Do I have this right? The Only Way We'll ALLOW Assad to Give Up Chemical Weapons....

[Junkdrawer]

is that he and Russia and China agree to allow him to be legally bombed if we don't like how he does it?

Who could say Nyet to such a generous offer?

[LiberalAndProud]

1. What have you been reading?

A link would be helpful, as this is the first I've heard this particular stipulation.

[Junkdrawer]

2. Syria conflict: France to float tough UN resolution

....

Earlier, Mr Fabius, who was speaking at a news conference in Paris, said the resolution, based around five points, would demand that Syria "bring fully to light" its chemical weapons programme.

The measure would also set up international inspections and controls of the dismantling process.

The resolution would be tabled under Chapter 7 of the UN charter covering possible military and non-military action to restore peace, Mr Fabius added.

....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24031203

[Junkdrawer]

3. And here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023637256

[sharp_stick]

4. Well not really

The Russian float was that the United States promise not to bomb before they begin to discuss the conditions upon which Assad will allow his chemical weapons to be disposed of.

It's all negotiation, as long as they're talking I'm remaining hopeful.

[Junkdrawer]

5. I think that came AFTER France's demands I posted above....

I hope I'm wrong. The UN meeting WAS scheduled for 4PM and was moved to 8PM (After the President's address).

[sharp_stick]

6. Yes it did

but I don't think either option will actually come to a vote in the UN

France wanted UN authority to attack if conditions weren't met, that was going nowhere in the Security Council.

I don't think Russia is even planning on bringing a Security Council resolution at this point. They seem to be working directly with the Obama administration.

[Junkdrawer]

7. Promises to be an interesting evening, no?

Let's hope it's not Chinese-Curse-Style interesting.

[sharp_stick]

10. Absolutely

but I think the Security Council meeting will end pretty quietly. As long as they talk I'm going to hold out hope for a settlement.

Of course I'm just speculating but I get the feeling that any deal here is going to be between Russia and the United States.

If all goes well there will be backing by both for the UN to go in and take the chemical weapons.

[KoKo]

8. Section 7 of UN Charter...The Sticking Points, here:

#4 and 5 won't fly... but this is what France is proposing to the UN Sec Council.

“1. The UN condemns the “chemical massacre” committed on 21 August “by the Syrian regime”

2. The Syrian regime “shed all light” on its chemical weapons programme without delay, placing it under international control and dismantling it

3. Syria must put in place a complete procedure to allow full inspections of chemical weapons and must become party to the chemical weapons convention

4. There would be extremely serious consequences if these obligations were violated

5. The “authors” of the 21 August chemical attacks must face legal sanctions via the international criminal court”

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/10/syria-conflict-france-un-resolution-chemical

[Junkdrawer]

9. The Sec Council meeting WAS scheduled for 4PM. Moved to 8PM (After the President's address).

I think Sec Council meetings are private. Could be a late evening.

[KoKo]

11. Oh Good...I thought the whole thing was cancelled.

Lot to hash out there... Kerry was back being bellicose today in the hearings. At one point he said Assad used "Napalm" on his people. Maybe he was just tired of giving the same presentation. Or, there's new evidence that it was Napalm rather than Sarin?
I had to turn him off.

Hope something can move forward with UN...or maybe Barbara Lee's Diplomatic proposal that got some play in the Guardian this morning if the UN Security Council solution goes down. I still hope for UN Peacekeeping Troops guarding the CW sites with inspectors in there tagging and figuring out disposal. On the other hand the rebels might start to attack them...and so that wouldn't work out either.

[Junkdrawer]

12. Latest word is It's cancelled....

I'm hearing now that Russia and the US will hash this out bilaterally ....

Things are changing fast.

[Catherina]

14. Ignore my post 13 then. Thanks n/t

[Catherina]

13. Where did you get that? UN and Russia put out "will not proceed"

Gary Quinlan ‏@AustraliaUN (UN Security Council for 2013-14)

Following withdrawal of the request for consultations, Security Council meeting scheduled for 4pm will not proceed #OzPrez #UNSC

https://twitter.com/AustraliaUN/statuses/377501618620862464

and that was the last we heard from


Then they started talking about about

John Kerry to meet Russian FM Sergey Lavrov in Geneva on Thursday to discuss Syria's chemical weapons http://on.rt.com/0yh5ju

I posted some stuff about that here.

Am I following this right or did I miss something? I hope you're right because I was very displeased to learn it was canceled.

[pampango]

15. What is wrong with #4 and #5?

4. There would be extremely serious consequences if these obligations were violated.

Is the issue the meaning of "serious"? There should be one consequences for any party to a settlement to not live up to their obligations. If not, it is not really an enforceable settlement but more of a "It would be nice if each party ..." kind of a deal.

5. The “authors” of the 21 August chemical attacks must face legal sanctions via the international criminal court”.

That seems fair. Assad insists that his forces were not the source of the attack. If so, he should be happy to see the guilty rebels go before the ICC. I would prefer an even broader provision that made all war crimes committed subject to the jurisdiction of the ICC, not just the perpetrators of hat one attack.

[KoKo]

16. Can be misused...stretched to the limits by those with special interests and

good lawyers...and it's like what we did with Saddam.

It's "open ended" if you think about it.