Germany’s Elections: Merkel, Europe’s Most Important Leader, Faces a Complex Challenge

from time,com

Europe is quiet. You might not have noticed as European governments maintain a flurry of diplomacy over Syria, but the big discussions over Europe’s future — about how to return to prosperity, save the euro, whether to move into a closer embrace or break away — all these existential questions have been put on hold. This isn’t because Europe’s crisis is over. Although the E.U. has crept out of recession, the combined economies of 27 of its member nations registering tepid GDP growth of 0.4% in the second quarter of 2013, the outlook in many of those countries is anything but rosy. (A 28th member, Croatia, joined the E.U. on July 1, too late for its 0.7% Q2 contraction in GDP to register in the combined total.)

Greece is expected to need a third package of financial support. Spain’s public debt has soared to record levels, while its jobless rate stays stubbornly high,at more than 26%. Portugal is chafing against the austerity imposed by the terms of its bailout, sparking a rise in the cost of government borrowing. Slovenia is struggling to avoid becoming the sixth euro-zone country to need emergency aid. The calm in Europe may well prove a calm before a storm. But it is primarily the calm before an electoral contest in the continent’s biggest, most influential member. Central bankers, politicians, businesspeople: across European capitals they’re all on the edge of their seats, awaiting the results of Germany’s Sept. 22 federal elections.

(Cover Story: Angela Merkel’s Unfinished Business)

Victory for Angela Merkel, seeking a third term as Chancellor, might appear a foregone conclusion. She remains popular, phenomenally so, and her Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and its Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union (CSU), enjoy a 14-point lead over their nearest rival, the Social Democratic Party (SPD), according to a Forsa poll last week. Yet the result is at least as hard to call in advance as it is for non-Germans to pronounce Überhangmandate — overhang seats — or to understand an electoral system that creates and allocates such seats (22 at the last elections in 2009) over and above the notional total of 598 seats in the main Parliament, the Bundestag, actually being contested. Confused? Read this German government guide to the elections. You’ll still be confused. Many German voters are too.

And here’s something that will add to the confusion. Elections to Bavaria’s state legislature, on Sept. 15, produced a stunning win for Merkel’s partners, the CSU, giving the party something very rare in German politics: an outright majority. “Dear Angela, we’ll put the ball on the penalty spot,” said CSU leader Horst Seehofer ahead of the poll, deploying soccer imagery. “You just have to kick it in.” But Seehofer’s victory, rather than helping Merkel, could make her life more difficult. Seehofer — “Crazy Horst” to admiring fans — promises to charge foreigners for using German roads, a promise Merkel has rejected as conflicting with E.U. laws.

Moreover, the CSU’s majority came at the cost of annihilation of the neoliberal Free Democratic Party (FDP), Merkel’s current coalition partners at national level, who failed to attain the threshold of 5% of votes required to win seats in German elections. Voters who hope to retain the current CDU-CSU coalition with the FDP at Sunday’s national elections may vote tactically, shifting their party-preference vote away from Merkel’s bloc to the FDP. That might work. Or it might simply erode Merkel’s result, gifting a bigger share of Bundestag seats to the combined forces of the SPD and its preferred partner, the Green party.

(MORE: Why Germany Must Save the Euro)

Then there’s the potential impact of Germany’s newest party, the euroskeptic Alternative for Germany, campaigning for the weaker euro-zone countries such as Greece and Spain to leave the euro. It, too, may drain votes away from Merkel.

During her first term of office, Merkel led a grand coalition with the SPD. Both she and SPD Chancellor candidate Peer Steinbrück have told voters that they’d consider another such coalition anything but grand. Nevertheless, in mathematical terms it appears the likeliest option. That could mean Europe’s eerie calm continues for some time after polling day. The 2005 negotiations to form a grand coalition lasted from the elections on Sept. 18 to Nov. 22.

That’s a long time for Europe collectively to hold its breath. The irony of the situation is that it is foolish to do so. The one certainty Germany’s ponderous political system produces is that very little changes, even with changes of government. With or without Merkel, export-dependent Germany will continue to work to save the euro while urging austerity on peripheral countries, its own generosity restrained by constitutional checks and balances and a deepening resentment among German voters. Everyone is waiting for a decision that has already been made.

