Russia Expects Syria Resolution In Next 2 Days

[Purveyor]

Source: Associated Press

UNITED NATIONS -- Russia's deputy foreign minister says agreement on a U.N. Security Council resolution requiring Syria to dismantle its chemical weapons stockpiles is likely in the next two days.

Gennady Gatilov told The Associated Press that the text of the resolution will include a reference to Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which includes military and nonmilitary actions to promote peace and security.

But he stressed that there will not be an automatic trigger for Chapter 7 measures, which means another Security Council resolution will be required if Syria fails to comply.

The U.S. and Russia had been at odds on how to enforce the resolution.


Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/09/25/3650517/russia-expects-syria-resolution.html

[TomCADem]

1. The Media Attacks Obama's "Weakness" For Calling Off Attack

The U.S. finally got Russia to put pressure on Syria such that Russia has skin in the game if Syria were to launch another chemical attack. It is not coincidence that prior efforts over the past two years to get Russia involved failed even as Syria grew more brazen in its use of chemical weapons.

Likewise, the fact that the U.S. did call off the attack in the face of the last minute diplomatic overture helps set the ground for a thaw in relations with Iran despite opposition from the Netenyahu administration with Iran now moving toward substantive discussions about its nuclear program.

My question is why is this being portrayed as a failure by many in the media who seem to happily parrot contradictory GOP talking points attacking the President for failing to seek congressional authorization, then attacking him for seeking congressional authorization.

[bigtree]

2. what don't you understand about objecting to Obama's claims that he could ignore Congress

. . . and everything is just fine and dandy if we just trust presidents (or just this president) when he asserts (assumes) authority to initiate military attacks on a country which poses no imminent or substantial threat to our national security?

All's well that ends well? Bullshit. Put me down as strongly objecting to presidents using our military forces as a cudgel against nations which don't pose any threat to us or our allies. Put me down as an objector to presidents asserting unilateral authority to initiate war based on unilateral, slippery interpretations of what constitutes a 'threat' or a defense of our national security.

Start there; start with that unilateral declaration of authority to initiate war; before you whitewash it all with these claims that U.S. belligerence is a responsible tactic to effect diplomacy.

[TomCADem]

4. What I don't Understand?

I am not sure what provoked the personal attack, but have a nice day.

[bigtree]

5. it's a response to your own statement, not a personal attack at all

"My question is why is this being portrayed as a failure by many in the media who seem to happily parrot contradictory GOP talking points attacking the President for failing to seek congressional authorization, then attacking him for seeking congressional authorization."

I'm not sure who in the media you're referring to, but there is a credible case to be made against President Obama's unilateral declaration of a 'threat' from Syria and his assertion that he has the authority to act without prior approval of Congress.

In my view, Pres. Obama was fully prepared to commence bombing Syria with Britain's help - until their parliament objected. I'm not impressed that he backtracked in the face of our own country's negative polling, because, he's still asserting that he has that assumed authority to initiate attacks without prior approval from Congress.

You can certainly argue that the end (this diplomatic initiative) justifies the means, but, that end comes well after the question of that assumed presidential authority to initiate war. That threat of force is what our president is using to coerce Syria (and the UN), but it's a slippery slope to allow the president a free hand to initiate attacks on Syria whenever he's finished or 'exhausted' with diplomacy.

That's what I object to. That's what my response is about: the swaggering belligerence, behind the threat of our nation's defenses, toward a country which doesn't pose an imminent or substantial threat to our nation or our allies - all wrapped up in contradictory and made-up nonsense about that imperialism enabling effective diplomacy.

[karynnj]

3. Not to mention - the media has played up a "disagreement" where the

conclusion is exactly what Kerry said in Geneva.

Yesterday, there was an article with the title "Western envoys tout deal on core of UN resolution, Russia denies it". http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/26/us-un-assembly-syria-resolution-idUSBRE98O15O20130926 Yet every envoy said very close to the same thing - they were making progress and were working on it. Look specifically at the comments of the US and Russia:

"This is just their wishful thinking," said the spokesman for Russia's U.N. delegation. "It is not the reality. The work on the draft resolution is still going on."

A U.S. official cited progress while cautioning that there was still work to be done. "We're making progress but we're not done yet," the official told Reuters.

Clearly there is an agenda on the part of the editor to highlight disagreement - rather than the more boring "We are still working on it, but making progress."


Wait for the articles stating Obama lost because it does not automatically trigger permission to attack.

Here is the only photo I saw of the Russian foreign minister and our Secretary of State. I don't know about you, but there does not appear to be a whole lot of anger in this informal photo. http://instagram.com/p/eruxvigh80/

[bigtree]

6. reports say the agreement is in hand

. . . under the chapter that allows use of force as an option - without an automatic trigger; they'll need to come back to the council for a vote to legitimize any military response.

Although, President Obama still says he doesn't need their permission to initiate attacks . . .

Obama wins, Obama loses? What a dreary, piffle of a thing to focus on.

[karynnj]

7. Not a surprise that was precisely the language Kerry and Lavrov used

in Geneva. It was clear that an approved in advance trigger would never meet Russia's approval -- and Kerry had suggested in early talks exactly this.

I think this is fantastic. There is some real chance that it will work and get rid of at least most of the Chemical weapons. It is already clearer than it was in Geneva that the expedited process they defined is being followed. Syria produced a more complete list than was expected within a week - as asked.

As this is arguing about punishment if things are not met - it seems silly to risk it happening because we want more guarantees. Especially as the US has no approval now - and that was not likely to stop them.

[bigtree]

8. it's certainly promising on it's face; at least for Russia/U.S. relations

. . . and the potential of expanding this cooperation to other diplomatic pursuits like addressing their concerns with Iran's nuclear program.

I'm still reflexively looking for the next red line, though. I don't think I can be blamed much for that.

[karynnj]

9. I can understand why

I suspect that the almost whonkish "red line" reference will be used more carefully in the future. I have tried to think out whether - if there were no statement, would there have been a response. I suspect that there would have been just because it is too big to ignore.

As it is, it may end up far better than anyone deserves it to end - with the world backing a stand that says that it is unacceptable, Obama having been seen as willing to stand up when his red line was crossed, but prudent enough to take this capitulation on Syria's part - instead of a strike. This accomplishes more than the strike and, it will by virtue of what it is, will make the region a little less unsafe.

I do think it will mean the US and Russia will be more comfortable working together WHEN THEY HAVE SHARED INTERESTS. I think that we were lucky that Kerry and Lavrov had worked together before all this blew up - and even in the midst of the worst of this - they both were still speaking of Geneva 2 and there being no military solution to the overall problem. From some accounts, they bonded over both being big hockey fans. (Funny that Kerry's "non-American" sports - hockey and soccer - likely are better on the international stage than in American politics. )

[Scurrilous]

10. U.S., Russia reach deal on Syria chemical arms resolution

<snip>

"After weeks of diplomatic wrangling, the United States and Russia said on Thursday that they had reached an agreement on a U.N. Security Council resolution aimed at ridding Syria of its chemical weapons.

Samantha Power, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said on Twitter that a deal was reached with Russia "legally obligating" Syria to give up its chemical stockpile and the measure would go to the full Security Council on Thursday night.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Moscow had reached an understanding with Washington on a chemical weapons resolution."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/26/us-un-assembly-syria-resolution-idUSBRE98P1AJ20130926