Showing posts with label Syria. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Syria. Show all posts

Monday, January 5, 2015

Innocents Abroad

by MJ

On New Year’s Eve, a true story of “babes in the woods” appeared in the news: two sweet, innocent-looking, and very young Italian women, had disappeared into Darkest Syria, and had reappeared, as prisoners of the al-Nusra Front, humbled, eyes turned to the ground, wrapped-up in black shrouds.

It all started when Greta Ramelli and Vanessa Marzullo, 20 and 21-year-old university students, discovered Syria’s humanitarian crisis. They become involved in the plight of Syria’s children. They did all the right things, according to progressive standards: they signed petitions, they went to demonstrations, they added their little voices to those of the Free World press, crying out for “something” to be done.

Anybody who’s anybody agreed: “something” had to be done, and that “something” was for NATO to turn into the Free Syrian Army’s air force. The young ladies were interviewed, passionately wrapped in the FSA flag—three stars denotes “Free Syria”, as opposed to the cheaper Assad model, deserving only two stars.

Italy of course is where Syrians hope to land, after their families sell their homes to pay smugglers to send a son to Europe. A son, who should—insha’Allah—get as close as possible to Italy, before the smugglers push him overboard or before the unseaworthy boat sinks. Then, he might be able to send some money home and keep the entire family from starving. So, many Syrians come to Italy.

Greta and Vanessa marched; they spoke; they agitated; they were interviewed. They met Syrians with terrorist connections, they met Italians with connections to NATO and the Italian services. They were photographed at a demonstration, holding a sign praising a Syrian Islamist group. In another photo, an Ukrainian flag was seen in the background—the war on Russia has many fronts.

Vanessa, in June 2014, posted in praise of the military success of “Jabhat a-Nusra”. https://aurorasito.wordpress.com/taqfiri-ditalia/ A trip to Syria was planned; it was arranged that the two activists would cross into Syria from Turkey, with a reporter, Daniele Raineri.

Daniele Raineri, a reporter with access to Syria


On April 20, 2014, President François Hollande declared that Syria was still using chemical weapons: “We have a few elements of information but I do not have the proof.”http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10777059/Syria-Bashar-al-Assad-launching-chemical-weapons-attacks-with-chlorine.html

The Economist observed: “The use of chlorine gas is hard to prove. It is not banned under the CWC [Chemical Weapons Convention] and it does not linger, making the extraction of evidence from soil samples almost impossible.”http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21601260-deadlines-are-being-met-regime-still-cannot-be-trusted-getting-there


Nevertheless, on April 29, The Telegraph had a piece under the title “Syria chemical weapons: the proof that Assad regime [is] launching chlorine attacks on children.” The article explained that “chemical tests conducted with The Telegraph now confirm that chlorine gas and ammonia have been used in Idlib, and that the toxins came from barrels that were dropped from helicopters.”


That was an odd conclusion to reach, from some dirt in plastic baggies that an agent had brought to Turkey. How could the chemist tell whether that any unlikely eventual trace of chlorine in the baggies came from chlorine gas in Assad’s bombs, or from chlorine tablets stolen from Assad’s swimming pool?

Clearly, the international community needed a daring agent to travel on location. That was Daniele Raineri, who for years had reported from the Middle East, for the conservative business daily Il Foglio. Conversant with Islamist affairs, he tweets @DanieleRaineri. On May 11, 2014, he had a piece in The Telegraph, with the photograph of the chlorine bombs that President Hollande had been musing about. So, as far as the Free World press goes, the case was closed. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10820440/Found-the-bombs-that-delivered-Syrias-chlorine-gas.html


The OPCW


The Telegraph was pleased to report that the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) had confirmed that “Bashar al-Assad's regime made systematic use of chemical weapons against Syrian civilians.” Apparently, The Telegraph’s reporter had not read the one-page OPCW report in its entirety; what it said was that “a toxic chemical has been used repeatedly as a weapon in Syria.” http://www.opcw.org/news/article/opcw-fact-finding-mission-compelling-confirmation-that-chlorine-gas-used-as-weapon-in-syria/ However, the OPCW said that it “attempted to visit Kafr Zeta to gather on-site evidence in the aftermath of an alleged use there but was prevented from doing so when the convoy was attacked. The FFM [Fact Finding Mission] then decided to carry out witness interviews in a safe location outside of Syria.”

