It is evident that negotiations between the great powers on complex questions cannot be concluded rapidly, and that leaves the possibility of a ‘limited’ American strike against Syria still wide open
It is evident that negotiations between the great powers on complex questions cannot be concluded rapidly, and that leaves the possibility of a ‘limited’ American strike against Syria still wide open
The Russian proposal to head off an American military strike against Syria for the alleged use of chemical weapons on August 21 is real enough, but there appears to be a less than wholehearted acceptance of the idea in Western quarters.
It may, therefore, be premature to believe that the threat of great power intervention in the Syrian civil war has dissipated.
In his televised addressed on Tuesday, US President Barack Obama did say that he was ready to seize the diplomatic opening offered by Russia but urged that the “US must retaliate” against Syria in case the Russian move to disarm Syria of its chemical weapons failed. In fact, the US leader made a strong pitch for attacking Syria although he conceded that American national interests were not directly involved.
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s suggestion made on Monday was accepted by the Syrians the following day. The Syrians officially also agreed to accede to the Chemical Weapons Convention, which bans their use. Syria’s most significant supporters in the region, the Iranians, have accepted it too, as have the Chinese. The proposal, in a nutshell, calls for the takeover of the Syrian chemicals weapons arsenal by the international community, and its destruction.
These first moves seemed earnest enough, but President Obama’s Tuesday address leaves lingering doubts about his intentions. US secretary of state John Kerry’s talks on the disarmament plan with his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov in Geneva on Thursday could have got off to a better start had
Mr Kerry not told a US House of Representatives committee that the UN Security Council did not have indefinite time to move the Russian scheme to fruition. In a talk with the Wall Street Journal, senior Republican leader John McCain said the Kerry-Lavrov negotiations should not be given more than 48 to 72 hours to show results.
These can hardly be construed as very helpful signals, especially when it is considered that collating a schedule of chemical weapons factories and warehouses are not easy even in peacetime, and in Syria there is a full-scale war on. There is the added complexity that Mr Putin has opposed the idea of France (Washington’s only Western ally that is backing the idea of a military strike) moving a Security Council resolution that holds out the threat of military confrontation while the disarmament plan is being worked out. It is evident that negotiations between the great powers on such complex questions cannot be concluded rapidly, and that leaves the possibility of a “limited” American strike against Syria still wide open. Also, the current diplomatic activity leaves out the possibility of the Syrian regime’s opponents having used the chemical weapons. A messy situation, all things considered.
