U.N. Members Agree on Syria Disarmament

[Purveyor]

Source: WSJournal

By JOE LAURIA

UNITED NATIONS—The five most powerful members of the United Nations Security Council agreed to a resolution that requires the Syrian government to surrender its chemical weapons, but in a concession to Russia makes no threat of enforcement.

The draft resolution, which was presented to the full Security Council on Thursday night, would implement a U.S.-Russian deal on the destruction of the Syrian arsenal by the middle of next year.

While the resolution adheres to Western demands that it legally bind Damascus to comply, it also bows to the Russians, who wanted no immediate threat of enforcement through sanctions or military action, diplomats said.

If Syria doesn't comply with the plan, under the terms discussed, the Security Council would meet to adopt a second resolution that would impose enforcement measures—but that could be vetoed by Moscow.

Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303342104579099341683164208.html

[joshcryer]

1. Very much like Resolution 1441 that Bush claimed enabled the Iraq war.

Which, of course, was illegal, because it most certainly did not.

Resolution 1441 was to take the issue back to the UN in order to decide upon what to do. Thus Powell's pathetic plea to the UN.

I predicted this outcome and that ultimately there would be a Chapter 6 resolution referencing Chapter 7 (not triggering or invoking Chapter 7, simply referencing it under Article 36).

[cosmicone]

2. Except that this resolution doesn't contain the "serious consequences" clause

which the bushies used to make the war legal in the minds of faux-brained fools who didn't know that the authorization to war must have the "all available means" language.

[joshcryer]

3. Yeah, but it lacked "all necessary means," which a Chapter 7 clause would have.

In particular the UN said it shall "remain seized of the matter." Meaning to do anything with force would require the US to go back to the UN to request permission. Which is what Powell did in his embarrassing display to the world.

Bush believed he was "still at war" with Iraq, with the NFZ that was in place, and therefore could "resume hostilities" at whim because Saddam, without firing a shot, "violated the ceasefire."

edit: erm, sorry, I partially repeated what you said, you noted the "all necessary means" bit. Sorry.

[David__77]

4. Well, it's good that it justifies neither force nor sanctions.

It provides no legal basis for such things.

[Ash_F]

5. Very good. /nt