sires of New
Jersey.
Mr. Sires. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for being here
today. This is a very moving hearing but, you know, I'm so
conflicted with some of these decisions that we have to make in
the Congress.
First of all, you know, the conflict in Syria has left us
with three main groups, Assad's brutal force, ISIL, a fractured
group consisting of some modern militia, some al-Qaeda
affiliates. You know, I don't know where we could turn and not
make the situation worse.
I really don't think that there is a military solution to
this. And I understand that instituting a no-fly zone may help,
but I don't know if us getting involved would make it better. I
mean, I think we screwed up Iraq. I mean, look at the situation
in Iraq. And every time I go to these veterans' events and I
see our young men missing a limb, missing legs, I mean, I
really don't know I could ever vote to send troops in some of
these places, because the rest of the Arab world is just
sitting by and watching this go on. Where's the rest of the
world? Why must we send our young people into this battle,
spend our money, and at the end they hate us for it? So,
where's the rest of the world? I mean, where is the rest of the
Arab world?
They are their children. I mean, the Turks just look around
and see people getting killed. They don't care. They don't even
let people in through their border. So, can anybody tell me how
we're going to make this better without a political solution to
this?
Ambassador, you want to start? I mean, you could try.
Ambassador Ford. I'd be delighted to. I'd be delighted to,
Congressman.
I agree with you, there is no military solution. There has
to be a national political negotiation; otherwise, Syria will
fragment into something like Somalia. But how do you get to the
political solution? How do you get there?
The only way is to put more military pressure on the side
that won't negotiate, which is Assad. Just like Richard
Holbrooke in the Balkans used limited judicious amounts of NATO
air strikes to get Milosevic to go to the table at Dayton;
something like that has to be done with Assad.
Mr. Sires. But I think the situation is a little more
complicated.
Ambassador Ford. The Balkans were pretty complicated, too,
Congressman. So, if I may continue, a no-fly zone, for example,
it's not the only thing that would help with this, but a no-fly
zone, for example, if properly negotiated out with regional
countries and used as part of an effort, as part of an effort
to get to the political negotiation could be very effective. It
would both help save civilian lives, but it could be used as
leverage to get Assad to the table, and to get the Armed
Opposition to negotiate and engage seriously when they go to
the table.
Mr. Sires. Mr. Habib, you want to just--I know you----
Mr. Habib. Thank you, sir.
Well, first of all, I just want to say that the Syrian
people did not ever ask for boots on the ground from the United
States or from other countries. What we asked for does not put
any of the American soldiers at risk; just provide protection
for the Syrian people.
Inaction from the international community will lead to more
complexity, and it will cause more threats on the international
security, in general. If Iran wins this war, this will not be
in the interest of the United States or the international
community. And if ISIS wins, or any radical group wins, of
course, that will threaten the international security.
What we ask for is to give a chance for the moderate
opposition to be able to provide an alternative for the people
inside Syria, and for the public in general.
Mr. Sires. Okay, Dr. Tennari.
Dr. Tennari. The biggest producer and biggest magnet of
terrorism in Syria is Bashar al-Assad.
Mr. Sires. Oh, I don't question----
Dr. Tennari. Bashar al-Assad has also brought to Syria the
gains of Hezbollah, the gains of Irani and Shiite extremist
militias, and others that have come into our country from
terrorist groups. And this is what also helped cause other
groups that also came out, terrorist organizations that also
came out in Syria.
Mr. Sires. Thank you.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. We'll let him finish and then move on.
Mr. Sires. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. No, go ahead.
Mr. Sires. Thank you.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. He had something else to say.
Dr. Tennari. The cost of any intervention for the United
States back in 2011-2012 is obviously much less costly for the
United States then. The current situation, the chaos that's
there is only going to spread and become worse, and that's
going to force the United States at some point to intervene at
a much more--even more complex situation.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, very much. Thank you, Mr.
Sires.
Mr. Sires. Thank you.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. We will now go to Mr. Issa of California.
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ambassador, let me couch this question without trying to
seem overly glib. Looking at Syria right now, Bashar Assad is a
failed leader, failed his people before the civil war,
continues to fail to even respect human rights. We can all
agree that that's the best you can say. But with about 28
million Syrians, plus or minus, and about half of them already
displaced either in the country or outside the country,
correct, and then of the remaining call it 18 million or less
that are theoretically still in their homes, a big chunk, let's
call it 25 percent either support Bashar Assad, or at least
docile in any opposition.
