Associated Press
reports that talks are underway on U.N. resolution addressing Syria's chemical weapons, but as you might have suspected, there are some pretty hefty disagreements among the participants.
Tense negotiations have begun on a proposed U.N. resolution that would put Syria's chemical weapons under international control and end a diplomatic stalemate over a deadly suspected poison gas attack, a French official said Wednesday.
The plan for Syria to relinquish its chemical weapons, initiated by Russia, appeared to ease the crisis over looming Western strikes against President Bashar Assad's regime in Damascus, only to open up new potential for impasse as Moscow rejected U.S. and French demands for a binding U.N. resolution with "very severe consequences" for non-compliance.
According to the French official, Russia's went beyond questions of enforceability, but also to the question of whether the Syrian government should be held accountable for the August 21 chemical weapons attacks:
The French official close to the president, who spoke on condition of anonymity because negotiations remained sensitive, said Russia objected not only to making the resolution militarily enforceable, but also to blaming the alleged Aug. 21 chemical attack on the Syrian government and demanding that those responsible be taken before an international criminal court.
Nonetheless, the question of enforceability—and specifically whether or not a resolution would cite U.N. Chapter 7 which would authorize the use of nonmilitary and military force to enforce it—is at the center of the disagreement. Russia says it would oppose including any language referencing Chapter 7, but the U.S. says any diplomatic solution must have an enforcement mechanism.
Meanwhile, if talks fall through and the U.S. launches a military strike against Syria, Russia is sending signals that it would respond to an attack by increasing aide to Iran and being less cooperative in Afghanistan:
Alexei Pushkov, a Kremlin-connected senior Russian lawmaker, said that Russia could expand arms sales to Iran and revise terms of U.S. military transit to Afghanistan if Washington launches a strike on Syria.
If that's not enough to underscore just how complicated the situation is, the AP article quotes Russia's ambassador to France suggesting that Syrian rebels have chemical weapons and are as likely to use them as the Syrian government, so that a resolution must address "both sides" instead of just the Syrian government. And in an apparent step back from yesterday's assertions by Syria's foreign minister that Syria would sign the chemical weapons ban treaty and relinquish control of its stockpiles, a Syrian cabinet official said that Syria wasn't offering to move its chemical weapons or relinquish control of them, but rather to allow "international supervision."
All that being said, the one thing everybody says they agree on is that they would like a solution that does not include a U.S. military strike on Syria—and as long as diplomacy continues, the prospect for such a solution remains alive.
Email your member of the House of Representatives, letting him or her know your opinion about a military strike on Syria—whatever your opinion may be.