Journalists Grope Blindly Around Syria CW Destruction Without Discovering Need for Ceasefire

Please support Marcy’s continued efforts to lead us through the weeds of obfuscation. The Emptywheel fundraiser is nearing its final push.

In my post yesterday morning on the French move to submit a United Nations Security Council resolution calling for Syria to surrender its chemical weapons to an international group for their safe destruction, I noted that this process naturally would require an immediate ceasefire. My underlying assumption was that the need for a ceasefire would be obvious to anyone giving the situation any thought.  Personnel will need to move freely about the country to find and log the materials that will need to be destroyed. These materials will need to be moved to central locations for incineration or chemical processing to render them safe. If the personnel and the dangerous materials they will be transporting are attacked indiscriminately, the risk of releasing huge quantities of very dangerous agents looms large and the very process of trying to prevent civilian deaths could instead to lead to widespread lethal exposure.

Sadly, as I noted in the post, the French proposal does not appear to include a call for a ceasefire. Now that Russia is opposing the proposed language (because it calls for Syria to admit it carried out the August 21 attack and it includes a mandate for military action if Syria does not comply with the resolution), the opportunity exists for a new proposal to add the concept of a ceasefire.

Even more sad, though, is how our two leading bastions of foreign policy journalism, the New York Times and Washington Post, addressed the issue of how the chemical stockpiles can be destroyed. Both noted how “difficult” the process will be during the ongoing hostilities, but neither managed to point out the necessity of a ceasefire.

Here is how the Times addressed the issue:

As difficult as it may be to reach a diplomatic solution to head off a United States strike on Syria, the details of enforcement are themselves complex and uncertain, people with experience monitoring weapons facilities said.

Syria would first have to provide specifics about all aspects of its chemical weapons program. But even that step would require negotiation to determine exactly what should be declared and whether certain systems would be covered, because many delivery systems for chemical weapons — including artillery, mortars and multiple-rocket launchers — can also fire conventional weapons.

Then, experts said, large numbers of foreign troops would almost certainly be needed to safeguard inspectors working in the midst of the civil war.

“We’re talking boots on the ground,” said one former United Nations weapons inspector from Iraq, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he still works in the field on contracts and did not want to hurt his chances of future employment. “We’re not talking about just putting someone at the gate. You have to have layers of security.”

Of course, many more “boots on the ground” are needed to protect the inspectors if there has not been a ceasefire negotiated and agreed to by both the Syrian government and the many factions of rebels fighting them. The Times even trots out the Pentagon estimate of how many troops would be required to secure the weapons in an invasion scenario:

A Pentagon study concluded that doing so would take more than 75,000 troops. That rough estimate has been questioned, but the official said it gave “a sense of the magnitude of the task.”

The Post does no better in its quest for just how the weapons could be secured and destroyed:

As diplomats wrangled over competing plans for securing Syria’s chemical weapons, arms-control experts warned Tuesday of the formidable challenges involved in carrying out such a complex and risky operation in the midst of a raging civil war.

U.N. teams dispatched to Syria for the mission would be attempting something new: finding and safeguarding a long-
hidden arsenal in a country that has long stood outside key international arms-control agreements — all while exposed to crossfire from Syria’s warring factions.

Poor Joby Warrick and his associates just can’t conceive of how the “crossfire” could end, even though the process of sending in the inspectors begins through UN negotiations.

Yes, there are many different factions on the “rebel” side in this conflict, but even brief investigation shows that many of them are actually proxies for several of the foreign powers that claim to have “interests” in Syria. A UN resolution that has at its heart a ceasefire would be a huge step toward showing that all of the various countries supporting militias in Syria intend to provide the opportunity for safe destruction of what could be the third largest repository of chemical weapons in the world. Although a truly international force of armed peacekeepers likely will be needed, sending them in without a ceasefire already negotiated would make the whole process of rounding up and destroying the chemical weapons a recipe for a humanitarian disaster of epic proportions.

Of course, a true optimist would note that a ceasefire would open the door to discussions to defuse political tensions within Syria while the process of destroying the chemical weapons is carried out. That would of course thwart those whose real objective is regime change in Syria through violent means but would perhaps create the opportunity for peaceful regime change. Is the world finally ready to give peace a chance after twelve years of unfocused rage?

image_print
12 replies
  1. OmAli says:

    Many citizens of the world (David Swanson is calling us ‘The Other Superpower’) are ready for peace, but it appears the governments and elites of USA, SA, Russia, Israel, Qatar, Iran and probably others are not. Otherwise why wouldn’t they all be demanding not only a ceasefire, but an immediate arms (and insurgent training by USA!USA!USA!) embargo?