Catherine Mayer @catherine_mayer

Catherine Mayer is TIME's Europe editor.

Five Ways a Wider Syrian War Could Go Nuclear

from truth-dig

Posted on Sep 13, 2013

By Harvey Wasserman

In the wake of an apparent break in the march to a wider war, the reality of a nuclear dimension in Syria remains largely unspoken.

There are at least five key reasons why American military intervention in Syria’s civil war could go nuclear:

(1) There’s a reactor near Damascus.

It is relatively small, by most accounts containing about a kilogram (2.2 pounds) of weapons-grade uranium. That’s not much in the scheme of things when it comes to building an atomic bomb. But as Alexsandr Lukashevich of the Russian Foreign Ministryputs it, “If a warhead, by design or by chance, were to hit the Miniature Neutron Source Reactor (MSNR) near Damascus, the consequences could be catastrophic.”

Of prime concern would be “contamination by highly enriched uranium” throughout the immediate environs. At the very least, it would be “a serious local radiation hazard,” according to Mark Hibbs of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, speaking on Russia Today.

Lukashevich also predicts that “it would no longer be possible to account for nuclear material, its safety and control.” Such material, he warns darkly, could fall into “the wrong hands.”

If the U.S. does ultimately attack Syria, it would want to avoid hitting that reactor. It’s also possible that in the ensuing chaos, one of the myriad unaccountable factions roaming through the civil war could target that nuke. Such a group could blame the U.S. or claim credit, depending on its particular orientation.

Whether it happens, that reactor is just another sitting atomic duck awaiting a random shooter and the cover of new chaos.

(2) Despite Secretary of State John Kerry’s promise of an “unbelievably limited” attack, once the U.S. military commits to action in Syria, it is unlikely to hold back any of its tactical arsenal. That would almost certainly include depleted uranium (DU).

When shells made of this super-hard material penetrate armored vehicles, hardened bunkers and other structures, the DU disperses into fine radioactive particulates that are easily inhaled. Wherever deployed—as in Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan—DU inflicts horrifying health consequences, including cancer among people of all ages and birth defects among children born well after its use. Uranium-238 has a half-life of 4.5 billion years, imposing virtually permanent contamination.

Should DU weaponry be used yet again, this time in Syria, the contamination would be widespread and irreversible. Many thousands of innocent people—including the countless unborn—would suffer greatly. As with all radioactive fallout, the lethal effects will stretch through the generations.

(3) When the world’s superpowers collide, nuclear war is always a possibility.

At this point, the U.S. and Russia appear to be coming together. But in this too-often irrational global tinderbox, the stakes could not be higher.

In such situations, we hope for the best, but can’t lose sight of the potential worst.

In Tuesday night’s speech, President Obama mentioned the use of chemical weapons during World War I. He might also recall that a bizarre assassination in Sarajevo by a tiny handful of young Serb nationals somehow touched off a four-year war that killed 10 million people outright, plus another 10 million—including 500,000 Americans—in theinfluenza epidemic that followed.

To this day, the circumstances that sparked that war are virtually impossible to comprehend. They seem, indeed, to have somehow acquired a devastating momentum all their own.

Yet the instability of the Balkans back then pales before the flashpoint that is today’s Middle East. A protest in Syria turned into a civil war, and then a proxy war. It could easily expand into a regional and, in the worst case, global, conflict. Looming in the background of the tense, torturous negotiations yet to come is the reality that despite everyone’s best wishes, diplomatic failure is a distinct possibility—one that could ultimately become synonymous with the atomic unthinkable.

(4) In the bottomless turbulence that defines today’s Middle East, the Americans and Russians so far seem to retain some shreds of rationality. But given the Peaceful Atom’s half century of weapons-grade proliferation, we cannot know which nations or marginal groups might now have atomic devices and what random impulses might prompt their use.

In a profoundly unpredictable world, each of the more than 400 commercial-sized reactors still operating continues to produce radioactive materials that could fuel a nuclear weapon.

Each of those reactors is itself a profoundly vulnerable target. Should the situation in Syria devolve to a wider war, the likelihood of a freelance atomic “situation” becomes all too probable.

(5) While the world’s attention is focused on Syria, the global-scale disaster at Fukushima spirals out of control.

The more serious the crisis in Syria, the more it will divert attention from an existing nuclear disaster.