Then you have another chunk of the country, more than half
by some estimates, are in the hands of ISIS where the vast
majority either are docile and just want to continue their
lives or, in fact, support ISIS.
In that environment, when we are both against Assad and
against ISIS, what are our numbers? How many numbers can we
actually say are people who are ready to engage in an active
effort sufficient to displace both of these despicable groups?
Ambassador Ford. It's important to understand here,
Congressman, that this effort to unseat Assad has been going on
4 years now, and is actually getting stronger, not weaker. So,
you just look at the situation on the ground, and that the
regime has lost a second Provincial capital.
Mr. Issa. But they've lost it to ISIS.
Ambassador Ford. No, they did not. They lost it to a group
called Jaysh al Fateh, and to other sector armed groups
fighting from the north and the south.
Mr. Issa. Who coordinate----
Ambassador Ford. They did not lose it to the Islamic State.
Mr. Issa. But they coordinate their opposition by regions,
the same as Hezbollah. Today, the Lebanese armed forces fights
in one zone, Hezbollah fights in another zone, they deconflict
their zones to the extent that they are keeping Lebanon outside
of the direct war.
The question I have for you is, what is our path to
displace both of them, or are we really having this hearing to
talk about the current use of chemical weapons, and atrocities
by Assad while, in fact, the effort to displace him is really
in name only. And the reality is, is that we are fighting
against ISIS while claiming that we want regime change, and
knowing full well that regime change today, if Assad were to
fall, ISIS would dominate the political scene more in Syria
than Hezbollah ever has in Lebanon.
Ambassador Ford. Two comments on that, Congressman. Number
one, the administration's priority clearly is Iraq, not Syria.
And, clearly, even in Iraq it is to fight the Islamic State. To
the extent the administration is engaged much on Syria right
now, it's with our air campaign against the Islamic State, an
air campaign which, as best I can tell, the criteria for
victory are not clear, and the duration of the mission is very
unclear. That's my first comment.
Second, I disagree vehemently that were Assad to go, the
Islamic State would dominate Syria. The total number of people
who are fighting the Islamic State right now both in the regime
and among moderates in the Free Syrian Army outnumbers the
Islamic State. And it is important to note, Congressman, that
although the Islamic State has been on attack for months up
around Allepo, it is actually being pushed back. It is not
advancing. Let me say that again. It is being pushed back. And
those are not people who are getting any help from the United
States. And the Islamic State has also suffered losses at the
hands of Syrian Kurds, so I do not think the Islamic State
would dominate Syria.
Mr. Issa. Ambassador, my time is just about expired. I
appreciate your opinion. The reality is, Hezbollah doesn't
control the majority of Lebanon either, but they dominate the
politics of Lebanon, undoubtedly.
Do any of you see a political solution in Syria since the
military solution seems to be a multi group, essentially
becoming a civil war with multiple groups fighting multiple
groups?
Ambassador Ford. That's an excellent question.
Mr. Issa. And that is for anyone on the panel. Do any of
you see a political solution?
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Just one to answer. His time is up. One.
Mr. Issa. I'll take that as no. Thank you.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much. And now we turn to
Mr. Deutch, the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Middle
East and North Africa.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Madam Chairman. To our witnesses
here today, thanks for your tireless humanitarian work, and for
being here today to share some of the horrors that you've
witnessed firsthand.
The medical personnel and the humanitarian workers who are
the first responders risk their lives in Syria every day
running toward explosions instead of away from them, and they
deserve our gratitude and support.
Ambassador Ford, welcome back. Thank you for your years of
service to this country.
As we have heard already today, the Assad regime has
continued its horrific use of chemical weapons in direct
violation of the OPCW agreement; yet, the international
community remains paralyzed with inaction. The fact that
whether or not chlorine gas is a chemical weapon is even part
of this conversation is baffling to me.
When chlorine gas is put in a barrel bomb and dropped from
the sky on civilians, then dropped again when rescue workers
have reached the scene, it is a weapon of mass destruction. And
the fact that the international bodies do not assign blame for
these attacks by the Assad regime is a failure of the system.
The regime is the only entity with air power, the only one
capable of dropping barrel bombs, and at this point continued
inaction by the international community is unacceptable.