The OPCW report shows remarkable parallels with another intentionally non-conclusive report, on the MH-17 case, by the Dutch Safety Board (DSB): both DSB and the OPCW investigators said they were attacked, both seemed uninterested in finding out who had attacked them, both decided to go investigate the crime far from the scene of the crime, and both have not been heard from ever since.

The OPCW had been in the news in 2002, when its Director General, the Brasilian Jose Bustani, had been removed; he was negotiating an inspection regime in Iraq, a policy at odds with John Bolton’s plans for Iraq. The OPCW is now chaired by Turkey’s former ambassador to NATO.


The Foreign Office in London was pleased to offer the positive conclusions that had escaped the OPCW: "The systematic and repeated use of chlorine in northern Syria and the consistent reports from witnesses of the presence of helicopters at the times of the attacks leave little doubt as to the Assad regime's culpability.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11088205/Syria-chemical-weapons-watchdog-confirms-Telegraph-analysis-of-chlorine-gas-attacks-on-civilians.html

The bombs


Mr. Eliot Higgins, “an expert on the munitions used in the Syrian war said this new, low-intensity chemical warfare has not been improvised but carefully planned.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11088205/Syria-chemical-weapons-watchdog-confirms-Telegraph-analysis-of-chlorine-gas-attacks-on-civilians.html

Which brings us to the issue of cui bono? Why put very valuable helicopters and crews at risk, just to deliver “low intensity” ordnance, when rockets and artillery are available? Only a dozen people were killed in the chlorine gas attacks. Why insist on using such an ineffective weapon—after giving up the very effective nerve gas?


Most important, Raineri’s photographs show improvised munitions, of the type that had been used in Iraq, since 2006. http://www.ilfoglio.it/galleria/1606/2011/11/_*_7_*_/le-prove-degli-attacchi-al-cloro-raccolte-sul-campo-in-siria.htm Such bombs were made by adding a chlorine cylinder to a car bomb.


Yet, the good folks at Human Rights Watch decided they had all the evidence required to condemn Syria; they presented the photos of Raineri, adding that a “video shot on the western edge of Keferzita and uploaded to YouTube on April 11 shows the near vertical descent and detonation of an unidentified munition fully consistent with a barrel bomb dropped by helicopter.” http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/05/13/syria-strong-evidence-government-used-chemicals-weapon Oddly, I fail to see any falling object in the video. An Islamist website did propose a photo of a helicopter with two barrels hanging from it. http://muqawamah.com/560-bom-dijatuhkan-oleh-tentara-assad-di-seluruh-penjuru-aleppo-selama-bulan-mei-2014.html , but it was a pretty obvious photoshop project. http://www.francescosantoianni.it/wordpress/2014/10/01/lecumenica-bufala-cloro-assad-foglio-fatto-quotidiano/

HRW also cited witnesses of barrels from the sky. I do not find them sufficiently persuasive, since
a. no videotaped testimonies are presented;
b. in wartime, compliant false witnesses for God and Country are not hard to find;
c. in an area where dissidents are beheaded without trial, testimony loses value.

Yet, one simple “conspiracy theory “ can explain everything: when the stakes are high enough, political leaders are tempted to see their own citizens as expendable subjects. Perhaps “only for the sake of liberty and justice”, rulers may order false-flag operations. In recent history, decisions to value the end above the means have given us the Sarajevo breadline bombing, the Markale Market bombings, the 2013 sarin attacks, and in the 2014 chlorine attacks: all those events were just desperate pleas for the intercession of NATO’s angels.