Millions of tons of heavily contaminated water continuously flow through the site in central Japan and into the Pacific Ocean. Millions more accumulate in flimsy tanks already breaking apart, all within the specter of the next earthquake.

The three melted cores at Fukushima Daiichi have yet to be found. The common radioactive waste pool near Unit Four is surrounded by buildings whose foundations are being undermined by the continuous flow of radioactive water.

Most terrifying, the entire core of Unit Four remains perched in a damaged fuel pool 100 feet in the air, atop a structure that’s sinking. Should it crash to the ground, that core could potentially spew into the ocean and atmosphere more than 20,000 times the radiation released at Hiroshima.

A sane species would be pouring all its resources into somehow healing the open apocalyptic wound that still festers at Fukushima.

Yet we are tied up in Syria. We can be deeply grateful that the situation there today seems at least slightly less dangerous than it did yesterday.

But atomic danger lurks without warning in every facet of this crisis.

Harvey Wasserman edits Nukefree.org. He is the author of “Solartopia! Our Green-Powered Earth” and hosts the “Green Power & Wellness” radio show.

Parsing Syria Developments Ahead of Obama’s Address

from nytimes

Jewel Samad/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

President Obama on his way to meet with Senate Democratic and Republican leaders on Monday, ahead of his speech.

By PETER BAKER, HEATHER MURPHY, LIAM STACK and JONATHAN WEISMAN

Published: September 10, 2013

• FACEBOOK
• TWITTER
• GOOGLE+
• SAVE
• E-MAIL
• SHARE
• PRINT
• REPRINTS

President Obama will address the nation on the Syrian crisis tonight at 9 p.m. E.D.T. In the past 24 hours, the nature of the domestic and international debate about a military intervention in Syria has changed significantly. Here is what you need to know ahead of the address.

LIVEUpdates on Syria

• 12:45 PM Senators Optimistic About Shifting to New Resolution
• 12:38 PM Keeping the Peace in Syria, and at Home
• 11:53 AM Putin Insists on No Military Threat to Syria

MORE UPDATES »

• INTERACTIVE GRAPHIC: Where Lawmakers Stand on Military Action in Syria

Connect With Us on Twitter

Follow@nytimesworldfor international breaking news and headlines.

Twitter List: Reporters and Editors

What is Mr. Obama expected to say?

The president is facing one of the most challenging moments of his presidency. When he first announced the speech, he was expected to use the appearance to outline his case for a United States-led military strike against Syria. He hoped to explain why it was necessary to retaliate for a chemical weapons attack that, according to United States intelligence, killed more than 1,400 people in Syria, but also to reassure Americans that the result would not be another Iraq war. Since then, much has changed. White House speechwriters have been revising their drafts as a plan put forward by Russia for Syria to relinquish control of its chemical weapons has gained international support. Mr. Obama is now expected to say that the threat of military action has led to the diplomatic opening, and to urge Congress to keep the pressure on Syria even as his administration examines whether the Russian proposal is serious or a way to obstruct military action.

What changed in the last 24 hours?

Eric Feferberg/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

President Vladimir V. Putin and President Obama in St. Petersburg last week.

On Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry told reporters in London that President Bashar al-Assad of Syria could avert a strike if he turned over his chemical weapons stockpile within a week, adding that such an outcome was unlikely. Mr. Kerry’s staff later described the remark as a “rhetorical exercise,” but by Monday night his apparently off-the-cuff proposal had gained broad support, including a warm welcome from both Syria and Russia, which said it would bring Syria’s chemical weapons under international control. On Tuesday, France said it would propose a United Nations Security Council resolution calling for Syria to allow weapons inspectors to oversee the destruction of its chemical weapons stockpile and to require it to sign the international treaty banning the use of such weapons. But Russia responded that the French resolution was “unacceptable” because it allowed for military enforcement, and said it would propose its own measure.

If the proposal goes forward, does it rule out any future strike?

If the plan succeeded in removing Syria’s chemical weapons from the control of its government, then there would be no need for a strike under Mr. Obama’s rationale of seeking to deter the use of such arms. Mr. Obama has been reluctant to intervene militarily in Syria’s civil war otherwise.

If Assad relinquished his chemical weapons, how would that change the dynamics of the conflict on the ground in Syria?

