The breaking news is the US and Russia have announced they have reached an agreement on the handover of Syrian chemical weapons to international authorities for transport out of the country and ultimate destruction according to a protocol and timeline as yet to be defined in technical detail but broadly defined in terms of major actions and deadlines.
This comes as welcome news around the world, particularly in the Mid-East region, but is also meeting with skepticism in may quarters particularly from the Syrian opposition who cast doubt on the intentions of Assad to comply with the agreement at all and accuse him of using it to buy time.
Also, given the complexity of the situation, which adds potential hazards to what is normally a dangerous and therefore deliberate and slow technical process, not to mention the political minefield that must be traversed, experts in the art as well as politics are expressing reasonable doubts why this operation could or will fail.
My gut reaction to this news as an avowed pacifist was initially relief the negotiations succeeded at least to the point of a working agreement, yet the more I read the more I share some of the doubts elaborated as well as having some fundamental doubts of my own.
I suggest you read the following stories linked below and then join me below the toxic orange gas cloud to consider this further.
The Story
The Guardian: Syria crisis: US and Russia agree chemical weapons deal
BBC: US and Russia agree Syria chemical weapons deal in Geneva
ADD WaPo: U.S., Russia reach agreement on seizure of Syrian chemical weapons arsenal
The Pratfalls
The Guardian: Geneva deal on Syria is welcome step but deeper divisions remain
BBC: Viewpoints: Can Russia’s chemical weapons plan for Syria work?
ADD 09.17 BBC Jonathan Marcus : Daunting task of destroying Syria's chemical weapons
The History
BBC: Why chemical weapons provoke outrage
Wikipedia: Geneva Protocol
Wikipedia: United States and weapons of mass destruction
Wikipedia: Russia and weapons of mass destruction
ADD BBC: Syria's chemical weapons stockpile
Nota Bene - A complete inventory of all Syrian chemical weapons and facilities are due in 7 days or punitive action is threatened by means of
Chapter VII of the UN Charter regarding
Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace and Acts of Aggression
The agreement as it stands requires several actions that, on face, seem difficult to impossible to accomplish in a civil war zone, including:
- Syria must provide a complete inventory of chemical weapons in 7 days (verses the months or years this has typically taken)
- UN forces must be on the ground in Syria to secure the weapons by November (from which countries and equipped how, we do not yet know)
- The weapons must be destroyed out of the country by the middle of 2014 (in, at best, 8 months from taking custody in November, including safe transport to another country or territory with facilities to destroy chemical weapons faster than they ever have been)
Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 8:15 AM PT:
Clarification: The (now published) agreement provides for the options to:
(a) preferably destroy the weapons and materials out of the country, or if not feasible;
(b) to destroy them in place or on the costal areas of Syria.
See State Department Press Release text for details.
- Even if Assad agrees to all of these conditions and cooperates more fully than skeptics suggest, the reality on the ground is all this must be done in the middle of a civil war including some parties with political interests to see this effort - and by extension Assad's government - fail, and would obviously have the opportunity, motivation (and now armed by the CIA) the means to disrupt these activities.
A reasonable person might ask "Is this doomed to fail?"
I find myself asking "Was this designed to fail?"
I do not necessarily mean to suggest that unrealistic terms were purposely constructed or forced upon the situation so they could not be met and force or provide cover for an invasion to dispose of Assad, although that is certainly possible and has been done before.
But I do conclude that, at the very least, the hard position and the aggressive posture taken by the USA is very much in evidence in the resulting agreement particularly in triggering Chapter VII sanctions, which would enable taking any infraction or failure to keep to the schedule, including by no fault of the Assad government, to the Security Council for a showdown, and Mr. Kerry's continued tough talk that the measures must be ".... swift and verifiable ..." puts his stink on the clause.
This might make sense in the context that one distrusts Assad's intentions and believes he is just buying time - and certainly that is another real possibility.
However, if we simply look at the facts of the situation, the complexity, difficulty and hazards of the tasks required, and the history of such work taking decades to complete, then one can realistically conclude the terms of this agreement are virtually impossible to meet.
For example, if we take reference to the linked Wikipedia articles on US and Russian WMDs and understand that after more than 30 years the US still has more than 5,000 [correction based on current BBC estimates now also linked above] 1,000 metic tons of chemical weapons in inventory waiting for destruction - approximately equal to the suspected stock held by Syria - and if we consider the time required to safely dismantle Chemical Weapons production facilities (decades again), then the agreement seems not worth the paper it was written on.
Normally, as such complex weapons agreements go, deadlines (much longer deadlines) are missed, extensions are granted and the decades fly blithely by as the very necessary precautions are taken to safely destroy these weapons.
This was known. This was ignored.
By negligence, by haste, by hubris or by design?
I wonder.
7:23 AM PT:
On the Daily Kos front page, offered without further comment:
Weekly Address: Obama sees progress, but says he remains willing to use force in Syria