A kidnapping by the "good guys"?


All the good work of Mr. Raineri was placed at risk by NATO leaders’ indecisiveness and by the U.S. military’s resistance. Now NATO’s fiery eye was turning away from Syria, and fixing itself upon Russia, once again.

Still, until the stunning success of ISIL in Iraq, there was some hope, some chance to see the U.S. Air Force in Syria’s sky, and Daniele Raineri was asked to shepherd two young women into the eye of the storm. Upon their return to Italy, the two young ladies would have qualified as an attractive, energetic, vocal FSA-Moderate Islamist propaganda team. They could speak, they wrote well, and their looks and styles made them stand out of the usual crowd at demonstrations; some saw them as the perfect “useful idiots”, ready to do the rounds of TV shows. They crossed the border on July 28.

They were still together on July 31, visiting the chief of the Revolutionary Council of El Ismo, near Aleppo, where the two women were detained; Raineri got away. http://www.lastampa.it/2014/08/09/esteri/italiane-rapite-in-siria-pistelli-sulle-tracce-di-chi-ha-preso-le-due-ragazze-1jN4Gr6MyYsrosyFFU8f8O/pagina.html On the road, they could have fallen into an ambush by chance; however, as guests of a militia leader, it would appear that they were sold, by a leader of the “moderate opposition”. Neither Raineri nor his paper have published details of the event.

As things stand now, we can be sure that we will not have any further information until the appropriate ransom is paid by the Italian government. The Italians will reject any adventurous raid to liberate the ladies. The record of Italy, from years of experience in the Iraq war, is clear: Italian prisoners are not abandoned.

Thursday, May 29, 2014

Russia gives 240 million Euros to Syria

The news agency Regnum has announced that Russia will give Syria 240 million Euros to help it pay for its social programs.  46 millions will be donated and the rest of the sum loaned.  This agreement was negotiated by Dmitri Rogozin during his recent trip to Syria.  The agreement will not require any additional spending for the Russian budget as both side have agreed to a "debt in exchange for financial assistance" deal settling the issue of the payments Syria owed Russia before the war began and which it could not pay.

The Saker

Friday, January 3, 2014

Beautiful documentary about young women in the Syrian NDF

Beautiful documentary about young women in the Syrian NDF:

Sunday, December 8, 2013

Is a Syrian "domino effect" being used in a power struggle in the US deep state?

written specially for the Asia Times

Following the ratification by all parties of the recent Joint Plan of Action between Iran and the P5+1 countries, it is worth looking again at the official narrative explaining this "sudden breakthrough".  It goes something like that:

"Iran was ruled by President Ahmadinejad, a notorious anti-Semite and Holocaust denier, who did everything in his power to deny the international community the monitoring rights it demanded and to keep the Iranian nuclear program unimpeded in its progress.  Then the people of Iran elected Hassan Rouhani, a moderate, who accepted the terms of the P5+1 countries and a deal was finally signed."

That is pretty much the official version.

Of course, every sentence in the above paragraph is absolute nonsense. 

The new President of Iran

Iran is not ruled by its President, but by its Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who selects the six of the twelve members of the Guardian Council which, in turn, vets all aspiring Presidential candidates before they can run for office and which also can veto any decision of the Iranian Parliament.  The Supreme Leader also appoints all the members of the Expediency Discernment Council which can resolve any disagreements between the Parliament and the Guardian Council.  Hassan Rouhani was appointed as a member of the Expediency Discernment Council by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his bid to run for President was also approved by the Guardian Council.  In other words, not only did Mahmoud Ahmadinejad never have the political authority to independently take any crucial political decisions, but his successor has the 100% approval of the Supreme Leader.  Thus, while there is a very clear difference in style between Ahmadinehad and Rouhani, it is ridiculous to suggest that the replacement of the former by the latter is the real cause of the "sudden" breakthrough in the negotiations between the P5+1 and Iran.  The fact is that Rouhani has the full support of the Supreme Leader and that his election, while not trivial, cannot be considered as a real change in Iranian policies, including nuclear ones.