Giovanni Diffidenti/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

A destroyed residential area on Monday, southwest of Aleppo.

While it may remove the threat of a strike by the United States, such a move would be unlikely to change the dynamics of the civil war. Chemical weapons have allowed the Syrian government to instill fear in rebel fighters and residents of the areas under their control, but the Assad government is believed to have resorted infrequently to those weapons during the course of the two-and-a-half-year conflict. Their use is not believed to have tipped the scales of any of the major battles so far, and by most estimates the number of people who have been killed by chemical weapons amounts to less than 2 percent of the more than 100,000 who have died in the war. The vast majority of those deaths have been caused by conventional weapons — including artillery, missiles and firearms — that continue to be used daily.

What chemical weapons is Assad believed to have?

Intelligence estimates by the United States and its allies suggest that Syria may possess one of the world’s largest stockpiles of chemical weapons. According to a French intelligence estimate released on Sept. 3, Syria is believed to possess “several hundred tons of sulfur mustard” as well as “tens of tons of VX” and “several hundred tons of sarin,” all powerful chemical agents. All are believed to be in the possession of Unit 450, an elite and secretive air force division that is deeply loyal to the Assad family. The current debate over intervention in Syria began after what the United States says was a sarin attack in the Ghouta region, east of Damascus, on Aug. 21. In briefings with lawmakers, American officials have said that they believe Syria has so far used sarin exclusively in all of its chemical attacks.

Is there anything Mr. Obama could say that would convince the American public of the need for military action in Syria?

Providing additional evidence that President Assad used chemical weapons or details of the plight of the Syrian people are not likely to shift public opinion. Most Americans already believe that Mr. Assad’s forces probably used chemical weapons against civilians, but are opposed to a military strike on Syria, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

The New York Times

See more American views on intervention in Syria here.

The poll does suggest that Mr. Obama might have some impact if he more clearly explained how a strike would benefit the United States; nearly 80 percent of those polled said the Obama administration had not outlined its objectives in Syria.

When is Congress likely to vote on authorization to order a military strike against the Syrian government?

The decision on Monday by Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, to delay the filing of a first procedural step is likely to put off a vote on a Syria resolution until next week, if not indefinitely. Mr. Reid had intended to move to cut off debate on a motion to proceed formally to consider the resolution. That would have set up the first procedural vote for Wednesday morning and a critical test on Friday to at least see if the Senate could overcome a threatened filibuster. But a Russian proposal to place Syria’s chemical weapons under international control, a visit to the Senate on Tuesday by President Obama and a full-Senate classified briefing planned for Wednesday convinced Democratic leaders that the move was premature. Senate leaders will likely take their cue now from the White House on whether to proceed with a resolution debate and vote or whether to give diplomacy more time. Meanwhile, a bipartisan group drafting an alternative Congressional resolution said its plan would give the United Nations time to take control of the Syrian government’s arsenal of the internationally banned weapons.

Is it possible for President Obama to order a strike without Congressional approval?

Several presidents, including Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and even Mr. Obama, have ordered limited military actions without Congressional approval, and Mr. Obama maintains that he has the authority to go forward in this instance as well. But having asked Congress for authorization, the president’s aides consider it highly improbable that he would order an attack if either chamber votes against it.

The fighting in Syria has created a major humanitarian crisis. How can people help?

Sam Tarling for The New York Times

A father held his daughter at a makeshift refugee camp in Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley. Find more stories of refugees here.

There are a large number of charities helping Syrians who have fled to other countries. A smaller number are working inside Syria. Doctors Without Borders has been operating several field hospitals within Syria. To donate to its Syrian efforts directly, call 1-888-392-0392. The World Food Program has been airlifting food to families within Syria; you can donate here. Hand in Hand for Syria, a charity registered in Britain, has a field office in Lebanon but also delivers supplies to families in Syria. Mercy USA has been working to provide aid to individuals in Syria as well as refugees in Turkey and Lebanon. It’s possible to designate a gift directly to Syrian humanitarian relief through this form.

Obama's Syria speech unlikely to sway a skeptical public

from latimes

History shows that presidential speeches rarely shift public opinion. But Obama's address is 'still more than he has done so far,' one scholar says.

