Syria Pledges Not To Use Chemical Weapons On Its Own People

The United States has again warned the Syrian government not to use chemical weapons after Damascus implied it could use them against an attack by foreign forces.

The warning from the Pentagon came after Syria’s foreign ministry spokesman acknowledged for the first time that Syria has chemical weapons but said they would never be used against the Syrian people – only in the event of an outside attack.

Will the Assad regime stick to its word?

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Aaron Schachter: And we turn now to that situation in Syria. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon said today he was very concerned that the Syrian army will be tempted to use its chemical weapons. Those concerns come despite repeated declarations by the Syrian government that it would use chemical weapons only if attacked by foreign forces. Here’s Syrian foreign ministry spokesman Jihad Makdissi:

Jihad Makdissi: Any stocks of any unconventional weapons, any chemical weapons, if it exists – it won’t be used, never ever, against civilians, against the Syrian people.

Schachter: But will the Assad regime stick to its word? Charles Duelfer is a former US intelligence officer and weapons inspector. Mr Duelfer, do we actually know what kinds of chemical weapons Syria has?

Charles Duelfer: Well, I think unlike the case in Iraq where the information turned out to be completely wrong, with respect to Syria there’s a broad consensus that they in fact do have chemical munitions and potentially biological munitions. This was developed in response to the Israeli nuclear programme. So these assessments about Syrian capabilities have existed literally, I think, for decades.

Schachter: And do we know what kinds of weapons they have and how dangerous they are?

Duelfer: Well, the judgement is that they have nerve agents, probably VX, loaded on artillery rockets, aerial bombs and probably ballistic missiles like Scud missiles that they purchased from the former Soviet Union and Russia. You’ll also recall that there was a nuclear programme which the Israelis bombed in September 2007. So the word of the foreign minister can probably be taken in this case to be fairly accurate “that they are designed and aimed and intended for foreign targets rather than internal use.”

Schachter: But “foreign forces” is an awfully squishy term, don’t you think?

Duelfer: It’s very squishy, particularly because the situation is so dynamic and there are so many different interests involved. Bear in mind the Iranians have been playing very heavily in the Syrian uprising. The Iranians obvious have a mutual enemy in the sense that both Syria and Iran are worried about Israel. So the situation gets very complicated. It’s not just two actors, it’s not just Syria and Israel, or Syria and the Western world. There’s a lot going on, there’s a lot of moving parts.

Schachter: I’ve read a few briefs on this today, and it’s just incredibly frightening, for all the reasons you mentioned, either that the Syrian government uses these things or that they’ve fallen into the hands of Al-Qaeda or rebels or anyone else. Is it right to be frightened?

Duelfer: It is correct to be worried about the WMDs. A couple of things could be done. One is countries worried about that could be reaching out to military leaders in Syria trying to make deals quietly with them to identify where the locations are, to assure them that their future can be affected quite positively if they act responsibly. But there’s going to be competition for the attentions and loyalties of these people. The Iranians are going to be there trying to make a lot of mischief. Another factor which I think the international community could play a part in and perhaps, if there’s a revision to the Kofi Annan approach, maybe the UN should propose as part of their solution set with the Assad regime to have weapons inspectors go in there and secure the sites. That would be a demonstration on the part of the Syrian regime that they were serious about this and that the UN would not serve as an excuse for the invasion of Syria, but that their concern was strictly to secure the WMD sites. I think some proposal along those lines would be useful.

Schachter: Charles Duelfer, former head of the Iraq survey group, also the former special advisor to the director of the CIA, thank you for joining us.

Duelfer: Thank you.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

Charles Duelfer is a former US intelligence officer and weapons inspector.

Read tweets about Syria