And here we go…
The BBC:
A Russian plan for Syria’s chemical weapons to be put under international control has sparked immediate disputes over resolutions at the United Nations.
The UK, US and France want a timetable and consequences of failure spelt out, and Washington has warned it will “not fall for stalling tactics”.
Russia said any draft putting the blame on Syria was unacceptable and urged a declaration backing its initiative.
Syria has said it accepts the Russian proposal on its chemical stockpile.
Read more here
===
Breaking Update:
The New York Times reports:
White House Agrees to Talks on U.N. Resolution on Syrian Chemical Arms.
A bipartisan group of eight senators and the White House joined the international diplomatic momentum on Tuesday to avert an American military attack on Syria over its use of chemical munitions in that country’s civil war, responding positively to a Russian proposal aimed at securing and destroying those weapons.
The group of senators, including some of President Obama’s biggest supporters and critics, were drafting an alternative Congressional resolution that would give the United Nations time to take control of the Syrian government’s arsenal of the internationally banned weapons.
Read more here
==
UPDATES:
The US says a Russian plan to make safe Syria’s chemical weapons must be “swift and verifiable” and warns it will not fall for stalling tactics.
Read more here
==
The Washington Post reports that France will float a resolution in the U.N. Security Council aimed at forcing Syria to make public its chemical weapons program, place it under international control and dismantle it, according to the the French foreign minister today.
The French initiative comes a day after Russia, a fellow permanent member of the council that has been a key ally of Assad’s regime, expressed support for a proposal for Syria’s chemical weapons arsenals to be placed under international control and destroyed.
Read more here.
More from the Post:
Obama says he would ‘absolutely’ put off military strike if Syria gives up chemical weapons
President Obama on Monday said he would “absolutely” put on hold a military strike against Syria if the government there gave up control of its chemical weapons, even as he expressed skepticism that President Bashar al-Assad would agree to do so.
Read full article here.
==
The New York Times:
President Obama on Monday tentatively embraced a Russian diplomatic proposal to avert a United States military strike on Syria by having international monitors take control of the Syrian government’s chemical weapons. The move added new uncertainty to Mr. Obama’s push to win support among allies, the American public and members of Congress for an attack.
Read more here.
==
Original Post:
Sure, he could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week – turn it over, all of it without delay and allow the full and total accounting (of it), but he isn’t about to do it and it can’t be done.
While many, including the State Department, have called this answer by Secretary of State Kerry to a reporter in London when asked what, if anything, the Assad government could do to avert a U.S. military strike, “rhetorical,” hypothetical, off-the cuff, not serious, etc., many — some cautiously — have taken it as a serious, welcome and workable offer, including Russia, hopefully Syria, several European allies and the United Nations.
Former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, said, “If the regime immediately surrendered its stockpiles to international control, as was suggested by Secretary Kerry and the Russians, that would be an important step”
Today, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon — while still awaiting the report of a U.N team on Syria’s alleged use of chemical weapons — said that he will urge the Security Council to demand that Syria transfer its chemical weapons stocks to areas in the country where they can be safely stored and destroyed, according to the Voice of America (VOA).
If such plans and offers come to fruition, actually moving and securing such chemical weapons stockpiles would be very hazardous, lengthy and and tedious work.
Paul Walker, program director at Green Cross International and an expert on chemical weapons, says “Part of it would depend to what extent their chemical agents are alive – in other words– are they already prepared? Are they loaded into weapons? If they are it could be quite dangerous.”
If the chemicals are separate from the weapons and haven’t been pre-mixed into a live agent, Walker said they still are toxic, but can be moved much more safely.
He said that if Assad signs the convention against chemical weapons, he would be required to immediately declare all of his stockpiles. Then inspectors from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in The Hague would come and inventory the cache. After that the destruction program would begin.
Walker cautions that this is a long, costly and complicated process. He points to the United States’ elimination of its own stockpiles, noting that 23 years into its destruction program, the U.S. has done away with only 90 percent of its chemical agents and still has 3,000 metric tons to go.
Hazardous and complex as it may be to store, account for and secure Syria’s chemical weapons, it appears that it might be even more complex for our own State Department to accept a gift “rhetorical” by the Secretary without looking in its mouth and — more importantly — without looking the Russian — and possibly Syrian –return gift in its mouth.
Here is Marie Harf, Deputy Spokesperson for State answering questions on this “gift horse” at today’s daily press briefing (Mm-hmm’s and ahh’s and interruptions are left out):
QUESTION: Can you – the Secretary’s comments this morning in London, whether or not they were rhetorical or serious, they seem to have been embraced and endorsed by a growing number of people. And I just heard the White House Deputy National Security Advisor say that… he would have to take a hard look at the Russian proposal …which is a bit odd since it wasn’t a Russian proposal. It was actually a proposal by Secretary Kerry.
Was this rhetorical or was it serious?
MS. HARF: What Secretary Kerry said, as Jen said, I believe, from the road, was that he was speaking rhetorically about a situation we thought had very low probability of happening. What Ben, I believe, said and what we’re saying is that we will have to take a hard look at the Russian statement, which is what’s happened since then. And so we understand exactly what the Russians are proposing here. I think that’s what we’ve been clear about.
Clearly, we have some serious skepticism. Everything that Assad has done over the past two years and before has been to refuse to put his chemical weapons under international control. He hasn’t declared them; we’ve repeatedly called on him to do so. And he’s ignored prohibitions against them. So I think it’s important to keep in mind the context under which this Russian statement and the Syrian statement is happening, that this is only happening in the context of a threat of U.S. military action.
So again, we’ll take a step back and we’ll look at the Russian statement. We’ll see what details lie behind it. But at this point, of course, we have serious skepticism because of everything Assad has done in the course of the last several years on chemical weapons.
And it continues from there.
If the Russians (and hopefully the Syrians) are taking this “rhetorical offer” seriously, why not embrace the “rhetorical,” the “hypothetical,” or whatever the State Department may want to call it and run with it — of course in the famous “trust but verify” fashion.
Take the credit, even claim that the threat of military action brought us to this point (a claim which, by the way, this author believes is valid), but for heaven’s sake stop looking this gift horse in the mouth. Such opportunities do not knock twice.
More important, many more innocents may die while we beat this horse to death.
Image: www.shutterstock.com
