A French attempt to sneak language authorizing military action into the UN Security Council resolution on Syria’s chemical weapons disarmament, a plan backed by US and British officials, has failed, and the US is resigned to the resolution moving forward without any military option built in.
The concession means that the Russian resolution will essentially be the one accepted, and that while still officially claiming the “right” to attack Syria at any time, the Obama Administration is backing off its threats.
US officials had previously criticized the Russian plan as “toothless” because it didn’t include a threat of war, but since Syria has already ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) now, there was realistically little argument to be made for threatening war in the resolution.
US and Russian officials are holding talks in Geneva on the matter at the moment, and the tack the administration is now taking is to try to include some sort of vague threat of sanctions if the CWC disarmament, which is expected to take many years at any rate, begins stalling.
Russian officials have been adamant about not including anything that could even tangentially refer to military action in the UN resolutions on Syria, noting that a Libya resolution authorizing a no-fly zone was immediately spun by the US as authorization for an all-out war of regime change, and fearing that Syria would be a repeat.
The US, more than any other nation, exemplifies the slow nature of the process of disarmament, as the Nixon Administration began a process of unilateral disarmament by dumping weapons wholesale in the ocean, and 45 years later the US still retains such weapons, and isn’t expected to be done disposing of them for another decade.
In Syria, the process has the extra complication of an ongoing civil war, meaning that job one for the international community will be keeping al-Qaeda dominated rebel factions from seizing the arms.
The recent US Syria politics have enough evidence showing the lost of syrian war planed by Hillary Clinton, Saudis the EU and UAE. The last hope for US to start another Saudis tyrants costly war was the argument of Chemical use by the Syrian government, they even accused president Assad ordering the use of the chemical weapon. Every possible shameful avenue been tried by Saudis, EU and USA to achieve their goal in wining the Syrian war as their proxy wars for war with Iraq and Iran. This war was lost the day it started, if the lost is understood and accepted is yet to be seen, but as long Kerry is in charge he would not recognize the fact that Syrian war is lost because of the fact that 78% of Syrian nationals still trust their government and support it, in USA is the opposite of the matter, so as in EU, if they-Hillary Clinton understood the meaning of the word majority or if she had any respect for people-human-humanity they wouldn't start the Syrian war nor the Libyan or for Bush start the Iraq war to start with. You want for democracy to function, then start the process prosecuting Iraq war criminals from top to tow.
US war was over the Moment those Two Missiles were Fired
A well informed diplomatic source told As-Safir newspaper that “the US war on Syria had started and ended the moment those two ballistic missiles were fired, leaving inconsistent information, as Israel denied and Russia confirmed, until an Israeli statement was issued indicating they were fired in the context of an Israeli-US joint drill and fell in the sea, and that they were not related to the Syrian crisis.”
The source further told the Lebanese daily that “the US forces fired these two rockets from a NATO base in Spain, and were instantly detected by the Russian radars and confronted by the Russian defense systems, so one of them was shot down and the second one diverted towards the sea.”
In this context, the source pointed out that “the statement issued by the Russian Defense Ministry, which stated the detection of two ballistic missiles fired towards the Middle East, intended to neglect two points: the first was the location from which the two rockets were fired, and the second was their downing. Why? Because the moment the full military operation was launched, Head of the Russian Intelligence Service contacted the US intelligence and informed it that “hitting Damascus means hitting Moscow, and we have removed the term “downed the two missiles” from the statement to preserve the bilateral relations and to avoid escalation. Therefore, he told the Americans, you must immediately reconsider your policies, approaches and intentions on the Syrian crisis, as you must be certain that you cannot eliminate our presence in the Mediterranean.”
“This unannounced direct confrontation between Moscow and Washington increased the Obama Administration’s confusion and certainty that the Russian side was ready to move until the end with the Syrian cause, and that the US did not have a way out of its impasse except through a Russian initiative which would save America’s face…” he added.