• 
• Comments

  3

• Email

  Share 23

President Obama arrives in the White House Rose Garden last month to deliver remarks on the Syria conflict. He will address the nation Tuesday night to present his case for a military strike against the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad. (Evan Vucci / Associated Press / August 31, 2013)

Related photos »

By Evan Halper

September 9, 2013, 7:20 p.m.

WASHINGTON — With support for the war in Vietnam sagging and mass protests erupting around the nation, President Nixon invited cameras into the Oval Office in November 1969 and spoke directly to Americans.

Seated behind a desk, reading from a prepared text, Nixon explained why an immediate withdrawal would be a blow to freedom and democracy, outlined a plan "to end the war in a way that we could win the peace" and promised to turn over much of the fighting to Vietnamese troops.

Playing to mainstream America's patriotism and its skepticism of the counterculture, he concluded, "And so tonight — to you, the great silent majority of my fellow Americans — I ask for your support."

The speech changed public opinion about Nixon — his approval ratings soared to the highest point of his first term. But opinion about Vietnam changed only very slightly, and even that shift proved a momentary blip, erased within weeks.

On Tuesday, President Obama plans a nationally televised address from the White House on the use of military force — a proposed strike against Syria — but anyone expecting to see a big shift in public opinion probably will be disappointed. Nixon's experience was the rule, not the exception: Presidential speeches seldom, if ever, shift how the public views major issues.

White House "speeches are very limited in their ability to sway the public," said Julian E. Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. "This is not something presidents have had a lot of luck doing."

Even Franklin D. Roosevelt found that speeches could fall flat. He took on the U.S. Supreme Court in a 1937 national radio address after it struck down a big part of his New Deal program. He touted a plan to increase the size of the court so he could appoint more justices. The plan failed in Congressnonetheless.

Obama's speech could help the president even if it doesn't sway public opinion. Lawmakers who support missile strikes against Syria have implored Obama to do more to make his case publicly. A White House speech could reassure them that he has taken political "ownership" of the issue.

Democrats in particular say Obama has put them in a precarious place politically. They are demanding that he clearly articulate his vision and campaign for it.

Obama argues the U.S. must lead the international community in deterring Syria from using chemical weapons. U.S. officials say Syria's army launched a chemical attack last month near Damascus that killed more than 1,400 people.

Dan Mahaffee, director of policy for the nonpartisan Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress, says an Obama address from the White House, despite all its limitations, "is still more than he has done so far."

Obama will make his speech at a difficult time, with a deeply war-weary American public. He will speak on the eve of the 12th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, which led to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The public backed the invasion of Afghanistan, a month after the terrorist attack. And, as the second Iraq conflict loomed in 2003, the public leaned in favor of the mission. But the public consistently has opposed a strike on Syria.

On Monday, a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center and USA Today showed 63% of Americans oppose military action against Syria, and Gallup reported that support for the operation was "on track to be the lowest for any intervention Gallup has asked about in the last 36 years."

"There are not many instances in which the public was this highly skeptical," said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a professor of political communication at the University of Pennsylvania. "This is a very difficult speech for the president."

The skepticism, she said, has many roots. The White House insists classified intelligence proves Syrian President Bashar Assad launched the alleged chemical weapons attack. But much of the public is unconvinced. An earlier Pew poll showed just half of Americans believe there is "clear evidence" a chemical attack occurred.

Still fresh in the public's mind are the many pronouncements from President George W. Bush that Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction. In that case, U.S. intelligence reports, which the public overwhelmingly trusted, proved false. The media, which largely reported the Iraq intelligence uncritically, have been more cautious, opting to refer to the Syrian incident as an alleged chemical weapons attack. Assad denies that his forces carried out the attack.

"Public opinion is anchored in what happened in Iraq," Jamieson said. "The president is now trying to walk in and reset what the public thinks."

Further complicating Tuesday's pitch for Obama is the amount of time he waited to make it. In previous military actions, including in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Kosovo and Grenada, presidents addressed the nation, framing the issues, before Americans had much awareness of the situation. That will not be the case Tuesday.

"This debate has been going for several weeks about what to do," said David Gergen, who has served as an advisor to four U.S. presidents. "It is going to be hard for him to find something fresh to say.... Members of Congress say the calls they are getting from constituents are overwhelmingly against this. He now has to find a way to have people open their minds."