    The Other Superpower needs to bring their employees to heel. These people work for us. They need to be reminded of it in no uncertain terms.

  2. Jim White says:

    @Cheryl Rofer: Thanks, Cheryl. I was beginning to think the world had gone mad if nobody else saw how important a ceasefire is. Now if only the folks writing the resolutions to be submitted to the UNSC will include the idea…

  3. Casual Observer says:

    They’re beginning to come around. http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/10/20423150-how-would-syrias-chemical-weapons-handover-work?lite

    Moving the weapons around Syria (they’re already aggregated, but some movement would have to happen, probably) would be terribly dangerous. Don’t see any other way though. Plus the diplomatic machinations in getting that started might lead to further good developments. We’re apparently in Russia’s debt.

  4. bell says:

    how is a cease fire going to happen when so many countries continue to add fuel to the fire? will these countries decide to stop throwing more fuel on it? i doubt it.. those countries are feeding this madness while thinking they can also appear to take the high road with diplomatic steps at getting rid of the chemical weapons.. the hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me. i don’t expect propaganda outlets like the nyt or wapo to ever address any of this either..

  5. jawbone says:

    Just out of curiosity, has the US destroyed all its chem warfare weapons?

    I seem to recall there were huge issues about shipping the stuff to get it to the destruction facilities.

    And…how about getting Israel to sign the CW agreement and get rid of its stockpiles and ingredients. While we’re at it….

  6. jawbone says:

    Heh. Search and I shall find: US hopes to finish destroying chem weapons by 2021!!!!

    https://twitter.com/AnupKaphle/statuses/377267701246214144

    <blockquoteThe U.S. started destroying its remaining chemical weapons stockpile in 1997, as soon as enough countries ratified the global Chemical Weapons Convention to put it into effect. By 2012 — when the U.S. was supposed to have finished destroying the chemical munitions, after one extension — it had destroyed only 89.75 percent of the 30,000 tons of chemical weapons it declared in 1997. Russia is still disposing of its 44,000 tons of declared chemical weapons, too.

    http://theweek.com/article/index/249353/destroying-syrias-chemical-weapons-is-harder-than-it-sounds

  7. Greg Bean (@GregLBean) says:

    Seems the Russian have rejected the US’s French poodle proposal and will present one of their own.

    Which the US/Israel will reject.

    I was listening to a segment on DemocracyNow, and was struck by the parallels to this incident. see http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2013/9/11/noam_chomsky_us_has_been_torturing_iran_for_60_years_since_1953_coup

    “Final question about Iran is: What can you do about the alleged threat? Well, there are things that can be done. So, for example, in 2010, there was a solution reached to the problem of Iranian nuclear programs. There was an agreement between Iran, Turkey and Brazil for Iran to ship its—all of its uranium resources to another country, to Turkey, for storage. It wouldn’t develop—enrich uranium further. And in return, the West would provide Iran with the isotopes it needs for its nuclear—for its medical reactors. OK, that was the deal. As soon as that deal was announced, it was bitterly condemned by President Obama, by the press, by Congress—harsh condemnations of Brazil, particularly, and Turkey for agreeing to this. And Obama quickly rushed through harsher sanctions. The Brazilian foreign minister was rather irritated by this, and he released to the press a letter from President Obama in which Obama had suggested exactly this program to Brazil. He obviously had suggested it on the assumption that Iran would never accept it, and then there would be another propaganda point. Well, Iran did accept it, so therefore Brazil had to be and Turkey had to be partially condemned, and threatened, in fact, for implementing the policy that Obama had suggested. That could be reinstituted, maybe—maybe some modification of that. That would be one way to approach it.

    There’s a much broader way. For years, since 1974—

    AMY GOODMAN: Noam, we have two minutes.

    NOAM CHOMSKY: Yeah. There has been a proposal since 1974 to establish a nuclear weapons-free zone in the region. That would be the best way to mitigate, maybe end, whatever threat Iran is alleged to pose. And that has enormous international support, such enormous support that the U.S. has been compelled to formally agree, but to add that it just can’t be done. That is a very live issue right now. Last December, there was to be a conference in Helsinki, Finland, an international conference to carry this proposal forward. Israel announced it would not attend. Iran announced early November that it would attend the conference, with no conditions. At that point, Obama called off the conference. No Helsinki conference. The reason that the U.S. gave was, verbatim almost, the Israeli reason: We cannot have a nuclear weapons agreement until there is a general regional peace settlement. And that’s not going to happen as long as the U.S. continues to block a diplomatic settlement in Israel-Palestine, as it’s been doing for 35 years. So that’s where we stand.”

    Solutions proposed by Obama/Kerry that are believed to be impossible are rejected by Obama/Kerry when they are shown to be quite possible.

Comments are closed.