U.N. Security Council Unanimously Passes Syria Chemical Weapons Resolution

[Purveyor]

Source: Washington Post

By Colum Lynch and Anne Gearan

UNITED NATIONS — The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously late Friday on an ambitious plan requiring Syria to surrender its chemical weapons for destruction, but the pact does not spell out what penalties the government in Damascus might face if it doesn’t comply.

U.S. and European diplomats concede that some of their toughest demands aimed at compelling Syria to obey the council’s demands and holding perpetrators to account for using chemical weapons were removed from the final resolution at Russia’s insistence.

The proposed agreement binds Syria to turn over its chemical arsenal but provides no automatic punishment if Syria balks. Enforcement would require further negotiation, setting up the prospect of further tussles between the United States and Russia, a close ally of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, which has fervently opposed the threat of force.

Still, the measure constituted the first legally binding action on Syria from the Security Council since the Syrian government launched a brutal crackdown on peaceful protesters more than two years ago. Since then, the conflict has descended into a bloody civil war, leaving more than 100,000 dead, and threatening to engulf the region in sectarian conflict. Russia had previously blocked all attempts to punish or condemn Assad at the Security Council, which can order mandatory sanctions or military action.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/un-approval-near-on-syrian-chemical-arms/2013/09/27/da007544-27aa-11e3-9372-92606241ae9c_story.html

[Faygo Kid]

1. Beat me to it by seconds. I can add the next two grafs.

Good news.

. . . "“This is the first hopeful news on Syria for a long time,” U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki moon said after the vote. “Tonight, the international community has delivered.”

The White House claimed victory, citing the prospect of weapons inspectors entering Syria as soon as next week to begin the work of auditing and dismantling the country’s chemical stockpile. “This is something that we have long sought,” President Barack Obama said at the White House on Friday. The deal worked out this week on the sidelines of the annual U.N. General Assembly will be “legally binding,” and enforceable, Obama said, with “consequences for Syria’s failure to meet what has been set forth in this resolution.”

[Thinkingabout]

2. i would hope many nations view this as a victory, and if Russia was really truthful they would be

Happy the chemical weapons were going to be moved away from their territory. This is good, now the sanctions placed on Iran and perhaps this agreement will get Iran to give up on nuclear weapons.

[underpants]

3. Good news. Somewhere the Neo-Con (failures) are screaming...

BUT THERE WAS NO BOMBING!!!!! GET THEM BACK IN THERE!!! TURN THE MACHINES BACK ON!!!!

[kelliekat44]

4. Huge news but not covered as much as Cruz. nt

[TheProgressive]

5. Ok, now have the UN vote on the removal of ALL nations chemical weapons...

Like the UK, Russia, China, oh... and America...

[joshcryer]

9. The US has destroyed 90% of its stockpiles.

Bush cut funding for the program though so the other 10% are sitting waiting to be destroyed.

[Upward]

6. So Now They Have to Turn Over All Their Roundup?

[Cha]

7. K&R

[joshcryer]

8. I called it perfectly. Interestingly Syria is not blamed for the attack.

Glad the west budged on that, it was one point I think they wanted in there.

Also, as I predicted, and was mocked for, Chapter 7 was explicitly mentioned.

Russia caved.

[dipsydoodle]

10. rules out the use of force or any application of Chapter 7 [of the UN Charter]

MOSCOW, September 28 (RIA Novosti) – The UN Security Council resolution requiring Syria to eliminate its chemical weapon stockpiles precludes any use of force, Russia’s top diplomat said Saturday.

“The UN Security Council resolution absolutely rules out the use of force or any application of Chapter 7 [of the UN Charter],” Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in an interview with Russia’s TV Channel One.

Any possible use of force in the future under Chapter 7 will need a new resolution, if there is “conclusive and unequivocal proof” of noncompliance, he stressed.

>

US Secretary of State John Kerry described the resolution, which does not authorize the automatic use of force if Syria is said to be in violation, as a "strong, enforceable, precedent-setting" document which shows that “diplomacy can be so powerful that it can peacefully defuse the worst weapons of war."

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20130928/183807228/UN-Syria-Resolution-Rules-Out-Use-of-Force--Moscow.html

[joshcryer]

11. I said Chapter 7 would be mentioned.

The US was adamant that a further measures application of Chapter 7 be in there.

Chapter 7 is explicitly mentioned in the UN resolution.

[dipsydoodle]

12. But only inasmuch it would require another resolution.

.

[joshcryer]

13. Right.

As I predicted.

Point being Russia didn't even want Chapter 7 mentioned.

Seems the US got that mention in there while Russia got to sign off on not assigning blame (the resolution doesn't assign blame to anyone).

[karynnj]

15. True - and that was the Kerry/Lavrov agreement in Geneva

BOTH countries tried to move that - with the US (mostly Samantha Powers) wanting it to trigger automatic consequences, blame Syria and speak of ICC charges. Russia wanting no mention of chapter 7 at all. They ended up exactly where Lavrov and Kerry suggested as the best compromise.

I prefer this to automatic triggers. The reason is that it is really hard to unambiguously define when triggers are really triggered. (In some ways, this is what the IWR was -- and though there was text that dealt with what could cause war - no one other than Bush really had the ability to interpret whether the process had led to the need for war.) In one comment in Geneva, Lavrov spoke of needing to test if accusations of non compliance were true. I agree with him that going back to the UN with the then current situation is not a bad idea.

It is far better to give the plan a chance rather than reject it because the contingencies of noncompliance are not what is wanted.

[KoKo]

14. Recommend.