But beyond that, the White House "bully pulpit" is not nearly as powerful as many Americans — and many politicians — believe. Studies of public opinion have shown that none of the presidents hailed as "great communicators," including Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, actually managed to change the public's view on major issues.

Indeed, in this highly polarized era, the opposite can happen: When a president takes a position on a prominent issue, members of the party out of power often grow more opposed. That appears to have happened on Syria in recent days. Pew's polling shows that among self-identified Republicans, opposition to a military strike in Syria has soared, with 70% of Republicans now saying they oppose strikes, compared with 40% a week ago.

Obama seems to be well aware of the limitations of the prime-time White House address, as he has made very few of them. There were Oval Office addresses on the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and the end of combat operations in Iraq, and statements from the East Room, where Obama discussed thekilling of Osama bin Laden, America's withdrawal from Afghanistan and the budget deadlock that brought the country to the verge of default. Obama's advisors have at times been dismissive of the approach, saying the prime-time speech no longer reaches the audience it once did.

Not so long ago, when a president delivered a prime-time speech, Americans had the choice of either watching it or not watching TV. Now there are myriad options.

"The idea that a presidential address can have the impact it used to have, I think that is imaginary," said Richard Norton Smith, a presidential historian at George Mason University. "Using that medium in this climate to address something as nebulous and intrinsically unpopular as yet another Middle East military intervention? It is a mismatch."

evan.halper@latimes.com

Copyright © 2013, Los Angeles Times

G20 summit ends without agreement on Syria

from rte

Updated: 00:01, Saturday, 07 September 2013

• Article
• Video (2)
• Audio (1)

1 of 2

Barack Obama wants limited Strikes on Syria in Response to the attack

World Leaders are trying to agree on a suspected action AFTER CHEMICAL attack in Damascus on 21 August

No agreement on Syria Following G20 summit

No sign of agreement on Syria at G20 Response

Related Stories

• Syria's neighbors Request help with refugees
• U.S. Senate committee backs use of force in Syria

The G20 summit in St Petersburg has Ended Leaders world without agreeing on the need for military action against Syria, in Response to a CO attack in Damascus last month.

At a news conference U.S. President Obama that they most G20 Leaders Agreed with him that the Syrian regime carried out a CO attack.

However, he not * They Were Divided on whether or not to Respond with military force, without the approval of the United Nations Security Council.

Mr. Obama they his conversation with the Russian President Vladimir Putin on the margins of the summit I was candid and Constructive.

The two Leaders Met for 20 minutes but remained at odds over the conflict in Syria, Mr. Putin's senior foreign policy they Adviser.

"They sat down Before today's working session, in armchairs, and had a 20-minute chat, one on one," the Adviser, Yuri Ushakov they.

They Syria He was the main topic and they: "No, Their [positions] have not come closer."

The U.S. President refused to tell whether or not he Reporters Order I would a military strike on Syria with approval from the U.S. Congress.

Mr. Obama they he the American people I would phone number on the Subject of Syria from the White House on Tuesday.

Kiosk Russia and the international peace envoy for Syria have warned that U.S. military action against Syria I would be illegal without UN Security Council approval.

They also conduct said it I would undermine the chances for a Political SOLUTION to the conflict.

Remarks by UN-Arab League envoy Lakhdar Brahimi and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov added to Pressure on President Barack Obama to refrain from ordering Strikes.

"International locale or country that says it is allowed to take the locale into Their hands - not * have to go through the Security Council," Mr. Brahimi told Reporters in a joint Appearance with Mr. Lavrov at the summit.

Mr. Lavrov that they "are taking a clear Understanding Mothers Responsible SHAPE Among states that the use of force, bypassing the Security Council, I would Essentially Put the end to efforts to reach a Political SETTLEMENT and convene the international conference".

Russia and the United States announced in May that I would not * try to bring the Syrian government and opposition Together known at a peace conference in Geneva II.

Mr. Brahimi military action they I would hurt the chances of it ever happening.

Alternatives have Been 'exhausted'

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations they Samantha Power Syrian President Bashar al-Assad Had barely dented his stockpile of CHEMICAL WEAPONS in last month's alleged attack.

"We Assess that although Assad used This CHEMICAL WEAPONS more than he on August 21 Had Before, he has barely Put a dent in his enormous stockpile," she they at the Center for American Progress think tank in Washington.