Just this morning there were reports of elephant rockets
being dropped on civilians. These are bombs, if I understand it
correctly, with rocket motors attached to them to cause greater
destruction, despite making them far more inaccurate. And while
I'm glad that Secretary Kerry acknowledged yesterday that these
attacks by Assad cannot continue, I'm just not sure that simply
asking the Russians to relay this message is enough.
Russia can't continue to block action against the barbaric
use of chemical weapons at the Security Council. This is horrid
at this point, and we've been talking about it for a long time,
but today's hearing is about the use of chemical weapons, and
we have to be prepared to stand up and acknowledge it, and
respond to it.
Now, Dr. Tennari, chlorine gas is notorious for the
psychological terror that its deployment, or threat of
deployment, inflicts upon populations. And the Assad regime
also possesses and uses weapons which are significantly more
efficient at killing on a massive scale. Dr. Sparrow, you
talked about this. Why do you think that the regime continues
to use chlorine as a weapon in violation of law, and what
affect does that have on the communities that are under siege?
Dr. Sparrow. As I said--thank you.
Mr. Deutch. Dr. Sparrow, can we have just Dr. Tennari
answer first, and then I'll turn to you.
Dr. Sparrow. Sorry.
Mr. Deutch. That's okay. No, thank you.
Dr. Tennari. The Assad regime uses chlorine gas
specifically to displace people from their areas, specifically
against the areas that are under Opposition control, so to help
strike at the popular support of the Opposition. Assad's troops
and his strategy, even whenever they come into a specific area,
they always write down on the walls, ``Either Assad or no one
else--either Assad or we burn down the whole country.'' And
this is the strategy behind using chlorine barrel bombs, is
that it's either be under Assad control or no one is there, and
so he uses that to displace populations.
Mr. Deutch. Dr. Sparrow. Thank you, Dr. Tennari.
Dr. Sparrow. Together the barrel bombs and the chlorine are
completely consistent with this very deliberate strategy of
targeting civilians and hospitals. It is a classic strategy of
war, as described.
March 16th, the chlorine attacks recommenced; 28th of
March, Idlib fell from the Government, the City of Idlib was
taken by coordinated action by the Opposition. I was there. The
very next day, the government retaliates by taking out the
National Hospital in Idlib and the Red Crescent Hospital,
including the children's ward in the National Hospital.
It's a very swift retaliation. It drives people quickly as
Tennari described, forces them to move, so attacking them
together with destroying the infrastructure and creating the
panic and the fear really puts people out of action very
effectively. And this is a war of attrition. Two years ago
Eastern Ghouta had a population of 1 million and several
hundred doctors. Today, Ghouta has \1/5\ million and it has 50
doctors left. In DC, you have about 600,000, and almost 7,000
doctors. This is why it's not a political solution, but it is a
mitigation of this misery and helps stop the escalation.
Mr. Deutch. Dr. Sparrow, thank you. Madam Chairman, if our
sensibilities are shocked by what we've heard today and what
we've seen in these videos, then there is just no question that
there is an obligation to respond in some way. And I appreciate
very much the opportunity to have this hearing today to discuss
this further, and I yield back my time.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mr. Deutch. And now we
turn to Mr. Donovan of New York.
Mr. Donovan. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a couple
of quick questions.
First, Doctor, is air drops the only method that's
effective for the use of this chlorine gas?
Dr. Sparrow. Yes. Last year canisters of liquid gas just
vaporized, this year improvised chlorine bombs, and it's much
more effective. It's very difficult to deliver chlorine in this
way from the ground.
Mr. Donovan. Okay.
Dr. Sparrow. It's not like sarin. So, yes, we are only
seeing it in air drops.
MR. Donovan. Ambassador, do the Syrians have the capability
to manufacture helicopters themselves, or are outside forces
supplying them with these vehicles to drop the chlorine?
Ambassador Ford. The helicopters that the Syrian Government
uses are Russian, and the spare parts are all Russian, too.
Mr. Donovan. Okay. And my final question, if a no-fly zone
was imposed, Ambassador, would we have to be the enforcer, the
United States, or are there other countries in the region that
would enforce the no-fly zone?
Ambassador Ford. Countries in the region, Congressman, have
been asking us to do a no-fly zone for a long time. They're
already participating with us in air operations in Syria
against the Islamic State, and I have no doubt that a number of
those same countries would join us if we were to expand the
mission to be a no-fly zone over specific designated areas in
Syria. We would certainly have other countries join us.
Mr. Donovan. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Donovan. Mr. Cicilline of
Rhode Island.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you to our
witnesses for being here, and thank you to the chairman and
Ranking Member for convening this hearing.
For a regime and a dictator prepared to engage in this kind
of horrific and depraved slaughter of its own people, and
particularly of children, and the destruction of hospitals and
health care facilities, the significance of removing the other
chemical weapons, mustard gas and sarin, I think is
significant. One can only begin to imagine what Assad or the
regime would be capable of if they had access to those weapons.
But with respect to our response to these chemical weapons,
it seems as if, Ambassador Ford, you're suggesting that some
military action will create some conditions for a political
solution, that military solution is not--and I think Dr.
Sparrow makes the same recommendation. And in your written
testimony you speak about the cruel irony of the denial of
chlorine and what it has caused in neighborhoods in Syria, and
really serious, grave consequences of hepatitis, typhoid, polio
outbreaks, and very, very serious diseases. And now chlorine is
being used and dispensed in the cruelest way, and the most
devastating way. And the cruel irony of this is almost hard to
imagine.
But I want to just press you on the solution. Dr. Sparrow
says a no-fly zone in civilian areas that would protect,
obviously, or prevent the bombing, use of barrel bombs that
dispenses chlorine. And she also concludes in her written
testimony that there is strong reason to believe that Assad's
barrel bombing of civilians would quickly stop if a credible
threat of military retaliation were made. And that this kind of
a no-fly zone in this limited way is not militarily
complicated, but a matter of political will. So, I'd like,
Ambassador Ford, for you to comment on that. Do you agree with
that assessment that it should be a no-fly zone, it should be
narrowly construed, and that it's not militarily complicated,
it's a matter of political will, and that it will likely cause
Assad and the Assad regime to stop the use of chemical weapons?
Because it was very persuasive to me, I should say.
Ambassador Ford. Congressman, first of all, I'd just like
to say I spent 5 years in Iraq trying to help stand up an Iraqi
Government so we could get our forces out, so I don't take
lightly asking for the deployment of American forces or an
expansion of an existing mission that we already have in Syria.
But militarily, it's doable.
I think a different question is how long would it go on? It
went on 12 years in Iraq. We had a no-fly zone over Iraq for 12
years. So, the answer to that is, I can't give you a specific
time mission, and that makes me uncomfortable. But I can only
say that it will help if done properly, and if negotiated
properly with the regional states, and the Syrian Opposition,
it could help get us over the hump and to a negotiating table
where we can get, finally, a national political settlement.
Right now, we are going nowhere, nowhere toward a national
political settlement. In fact, the opposite, the country is
fragmenting, and that will enable the Islamic State and the al-
Qaeda affiliate al-Nusra to have areas they control out into
the medium and long term, Congressman.
Mr. Cicilline. Ambassador, you sounded as if you were
trying to make another point, and there wasn't enough time when
one of my colleagues was questioning you. You said some
pressure from us to negotiate, and ISIS will not be in charge
of Syria. Would you speak a little more about that?
Ambassador Ford. Certainly. The Islamic State is not the
majority of the Syrian Opposition. It is one element fighting
Assad, and sometimes it even cooperates with Assad in a very
byzantine way. Let's not forget that before Islam, the
Byzantines controlled Syria, so they carried over some of the
tricky politics.
Were Assad to go tomorrow or the next day, there would be a
competition for power in Damascus and in all parts of Syria,
and nowhere has the Islamic State ever prevailed over the more
moderate elements of the Opposition, not in Allepo, not with
the Syrian Kurds, if you've been reading the news about the
gains that the Syrian Kurds have made, and down in the south,
as well. In all of those places, the Islamic State's attacks
have been blunted.
The real progress the Islamic State has made to the extent
it's made progress in Syria, is in places where it was fighting
the regime, like Palmyra.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you. I thank you again, Madam Chair,
and I associate myself with the comments of the gentleman from
Florida, Congressman Deutch, that in the face of this evidence,
that we have a responsibility to do something, and the world is
watching. And I thank, again, the witnesses for being here to
share their testimony. With that, I yield back.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much. Mr. Duncan of South
Carolina.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I thought the
gentleman from Florida, Mr. Deutch's comments were apropos,
too.
They say that a picture is worth a thousand words, a video
is worth a billion words, in my opinion. That video that you
showed this morning was very, very compelling. It was moving to
me emotionally. It needs to be shown all across America.
Delving into this no-fly zone idea, which I am apt to
support based on testimony today, and the comments from my
colleagues, and the questions they asked. But delving into it,
I realized that from 1992 to 1999, that DOD estimated that the
U.S. and its allies flew over 200,000 sorties in Iraq. They
were operating under what they believed to be a U.N. Security
Council Resolution 688, but Secretary General Ghali said that
the no-fly zone was illegal under 688. So, I ask, Ambassador,
is there a Security Council resolution now for Syria that would
cover a no-fly zone?
Ambassador Ford. I think that's one of the difficulties,
Congressman. I do not believe there is a Security Council
resolution.
Mr. Duncan. Would you agree with me that Russia would
probably, being the benefactor of Assad, probably veto any
Security Council resolution for a no-fly zone?
Ambassador Ford. They have indicated that consistently.
Mr. Duncan. Yes, that's speculation, and so I think they
would, as well. So, how do we operate a no-fly zone legally in
international law getting the participation of the U.N.
Security Council?
Ambassador Ford. The argument is going to have to be made,
Congressman, that this falls under the acknowledged
responsibility to protect, which as a principle has been
acknowledged by the United Nations, but has not been applied in
this way. The irony of this is that the international law
strictly interpreted actually gives Assad full reign to kill
like this; even though he's committing war crimes in the
process.
Mr. Duncan. That's amazing.
Ambassador Ford. Yes, it is. I must say, I was surprised
when I understood this myself.
Mr. Duncan. Thanks for sharing that. We've operated in
defiance of international or U.N. Security Council resolutions
in the past, and so what are the practical implications for
creating a no-fly zone in your opinion?
Ambassador Ford. I think it has to be understood, not just
as a way to protect Syrian civilians, as laudable and as
important as that is, but because it's a major commitment,
and----
Mr. Duncan. From regional allies, I guess, is what you're
saying?
Ambassador Ford. That it has to be used also as a tool to
get to a political settlement in Syria so that it doesn't last
12 years like the one in Iraq did. And so we will have to
negotiate the terms of it with regional states that are also
supporting the Opposition so that they back a political
settlement, and with the Syrian Opposition so that it, too,
will negotiate seriously. And then we have to turn to the
Russians and say this is not to overthrow Assad, this is to get
to the negotiating table, and to stop the murder of civilians.
Mr. Duncan. You know, in Iraq with the no-fly zones, we
were basically stopping the Saddam Hussein regime from flying
in two regions. The dynamics in Syria are much greater because
we do have the Assad regime attacking its own citizens. There's
no doubt in my mind about who's responsible, but we also have
ISIS, and we have a lot of other factions that are in-fighting,
but also fighting Assad, so the dynamics are completely
different.
I guess most of us would be concerned that a no-fly zone
would possibly lead to an escalation of U.S. involvement in
Syria because of the different factions. You know, you have
ISIS take a manpad acquired from Lybia, and shoot down an
American F-18. That's an escalation. And the rules of
engagement currently against ISIS and Iraq keeps--there are
many sorties flown every day that not a single bomb is loose
because of the rules of engagement and waiting for clearance
from some intelligence organization and up the chain of
command, and so I'm really concerned about how this whole no-
fly zone would actually operate. I think there's a lot of
unanswered questions. But don't let that concern give you any
doubt about my commitment to try to make this work for a no-fly
zone, because I do see how it would help the Syrian people.
Yes, sir?
Ambassador Ford. One comment, Congressman. Having worked
with our military in Iraq for almost 5 years, I have huge
respect for what they do, and the risks that they take. They're
already at risk of a surface-to-air missile hitting one of our
pilots in an operation against the Islamic State. That risk
already exists, and in fact it's been going on now for 9
months.
Mr. Duncan. In Western Iraq or in Syria?
Ambassador Ford. No, in Syria.
Mr. Duncan. Okay.
Ambassador Ford. We are bombing in Syria regularly. What
concerns me is that what we have now does not protect
civilians, and it's a military mission of unlimited duration.
