Evidence Is Another

Peter Beaumont writes:

The recent claims that Britain, France and Israel have proof that the regime of Bashar al-Assad used sarin gas in Syria raises important moral questions, and not simply for the Assad regime. If the claims are true then Assad's forces would be guilty of a crime against humanity.

But where does that leave the governments who claim they have evidence that sarin was used? Although France and the UK have written to the UN claiming they have "credible evidence" to support their claims, they have yet to make the substance of those claims public – a baffling position given the seriousness of the allegations. Instead they have preferred to brief reporters on basis of anonymity.

And the "evidence" provided by Israel's top military intelligence analyst Itai Brun – as even the Times of Israel concedes – has been an equally curious affair. Despite Brun's claim – according to comments by US defence secretary Chuck Hagel who had just visited Israel – it was apparently not important enough to be raised with him by senior Israeli defence forces officials or politicians.

I add a caveat here. I have no idea whether sarin has been used in Syria – and if it has been used, by which side. But the history of the use of chemical weapons by states including Iran and Iraq and non-state actors, like Aum Shinrikyo, means that the possibility should never be excluded.

My own limited experience, however, with claims of the use of poison gases on stories that I've covered tends toward caution when claims of their use are made. The first time I encountered the claim of gas being used on a battlefield was from fleeing KLA fighters whose headquarters in the Drenica mountains had just fallen to Serb forces. It was quickly clear the claims were false.

More recently I looked into claims that a "mystery" gas had caused seizures and asphyxiation deaths when used against demonstrators in Egypt. In that case the conclusion was that very high concentrations – and possibly old stock – of conventional riot gas had caused the symptoms.

There are other questions that one should be asking about alleged use of sarin in Syria, not least why a state would seek to use a weapon like this on such a limited scale. The utility of weapons of last resort for those unscrupulous enough to use them – like sarin and VX and mustard gas – is that they not only kill large concentrations of people but their use also has a profound psychological impact. Gas, in other words, is not a weapon that is generally used discreetly, but emphatically.

When military analysts have imagined the circumstances that such weapons might be used it has been in circumstances where regimes are either in extremis or – as in the case of Saddam Hussein's use of gas on the Kurds in Halabja – where a regime believes it can act with a large degree of impunity.

Neither of those quite fit Syria today. All the evidence is that — despite the spread of the civil war to the outskirts of Damascus – Assad's forces are resilient. All these questions are important because the accusation is so serious. The US has already said the use of chemical weapons would represent a "red line" that would trigger an unspecified response.

The history of the allegations made about Saddam Hussein's non-existent weapons of mass destruction requires that proof is offered on public forums that can be adequately cross-examined. In this case, if it is true that the UK and French governments have soil samples that show sarin has been used, they should not only be shared with UN investigators but the chain of evidence showing how they came to have the samples must made public.

Until then, the caution of Chuck Hagel is the only appropriate response. He said last week that Washington will not be rushed into intervention by foreign intelligence reports, even those from allies. "Suspicions are one thing;" he declared, "evidence is another". Given the history of British officials' behaviour in the run up to war in Iraq, they should either do the right thing – disclose what evidence they have – or let the UN investigating team reach its own conclusion.