P5+1?

The media speaks of the P5+1 as if it was a body formed of more or less equal partners taking decisions together.  This is also nonsense.  Who are the P5+1?  The five permanent members of the UNSC plus Germany:  China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States (P5) and Germany (+1; officially added for economic reasons).  P5+1 is really a misnomer as it should be called "1+1(+4)":  Those who matter - the USA and Russia - and those who don't China (which is happy to follow the Russian lead on this issue) France, the UK and Germany  (who will pretend to have an opinion but who will let the USA deal with the serious stuff).  And since Russia under Putin is a strong ally of Iran, this really only leaves the "Big One" i.e, the USA as the negotiating counterpart to Iran.

So why this "sudden" breakthrough in negotiations between the USA and Iran.  Could it be that the big change which made it possible did not occur in Iran but in the United States?

I have a different interpretation to offer.

It is my belief that it all began in September when, following a few dramatic days which almost saw a US attack on Syria,  Barak Obama had to accept "Putin's gambit": the US would not attack Syria in exchange for the full destruction of Syria's chemical weapons arsenal.  I believe that this absolutely tectonic reversal US foreign policy has now triggered what I would call a  "domino effect" which is still ongoing and which might result in  further unexpected changes in US foreign policy.

Let's look at this domino sequence of events one by one:

Domino 1: Barak Obama accepts Putin's gambit

Whether it was really Barak Obama himself or his puppeteers is really irrelevant here.  The President being the official Commander in Chief he is the person who had to announce that an agreement had been reached and that a US attack on Syria would be delayed/scrapped.  Let's set aside for a moment the exact reason(s) why the US took this decision (we will come back to this crucial issue later) and just say that this was a major change for the following reasons.

a) This meant that the US would have to delay and, in all likelihood, give up on its long-standing objective of "regime change" in Syria.
b) This also meant that the US would now have to negotiate with the Syrian government.
c) Since chemical weapons were completely irrelevant to the military dynamic on the ground and since US had committed not to strike government forces, this meant that the USA was essentially giving up on its plan to help the insurgency win the war.
d) This removed the last pretext(s) possible for the US to continue to stall and avoid a Geneva II conference.  From now on, the US had to get serious about Geneva II or lose it all.

Before this development the USA had two possible ways to deal with a Geneva II conference: to try to sabotage it or to try to use this opportunity to achieve something.  As soon as Obama accepted Putin's gambit only the second option remained.  Indeed, since regime change in Syria is clearly not an option any more, and since the US foreign policy in the Middle-East was predicated on regime change in Syria, the US now had to reconsider it all.  This meant that the best possible option for the US was  to try to use Geneva II to actually finally get something done.  However, there is one truism which the US diplomats had to take into account: no solution in Syria will ever be achieved unless Iran approves of it.  In other words, having accepted Putin's gambit, the US was not only committed to negotiations with the Syrians, but also with the Iranians.  This the real causes of the "sudden" breakthrough between the "P5+1 and Iran": the defeat of the US in Syria literally forced the White House to negotiate with Iran, at which point to continue to stonewall at the negotiations over Iran's nuclear program became counter-productive and, frankly, absurd.

Domino 2: the USA and Iran finally agree on the nuclear issue.