Nobody can tell us when it's going to end. It does not help get
to a settlement of the Syria crisis. It's just out there
hitting the Islamic State, but it doesn't lead to anything to
resolve the fundamental conflict that is helping Islamic State
recruit.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Ambassador. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Mr. Keating of
Massachusetts.
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I'd suggest in response to that question, perhaps there's
other reasons we're targeting in Syria for other groups working
there, as well, so there's a reason. But I'm going to ask you
to do something difficult. I'm going to ask you to try and get
in the head of President Putin for a second, because to me, the
way I view the situation, short term certainly we've discussed
what he's done in the Security Council and things, but in the
long term, Assad being there is not in Russia's self-interest.
They've had a natural relationship with Syria, and his
continuation, you know, as a leader there will hurt them, you
know, in the short run because it will endanger the ability to
go on with the administration after he leaves. And I do think
he's in a more precarious situation than he was before. I do
think he--one way or another, he'll be leaving there before
long.
What can Russia do in that instance, even behind the
scenes, to assist in his removal? What are their options should
they choose to do so, because I think they have self-interest
at stake here in removing him, or having him go? Ambassador, I
guess you're the best person in this regard.
Ambassador Ford. Well, I think the Russian President views
Syria as an ally, and so they obviously have interests and we
have to understand that. I think in any kind of action where we
increase assistance to the Syrian Armed Opposition to help stop
these air attacks, or we undertake ourselves as part of a
coalition direct military action, I think it will be important
to reach out to the Russians. I think it would be very useful
in terms of getting to the political negotiation I was talking
about, Congressman, to have some kind of a regional contact
group, and have that formalized so that we're in a room talking
with the Russians, and also with Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. And
I'm going to say it, and Iran, because all of those countries
are going to have to work together to help resolve the Syrian
crisis. They all have their clients in this conflict. So, the
things that Russia could do, Congressman, would be at the
simplest level to stop sending spare parts to these helicopters
and these aircraft. That would be the simplest thing, and they
can do that quietly. They don't need to make any announcements.
They need not lose face in doing that. It's simply a way of
putting pressure on the regime to stop using these attacks
against civilians.
They could limit financing. They could limit other arms
shipments. They send a lot of arms into Syria. The Syrian Army
is basically equipped by the Russians, and they can also
quietly behind the scenes press the regime to go to the
negotiating table, which also is important.
Mr. Keating. Well, do you agree with the premise that, at
least the way I view it, that Assad is definitely--his presence
there is not in Russia's long term interest in the region
there? And any one of the other witnesses that might want to
comment on that, I'd welcome that testimony.
Dr. Sparrow. May I just quickly say that Russia and Putin
also recognize that chemical weapons used against civilians
plumb the depths, plumb new depths of inhumanity, and it's
actually easier to get Russia to agree to a no-fly zone that
protects civilians, as it also is with the Iraqi Prime
Minister, with whom I've also had this conversation. We can get
consensus around stopping the civilian slaughter which then
helps those who are currently even supporting the Assad regime
to achieve consensus around this no-fly zone and lead toward a
political solution. It's helpful for everybody.
Mr. Keating. Okay. Any of the other witnesses wish to
comment on Russia's self-interest here in having Assad gone?
Dr. Tennari. The long term interest of Russia would be in
having a decent relationship with the Syrian people, and the
Syrian people have made the decision that they no longer want
to be ruled by Bashar al-Assad.
The presence of Assad in power has caused enormous chaos,
and this chaos is added, and it's expanded on a daily basis.
Getting Assad away from the front will open the road to a
political solution. It will open the door for the Syrians to
sit at the negotiation table and find a political solution to
this crisis.
Mr. Keating. Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Mr. Keating. Dr.
Yoho of Florida.
Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate everybody
being here today.
I would like to just mention that we are introducing a
resolution condemning the use of toxic chemicals as weapons in
the Syrian Arab Republic, including chlorine substances along
with a strong recommendation to the international community
requesting no-fly zones, including helicopters. This has gone
on way too long. It's something that needs to stop, and I'm
kind of outraged that the world community and the U.N. Security
Council has not acted on this sooner. I mean, how many times do
we have to repeat history with atrocity, after atrocity, after
atrocity. This is the 21st century. We need to tighten up as a
population or people.
Ambassador Ford, I want to direct--I've just got a comment
or a question. Back in March, the end of March 2011, you stated
that Assad is no Gaddafi. There is little likelihood of mass
atrocities. The Syrian regime will answer challenges
aggressively, but will try to minimize the use of lethal force.
