This morning Secretary of State John Kerry announced that the U.S. and Russia have reached agreement on resolution of the Syrian chemical weapons problem. Under the agreement, Syria must turn over an accounting of its chemical weapons within a week, inspectors will arrive in Syria in November and begin to seize and destroy the weapons, and the destruction is to be completed by mid-2014. The agreement will be “backed by a U.N. Security Council resolution that could allow for sanctions or other consequences if Syria fails to comply.”
With the agreement, the United States has backed away from President Obama’s “red line” that use of chemical weapons would produce immediate military consequences. It’s been an awkward retreat, as I’ve pointed out in prior postings, but it recognizes reality — there simply is no international appetite for joint military action, and there is enormous opposition, both domestically and internationally, to the United States taking unilateral action. I was opposed to the United States taking unilateral action, so I am glad that the Obama Administration ultimately came to its senses. The use of chemical weapons in Syria is an international problem, not an American one, and the international community, collectively, should deal with it.
There are a lot of questions about this agreement, of course. Our past experience with international weapons inspectors — in North Korea, Iran, and elsewhere — isn’t exactly cause for supreme confidence in their ability to handle the destructive ambitions of rogue states. How in the world do international inspectors find and safely destroy chemical weapons stores in the midst of a raging civil war? How does anyone trust the Assad regime, which denied having chemical weapons until a week ago, to honestly identify and produce all of its chemical weapons caches? And we can’t lose sight of the fact that this agreement does nothing to end the suffering of the Syrian people who are trapped in the middle of a bloody fight among a regime that wants to hold onto power at all costs and a gaggle of “rebels” that undoubtedly include al Qaeda terrorists.
There’s another very interesting aspect to the agreement announced today. It was negotiated by only two parties — the United States and Russia. Syria was not part of the talks, nor were China, or France, or Great Britain, or other members of the UN Security Council, or the Arab League. Apparently Russia is expected to deliver the agreement and cooperation of the Syrians, as if Syria is a kind of vassal state, and the U.S. is expected to bring the rest of the Security Council into line. It reminded me of the bipartite, Cold War world I grew up in, where the U.S. and the Soviet Union led the two competing factions in the world and met occasionally at summit meetings to resolve international problems. It’s odd to see this apparent return to those days. I wonder how China and the other states in our increasingly diverse world feel about that?