From this point, the diplomatic source clarified that “in order to avoid further US confusion, and after Israel denied knowing anything about the rocket firing in its first statement, which is the truth, Washington demanded Tel Aviv to adopt the rocket firing to save its face in front of the International Community, especially since these two rockets were the beginning of the US aggression on Syria and the announcement of the beginning of military operations, after which US President Barack Obama was supposed to go to the G20 Summit in Russia to negotiate the destiny of Syrian President Bashr Al-Assad. However, he went to find a way out of the impasse he’s in.”
The source further indicated that “after the US-Russia rocket confrontation, Moscow intended to increase its number of military experts in Russia, and added to its military units and destroyers to enhance its military presence in the Mediterranean. It also set a time for announcing about its initiative on stopping the aggression on Syria after the G20 Summit, after drawing a side scene on the sidelines of the summit which was followed by two successive visits for Iranian Foreign Minister, Hussein Amir Abdul Lahyan, and Syrian Foreign Minister, Walid Al-Moallem, in which a way out was agreed on with the Russian side, and it included a Syrian announcement on approving the Russian initiative regarding putting Syrian chemical weapons under international supervision and preparing Syria for joining the non-proliferation treaty.
Finally, the source pointed out that “One of the first results of the US-Russian military confrontation was the British House of Commons’ rejection to participate in a war on Syria. This was followed by European stances, most significantly, the German stance announced by Chancellor Angela Merkel."
This is very, very interesting. But do you have a link to the original article?
I wonder if the UN Security Council will pressure, demand, make threats and impose sanctions on Israel to join the unilateral disarmament agreement?……wishful thinking.
I imagine Kerry is getting an earful from his masters in Tel Aviv now that imminent war has been averted. Being a lapdog is so demanding…
The U.S. has Repeatedly Violated the “Red Line” on Chemical Weapons
The U.S. encouraged Saddam Hussein’s use of chemical weapons against Iran … which was the largest use of chemical weapons in history. While the number of people killed in the August 21st chemical weapons attack has been estimated at between 350 and 1,429, 20,000 Iranians and 5,000 Kurds were killed by Saddam’s chemical weapons attacks with full U.S. support and backing.
The U.S. sprayed nearly 20,000,000 gallons of material containing chemical herbicides and defoliants mixed with jet fuel in Vietnam, eastern Laos and parts of Cambodia. Vietnam estimates 400,000 people were killed or maimed, and 500,000 children born with birth defects as a result of its use. The Red Cross of Vietnam estimates that up to 1 million people are disabled or have health problems due to Agent Orange.
The United States has used chemical weapons in the last 10 years.
The U.S. agreed pursuant to the international Chemical Weapons Convention to destroy its chemical weapons stockpiles by April 2007. It received several extensions. The final extension expired in April 2012. The U.S. failed to comply with the deadline. (Syria was never a signatory to the treaty.)
Given the above, does the U.S. have the moral or legal standing to accuse Syria of violating a “red line” on chemical weapons?
Notes: U.S. military action in Libya and Syria have also caused chemical weapons to fall into the hands of Al Qaeda … and Al Qaeda has in fact used those weapons.
Britain has also used chemical weapons within the past 10 years, and has been caught allowing its companies to sell nerve gas chemical weapons to Syria for years.
You left out Fallujah in Iraq, that city is largely ruined, Depleted Uranium was used by the US military on the civilian population. People there are having the same symptoms as in Vietnam.
Of course America has moral legitimacy to accuse Saddam Bashir Hussein Assad of violating red, white, and blue lines on the use of WMDs.
Whatever America says is reality and morally just–no matter how contradictory or nonsenical it may seem to other nations.
We are Amurica.
Worship US.
Love US.
Obey US.
Or else….
Too bad the US government isn't as adamant about getting Israel to sign the non-proliferation treaty and turn over its nuclear arsenal to international control as it is about stopping Syria from using chemical weapons, and stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons.