US slams Russia on Syria stance

The US is heaping new pressure on Russia to change course and support international action in Syria, warning that intransigence by Moscow may lead to open civil war that could spill across the Middle East with devastating consequences.

Speaking in Denmark, US secretary of state Hillary Clinton slammed the Russian government for continuing to support Syrian president Bashar Assad, even after last week’s massacre of more than 100 people in the town of Houla.

She said Russia’s position “is going to help contribute to a civil war” and rejected Russian officials’ insistence that their stance actually is helping to ease the crisis.

On the first stop of a European tour, Mrs Clinton said Russia and China would have to be on board before the US and other nations might engage in what could become a protracted conflict in support of a disorganised rebel force.

Russia, along with China, has twice vetoed UN Security Council sanctions against Syria. Russia is Syria’s closest ally other than isolated Iran, and Mrs Clinton said that without its support the international community is essentially frozen from taking concrete steps to end the violence.

“The Russians keep telling us they want to do everything they can to avoid a civil war because they believe that the violence would be catastrophic,” Mrs Clinton said, noting that they are “vociferous in their claim that they are providing a stabilising influence”.

But she said: “I reject that,” complaining that in fact Russia is propping up Mr Assad as his government continues a brutal, 15-month crackdown on dissent in which some 13,000 people have died.

The Obama administration has called on Assad to step down and clear the way for a political transition. But mindful of a war-weary American public, it has stopped short of advocating direct US military engagement in the country and stressed the need for diplomacy, particularly with Moscow, which continues to sell weapons and provide political support to Assad.

In Washington, despite revulsion over the Houla massacre, officials said the administration remains deeply concerned about the possible consequences of military action. But as the violence continues, they acknowledge that planning for some sort of intervention is under way.

Two Western diplomats told journalists that top US and British commanders and intelligence officers visited the northern Jordanian city of Ramtha recently and toured the area along the Jordan-Syria border to assess the possibility of a limited land attack. But it was decided that air attacks would be best, considering the mostly bushy terrain and climate conditions, the diplomats said.

Still, Mrs Clinton told reporters after meeting top officials in Denmark, a key contributor to last year’s Nato-led mission against Muammar Gaddafi in Libya that “we’re nowhere near putting together any type of coalition other than to alleviate the suffering”.

She added: “We are working very hard to focus the efforts of those, like Denmark and the United States, who are appalled by what is going on, to win over those who still support the regime, both inside and outside of Syria.”

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, in remarks to reporters travelling with him to a conference in Singapore, said he does not see the US taking military action in Syria without the backing of a UN Security Council resolution.

“No, I cannot envision that,” Mr Panetta said when asked about military action without UN backing. However, he said that all options remain on the table and that the Pentagon is planning for “any contingency”.

At the White House, press secretary Jay Carney was blunt in describing the risks posed by the protracted standoff with Assad.

“The longer this goes on, the longer that Assad and his thugs are allowed to brutally murder the Syrian people, the more likely it becomes a sectarian civil war, the more likely that it spills over Syrian borders,” Mr Carney said.

He listed another risk, of a “proxy war”, with Iran backing Mr Assad and other outside nations or forces backing insurgent factions.

The prospect of such a proxy war or a sectarian conflict along the lines of Lebanon is a major reason the United States is wary of pursuing direct military involvement, though US officials rarely say so.