How did we miss that so wrongly?
Ambassador Ford. At the time, Congressman, in my
discussions with the Syrian officials, including at the
Presidency, including top advisors to Assad, they were telling
me that they wanted a dialogue, and they made a few tentative
steps toward a dialogue. They did release several prominent
political prisoners, including Haitham al-Malah, and Riad Seif
who had been imprisoned for years. It was my mistake of
judgment, but I want you to understand that context.
Mr. Yoho. All right. We were talking of Libya at the time
going in, doing a no-fly zone. And I hear a lot of no-fly
zones, you know, we should do a no-fly zone. I just want to
remind everybody a no-fly zone, number one, if we do that, is
an act of war. We're attacking a sovereign nation that has not
attacked us. They are not a direct threat to the United States
of America. It is an act of war. A no-fly zone does not prevent
helicopters from flying. A no-fly zone didn't prevent Saddam
Hussein from slaughtering his own people when we had a no-fly
zone there. A no-fly zone is not a solution, it's a military
operation. Yes, it can be used to put more pressure on the
Assad regime, but it is not an answer to the problem.
We did that in Libya, and Senator Cornyn out of Texas said
the mission in Libya was unclear, and it was an international
no-fly zone. And I think there was around 18 to 20 countries,
and when it came time to participate, half of those countries
didn't show up. The Americans had to do most of the lifting. We
had 19 warships in there, 18,000 troops committed. The first 11
days cost $550 million, and then $40 million a month after
that. And money is not the issue here. We're talking about
human life, and the dignity of life, and stability in that
area. But NATO was unable to finish the job on its own, and
there was no plan post-Gaddafi. And now Libya is becoming the
hotbed for ISIS. It's becoming the home base for ISIS.
What are we doing to prevent a repeat of that? If we were
to do this and Assad falls, what is going to be replaced there,
and is it going to be worse, because we saw al-Qaeda fall. We
saw it, you know, almost beat down, and then out of that came
ISIS. It's al-Qaeda Part 2. I'm not ready for Part 3.
Ambassador Ford, if you'd comment on that.
Ambassador Ford. You raise valid questions. My response to
that is that after Gaddafi fell, there was not a strong plan in
place for the transition government in Libya to establish a
monopoly of force. The militias were not disarmed.
Whatever is negotiated for Syria, and I emphasize the word
``negotiation,'' I do not think it is possible to have a
military solution in Syria, certainly not any time soon. Those
negotiations between the government and the Syrian Opposition
must include negotiations about how security will be handled,
and how the government, ultimately, will have the monopoly of
force, because that government will have to fight the
extremists of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. And that will
have to be one of the things that comes out of the negotiation.
Mr. Yoho. Well, I would hope before we go into a no-fly
zone we have a clear, concise strategy of what happens post-
Assad? What happens? Who's going to be there? Who's going to be
standing up protecting the Syrian people, who in Syria is going
to do that, and where is that support going to come from on an
international basis? And you talked about Russia, you know,
they could stop sending parts. My experience and what I found
out especially with the meeting today is Russia will not
support Assad, because Assad is suppressing his people. And
Putin's number one fear is for an uprising in a zone area with
people, and you could see that happening in Ukraine with the
beginning of the uprising there. And Putin is deathly afraid of
that, so if he's supporting Assad, his people in Russia are
saying you know what, we don't want to go against this guy. And
until the world community comes together, until America leads,
and we have lost our way when we draw red lines and we back
off, when we ask for regime change and we back off, and we need
to say what we mean, and mean what we say, and we need to back
that up with action. And we need to have the courage, and we
need to have the big stick; but, more importantly, people need
to know we're going to use that. And I hope in the future we
progress down those avenues. Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much. Thank you, Dr. Yoho.
Mr. Perry of Pennsylvania.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank the witnesses
and the other folks for being here.
I just want to start out with a statement regarding one of
my colleagues from the other side that said that we screwed up
Iraq. It is this member's opinion that there are a few folks in
this town that screwed up Iraq, but it certainly wasn't the
military, and it wasn't the Congress, either. Iraq was a stable
place not too long ago, and that's at the feet of a couple of
individuals in this town, in my opinion.