"We have exhausted the alternatives" to military action, they she, adding that Assad must have weighed the FACT that Russia I would back him in the controversy over his alleged use of CHEMICAL WEAPONS it and I was naive to think I would change Russia.

Earlier, China's Foreign Ministry urged that a role for the UN Security Council in resolving the crisis in Syria.

It Came After the United States said it Had given up trying to work with the council on Syria, accusing Russia of holding it hostage.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations they Samantha Power today she saw no viable path Forward at the UN Security Council.

The comments suggested that the U.S. again I would not seek UN approval for a military strike on Syria in Response to a suspected attack near Damascus CHEMICAL.

The U.S. believes that over 1,400 people killed in the attack were independent retailers.

Meanwhile, world Leaders Meeting at the G20 summit in Russia have Failed to find Common Ground on the tracker.

It is Reported that France, Turkey, Canada and Britain gave strong backing to Mr. Obama's call for military action.

But Russian President Vladimir Putin said it I was still not clear Which side in the conflict Had Used the CHEMICAL WEAPONS.

Ms Power Britain they submitted a draft resolution to the five permanent council Members last week calling for a Response to that attack I was effectively dead.

Asked about Those comments, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei they needed the Security Council to be used This.

"China supports the IMPORTANT a role that the UN Security Council Plays in properly resolving the Syria tracker," Mr. Hong told a daily news Briefing in Beijing.

"We hope that Relevant Parties Continue sing communications and coordination and HOLD deep consultations to resolve this for the Relevant Issue in a peaceful way," he added.

China has called for a full and impartial CHEMICAL WEAPONS Investigation by UN Inspectors in Syria into the attack, and has warned against pre-judging the results.

They also conduct has it that whoever uses CHEMICAL WEAPONS Had to be Held accountable.

U.S. intercepts Iranian attack Lesson

Elsewhere. the U.S. has intercepted the Order instructing from the official Iranian militants in Iraq to attack U.S. Interests in Baghdad in the event the Obama administration launches a military strike in Syria, the Wall Street Journal has Reported.

The U.S. Embassy in Baghdad I was a likely target, according to unnamed U.S. officials quoted by the newspaper.

The paper they did not the officials Describe the range of Potential Targets indicated by the intelligence.

In Addition, the State Department today Issued a warning telling U.S. citizens to Avoid all but "essential" travel to Iraq.

I asked President Obama has the U.S. Congress to back his plan for limited Strikes in Response to the August 21 attack.

Reported the newspaper that the Iranian message I was intercepted in Recent Days and Came from the head of the Revolutionary Guards' Qods Force.

The newspaper they the message I went to Iranian-supported Shia militia in Iraq Groups.

It Reported message Informed that the Shia Groups to be PREPARED to Respond with force AFTER any U.S. military strike on Syria.

"Travel Within Iraq given the dangerous security Remains Situation," according to the State Department's warning.

The Department they that numerous insurgent Groups, Including al-Qaeda's Iraq affiliate, hurdles and active nature of "terrorist activity and sectarian violence persist in sin Many of the country at unseen levels and zinc in 2008".

It added: "The Ability of the Embassy to Respond to situations in Which U.S. citizens face difficulty, Including arrests, is extremely limited."

The State Department and CIA declined to comment.

Gilmore discusses crisis with Iran

The Iranian Foreign Ministry has released a Statement, saying ITS Had foreign minister condemned the use of CHEMICAL WEAPONS Political and called for a SOLUTION to the crisis in Syria in a phone call with Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs Eamon Gilmore.

The Statement they : "While talking to his Irish counterpart, Zarif stressed the need for adopting Diplomatic solutions for the Syrian crisis and also conduct Rejected indulging in any kind of violent ways, a Statement by the Foreign Ministry on Wednesday Reported.

"Zarif, for his Part, condemned the use of CHEMICAL WEAPONS by any party and in any way and also conduct criticized Those Seeking war countries that were independent retailers in the Region regardless of ITS Consequences.

"He warned against the unfavourable also conduct Impact of Attitudes on the Overall Such security in the international Region Community and hoped that I would focus on working out solutions to the Political Problems in Syria."

• Keywords: 
• DAMASCUS ,
 
• Syria ,
 
• UNSC