Trump’s UN ambassador: No peace while Assad still in control

‘There’s not any sort of option where a political solution is going to happen with Assad at the head of the regime’

REMOVING President Bashar al-Assad from power is now a priority for the USA, the country’s ambassador to the United Nations said yesterday as she signalled a U-turn in the Trump administration’s approach to Syria.

Nikki Haley said the US was sending a message to Russia that “we’re not going to have you cover for this regime any more”. Yet it was only on March 30 that Ms Haley along with Rex Tillerson, Donald Trump’s Secretary of State, said Washington was no longer adamant that Assad must quit. Instead, they said, the US would shift its focus to defeating Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isil).

Those comments sparked fury from those who saw it as an acceptance of Assad’s brutal rule. But last week’s gas attack on Syrian civilians by the forces of Assad’s regime in Damascus appears to have changed the thinking.

Yesterday, asked if the US now saw regime change as a priority, Ms Haley outlined three objectives before moving to a political, peaceful settlement of the six-year civil war: beating Isil, getting rid of Assad and removing Iranian influence. “Getting Assad out is not the only priority,” she said.

“At the end of the day this is a complicated situation, there are no easy answers and a political solution is going to have to happen,” said Ms Haley, who is fast emerging as a hardliner on Syria within Mr Trump’s cabinet.

“There’s not any sort of option where a political solution is going to happen with Assad at the head of the regime,” she said. “If you look at his actions, if you look at the situation, it’s going to be hard to see a government that’s peaceful and stable with Assad.”

Asked if that meant the US was advocating regime change, however, she said: “This is something the entire international community has decided.”

Yesterday, Mr Tillerson, who goes to Moscow tomorrow to meet his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov, agreed there was no long-term future for Assad as president, saying “there is no role for him to govern”.

But he was more reticent than Ms Haley at the UN. “It’s important that we keep our priorities straight. And we believe the first priority is defeating Isis,” he said. “Once that has been reduced or eliminated, we can turn our attention to stabilising Syria. Clearly that requires the participation of the regime and the support of their allies.”

Mr Tillerson is placing his faith in Moscow using its influence to bring about a political change and, asked if he was going to Russia to deliver an ultimatum, he replied: “We have already issued some very strong statements.

“And yes, that will be part of the discussions when I visit Moscow. To call upon Foreign Minister Lavrov and the Russians to fulfil their contract to the international community, when they agreed to be the guarantor of the elimination of chemical weapons.”

Mr Tillerson, in a series of interviews, said Russia was to blame for the gas attacks because they had failed to enforce a 2013 agreement that Syria was to surrender its chemical weapons. Russia had agreed to act as a guarantor.

“And why Russia has not been able to achieve that is unclear to me,” he said.

“I don’t draw conclusions of complicity at all, but clearly they have been incompetent, and perhaps they have simply been outmanoeuvred by the Syrians.

“The message is: Russia gave certain assurances in 2013 that they would be the guarantor of Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles.

“Russia has failed in that commitment.

“And the result has been the more killing of innocent civilians.”

Mr Tillerson accepted that he was being sent with the aim of driving a wedge between Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, and Assad.

“I hope that Russia is thinking carefully about their continued alliance with Assad,” he said.

“Because every time one of these horrific attacks occurs, it draws Russia closer in to some level of responsibility.”

He added that he did not believe the Russians had cause to retaliate for the strikes, and that “as far as I know” the “deconfliction” lines between the US and Russian militaries remained open.

“I see no reason there should be any retaliation. Russia was never targeted.

“The military are still talking. I am aware certain public statements have been made out of Moscow, so we’ll just have to see. And ask the military people,” he said.