Syria hails US-Russia deal on chemical weapons

[pampango]

Source: BBC

The US-Russia deal on Syria's chemical weapons is a "victory" that averts war, a Syrian minister says.

The framework document says Syria must provide full details of its stockpile within a week - with the chemical arsenal eliminated by mid-2014. If Syria fails to comply, the deal could be enforced by a UN resolution with the use of force as a last resort.

It envisages Syria providing a full inventory of its chemical weapons in one week, all production equipment being destroyed by November, and all weapons being removed from Syria or destroyed by mid-2014.

Mr Kerry and Mr Lavrov said a UN resolution could be sought under Chapter VII of the UN charter, which allows for the use of force, if Syria fails to comply. However the Russian foreign minister said force remained a last-ditch option.

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24100296

---

Obviously, this agreement does not "avert a war". Rather it averts "more" war since the ongoing war is unlikely to stop as a result of this agreement.

At least in this BBC article, no Syrian or Russian official said that the timetable is impossible or unrealistic. Assuming this agreement is followed up by a resolution on the Security Council, it will be interesting to see the nature of the resolution.

[sofa king]

1. This is a smooth move, if it works.

Consider what the President's probable objectives were when this whole thing started a month or more ago:

1) Get rid of the chemical weapons;

2) Do it without involving more American troops on the ground in the Middle East, and if possible, without any combat;

3) Don't piss off the Russians, who have a naval interest in Syria as powerful as any strategic US-held territory in, for example, the Carribean;

4) Don't violate previous UN directives and statements on the subject of Syria, which includes NOT involving NATO, and NOT knocking over the officially recognized Assad government.

So what did the President do? He put John Kerry forth as the attack dog, and laid out a case more solid than the Bush Administration ever did for their own nonsense (consider also that President Obama could have played the 9/11 card all month, and did not). He ginned up a pissing match with the Russians, to put some space between us, then let the Russians play the good cop to our bad cop.

The Russians, in turn, used their financial, military, and diplomatic influence to directly contact and negotiate with the Ba'athists in Syria, which the United States cannot do.

The secret back-channel guarantee here, which will likely never be mentioned in print, is probably an extension and expansion of the Russian lease of the dockworks at Tartus. The Russians showed a willingness to gunk up any attempt to settle the Syrian problem unless their base at Tartus was preserved, so we can safely assume that they got what they wanted. That makes it much more likely that we will get what we want--and the damned Ba'athists will probably get what they want to and be left to crush their civil war.

If the Syrian rebels are smart, they'll catch the wind of this and offer the whole goddamned city of Tartus to the Russians if they'll back off and let the Ba'athists lose. It is a small price to pay for the end of the Assad dynasty.

[karynnj]

2. I agree until you give Russia all the credit for the agreement

Even before anyone heard of anything public, Obama and Putin TOGETHER spoke of the idea and Kerry and Lavrov - and their team- worked on the idea. There was a quote in an article I can't now find from last weekend where a Russian diplomat (unnamed) said that this became a possible plan "2 weeks ago" - which does mean that after gas was used, after the US threat and after Obama and Putin met.

In addition, on almost all issues - note that the agreement is at least as close to what Kerry said at the start of the talks then what Russia - through Lavrov and Putin said. It has a timetable that is far expedited from the standard process the UN has used -- because he used the chemicals and because of the many threats they pose.

I think the original proposal HAD to come from the Russians and had to come with Syria agreeing with Russia. Russian leverage was needed. However, both countries were exploring how it could work - and it is clear that Kerry's response to the question was both a no brainer and strategic.

[DCBob]

3. This agreement wasnt meant to stop the ongoing war..

it was about stopping the use of chemical weapons in the ongoing war.