With that having been said, Ambassador Ford, you stated
earlier today that the events in Syria are a national security
issue, and I tend to agree with you, but we don't have this
Chapter 7 situation resolved. And so, I think you're advocating
for it, so I just want to be clear and have your remarks
clarified, that in spite of a lack of Chapter 7 authority, that
we should--the United States should take some action. Is that--
some action. Right?
Ambassador Ford. Yes. I don't think we have to have a no-
fly zone. I certainly see advantages to a no-fly zone, but if
that's just too big a stretch, if that's just too difficult in
Washington to do, then at least I would like to see us help the
Syrian Armed Opposition deter and interdict these attacks. And
whether that be by giving them standoff mortars and rockets so
they can hit the airfields from which the helicopters take off,
whether that be radar so they can detect----
Mr. Perry. So, you're not wed to the no-fly zone.
Ambassador Ford. No.
Mr. Perry. But that is a----
Ambassador Ford. I see advantages to it, but I know there's
a lot of opposition in Washington.
Mr. Perry. Let me ask you this. The Syrian Government has
not been officially determined responsible for the chlorine gas
attacks, and that's kind of the impetus for much of this
discussion, right, the weapons of mass destruction, the
chemical weapons, weaponized chlorine.
What are we doing? What's the administration, what's the
United States doing about pursuing a unilateral strategy to
determine official responsibility? Are we doing anything?
Should we be doing anything? Because we can't get it through
the U.N., right? Russia is going to stand in the way. So, if
that's the case, and we're left with arming some faction in
Syria, or a no-fly zone, would it be smart and would it be
possible to pursue a way to degrade Assad's use of his air
force via lack of parts and maintenance provisions from Russia?
But, you know, we've got to get to that. And it seems to me in
this morass of very difficult circumstances, that that is
something that should and could be pursued, and it gets us to
where we want to be without putting lives in peril of the
United States, and everything else, and jeopardy that goes with
that.
Ambassador Ford. If I understand the administration's
policy, Congressman, they are trying to work this now in New
York and trying to get Russian buy-in for an investigative team
of some kind to go and determine responsibility. I think the
negotiations with the Russians would be somewhat easier if the
Russians understood that failing U.N. Security Council
agreement, the United States is prepared to work with a
coalition of like-minded countries to act itself; whether that
be in terms of a no-fly zone, or if that's too much heavy
lifting, then at least to provide people, Syrians on the ground
the ability to interdict those air strikes.
Mr. Perry. Do you know how long that process has been going
on? I think if I'm Russia, if I'm Putin, I want to play out the
clock. I want Assad to stay there as long as he can. If he's
imperiled a little bit or a lot, so what? I keep my Navy base
there, and everybody's happy. Right?
Ambassador Ford. I think this has been in play for at least
2 months now, and I think it goes faster if the Russians
understand that we ourselves are prepared to operate with a
small coalition of like-minded countries----
Mr. Perry. Can you tell me who the small coalition of the
like-minded would be?
Ambassador Ford. Oh, it would include Turkey, Jordan, Saudi
Arabia, Qatar, France, probably the British, at least those,
and I would think----
Mr. Perry. That would be willing to work in a no-fly zone
capacity?
Ambassador Ford. Yes.
Mr. Perry. Those--who would run such a thing?
Ambassador Ford. Oh, I would think everyone would look to
the United States to do that. Our military command and control
capabilities far exceed those of any of the countries I
mentioned.
Mr. Perry. What do we do about the Russian anti-aircraft
weapons that were shipped to Syria?
Ambassador Ford. Well, we already have that problem,
because we're already flying combat missions over Syria
regularly. So, I think what we want to do is tell the
Russians--if we're going to do this kind of military action, we
want to tell the Russians that the point is both to stop the
attacks, and to get to the negotiating table, and to re-
energize the Russians to help us get there.
Mr. Perry. Thank you.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, and I want to thank
all of the panelists for excellent testimony on this crucial
humanitarian crisis that engulfs us everyday. We hope we take
action soon.
And with that, the committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:11 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Material submitted for the record by Mohamed Tennari, M.D., Idlib
coordinator, Syrian-American Medical Society
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Material submitted for the record by Mr. Farouq Habib, Syria program
manager, Mayday Rescue
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Material submitted for the record by Annie Sparrow, M.B.B.S., deputy
director human rights program, Assistant Professor of Global Health,
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]