Middle East & Africa | Syria’s latest atrocity

Assad kills at least 85 with chemical weapons

A dictator defies the world

Not me, says Assad
|BEIRUT

ON APRIL 4th a chemical attack struck the town of Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib, a province in northern Syria controlled by an alliance of rebel groups, including a powerful faction linked to al-Qaeda. At least 85 people, including 20 children, died, according to doctors and a Syrian monitoring group. The World Health Organisation said victims appeared to display symptoms that tally with the use of a deadly nerve agent such as sarin (as opposed to, say, a less powerful one such as chlorine).

One boy was filmed suffocating on the ground, his chest heaving and his mouth opening and closing like a fish out of water. Photographs show dead children lined up in rows on the floor or piled in heaps in the back of a vehicle, their clothes ripped from them by rescuers who used hoses to try to wash the chemicals from their bodies. Other images show victims foaming from their mouths or writhing on the ground as they struggle for air. Hours after the attack began, witnesses say, regime warplanes circled back over the area and dropped bombs on a clinic treating survivors.

After six years of war, international reaction to the attack followed a predictable pattern. The Syrian government swiftly denied dropping chemical weapons. Russia, its ally, said a Syrian air strike had hit a rebel-held weapons stockpile, releasing deadly chemicals into the air. Leaders in the West condemned the regime, but little more. Donald Trump declared that his view of Syria and its dictator had changed, but declined to say what he would do about it.

If the West ends up doing little, it ought not to come as a surprise. When the Syrian government gassed to death more than 1,400 people on the outskirts of Damascus in August 2013 it seemed inevitable that America would respond by launching air strikes against the regime. One week after the attack—the deadliest use of chemical weapons since Saddam Hussein gassed Iraqi Kurds in 1988—John Kerry delivered one of his most bellicose speeches as secretary of state, arguing the case for American military action in Syria. “It matters if the world speaks out…and then nothing happens,” Mr Kerry said.

Yet nothing, at least militarily, is just what happened. Instead, working with the Americans, the Russians brokered a deal that saw the Syrian regime supposedly dismantle its chemical-weapons programme. The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) destroyed about 1,200 tonnes of Syria’s chemical stockpile. Barack Obama hailed the deal as a triumph for diplomacy over force.

Yet chemical attacks by regime forces continued, experts believe. Last year American and European officials began to voice growing fears that Damascus might have held onto nerve agents and other lethal toxins, in defiance of the deal cooked up by Mr Obama and Mr Putin. “Syria has engaged in a calculated campaign of intransigence and obfuscation, of deception, and of defiance,” Kenneth Ward, America’s representative to the OPCW, said in July. “We…remain very concerned that [chemical warfare agents]…have been illicitly retained by Syria.”

All these fears seem to have been borne out. As part of the deal in 2013 to end Syria’s chemical-weapons programme, both America and Russia promised to punish the Syrian regime should it use chemical weapons again. Despite evidence of the regime’s repeated use of chlorine gas since then, neither side has honoured this promise, at least until now. In February Russia once again blocked efforts at the UN Security Council to sanction military and intelligence chiefs connected to the country’s chemical-weapons programme. A similar fate doubtless awaits the latest attempt by Britain, France and America at the Security Council. Hours after the attack, the three countries demanded a resolution ordering the Syrian government to hand over all flight logs, flight plans and the names of air-force commanders to international inspectors. Russia, however, called the resolution “unacceptable”.

Barring a significant shift in American policy towards military action, the latest use of chemical weapons is unlikely to alter the war’s trajectory much. The rebels are weakening. They lost their enclave in the city of Aleppo, the opposition’s last big urban stronghold, in December. Pockets of resistance remain around Damascus, north of Homs city, and along the southern border with Jordan; but these areas grow ever more isolated. In Idlib an alliance led by a group linked to al-Qaeda has gained strength, allowing America to argue that there are few appropriate rebel partners left to work with on the ground.

Indeed, now that Donald Trump is in charge, removing Mr Assad from power is no longer a stated aim of American policy in Syria. In recent weeks senior American officials said for the first time in public that they could live with Mr Assad as they concentrate on defeating Islamic State. Ironically, this approach would in fact be more likely to fuel further extremism in Syria, as other jihadist groups sought to take advantage of the vacuum that America’s political disengagement presented them with. It would also mean that, with Mr Assad at the helm, the Syrian regime continued to drop gas on its own people. There would be nothing to stop it.

This article appeared in the Middle East & Africa section of the print edition under the headline "Assad unleashes horror again"

Why computers will never be safe

From the April 8th 2017 edition

Discover stories from this section and more in the list of contents

Explore the edition

Discover more

After pushing its economy to the brink, Egypt gets a bail-out

But a record-setting investment from the UAE will not fix its chronic problems

Gaza is on the brink of a man-made famine

Israel and Hamas reject a ceasefire even as people starve


Senegal proves the doomsayers wrong

Bassirou Diomaye Faye’s win is a triumph for the country’s democracy