As I have written it many times in the past, nobody in the US (or elsewhere), really believes that the Iranians are secretly building a nuclear weapon right under the nose of IAEA inspectors (who are still working in Iran) while remaining a member in good standing of the NPT Treaty (no NTP member has ever developed nuclear weapons).  The real US objective has always been to prevent Iran from becoming a regional economic superpower and, if possible, to find a pretext to isolate and destabilize the Iranian regime.  By accepting to negotiate with Iran, the USA is not "making the world safe from nuclear-armed Mollahs" but accepting the reality that Iran is, and will remain, a regional superpower.  This is really what is at stake here, and all that talk about Iran nuking Israel in a "2nd Holocaust" is just a pious fig-leaf used to hide the real US policy objectives.  Now that the US had given up on the notion of attacking Syria it made no sense to continue to act as if an attack on Iran was still possible.  This left only two possible solutions: let the Iranians do whatever they want and appear to have failed to persuade Iran to take into consideration US objections, or actually find a mutually acceptable compromise which would be to the advantage of both sides.  The US, wisely, chose the second option.

So far, Dominos 1 and 2 have fallen, but let us take a look at what might be happening next if nothing stops the momentum generated by these two dominos.

Domino 3: the two big losers - Saudi Arabia and Israel

It is rather obvious that the Saudis and the Israelis have done literally everything in their power to prevent the fall of Dominoes 1 and 2 from happening and that they are now the big losers.  Both countries hate and fear Iran, both countries were deeply involved in the Syrian war and both countries appear to be outraged by the actions of the White House.   When all the signs indicated that a deal would be struck, the Saudis and the Israelis even sent their top decision-makers (Bandar and Netanyahu) not to Washington, but to Moscow in a (futile) attempt to prevent what they see as an absolute catastrophe from happening. 

Now that a deal has been reached, both Israel and the KSA are now showing all the signs of "loosing it" and are turning to crude forms of terrorism to lash out at their enemies: according to Hezollah, the Saudis are behind the bombing of the Iranian Embassy in Beirut while the Israelis are behind the murder of a Hezbollah commander, also in Beirut.  One can dismiss these Hezbollah accusations as politically motivated, but I personally find them very credible simply because they "fit the picture" perfectly (and Hezbollah does have an excellent record of making only truthful statements).  Whether one chooses to believe Hezbollah or not, nobody denies that there are now real and deep tensions between Israel and the KSA on one side and the USA on the other.  That would also explain the rather amazing "rapprochement" taking place between Israel and the KSA who now have a common problem (the USA) and lots of common enemies (first and foremost Iran, of course).

Considering the huge power of the Israel Lobby and the, more discrete but also very powerful, Saudi Lobby in the USA, it is by no means certain that the new KSA-Israeli alliance shall not eventually prevail over what I would call the "USA-firsters" (in contrast to "Israel-firsters").  I shall also come back to this topic later, but let us assume that the current US policies will not be revered and that the US will sign a long-term agreement with Iran in six months or so.  What could happen next?

Domino 4: goodbye US anti-missile "defense shield" in Europe?

Think about it: if the USA accepts the notion that Iran will not develop nuclear weapons, why insist on deploying an anti nuclear missile defense shield over Europe?  Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov has already clearly said that much and that is likely to remain a Russian policy position for the foreseeable future: now that the putative "threat" from Iran has been dealt with by means of negotiations - why should the US still deploy anti-missile systems in Europe?

Of course, the US could plow ahead with this project as if nothing had changed, but would it not be logical to at least talk to the Russians to see if some modifications could be made to the US anti-missile system which would satisfy the Russian side?  Having agreed to negotiate with Syria and Iran, would it not also make sense to seriously sit down with the Russians and find a mutually acceptable compromise?

After all,  Russia (backed by China, of course) can easily prevent any deal between the US and Iran (by a UNSC veto for example) and that would leave the USA is a very vulnerable negotiating position: to be in a great need of a deal with Iran while Iran would not feel equally interested in negotiating.  And, of course, a breakdown in negotiations between Iran and the USA on the nuclear issue would mean very bad news for the USA in Syria.  The fact is that the USA will desperately need Russian collaboration to hammer out a long term deal with Iran.  And that, in turn, will have major consequences for a host of other issues, including European foreign policy.

Domino 5: an end to the European "Drang nach Osten"?

Not since the days of Hitler has Europe been so hysterically anti-Russian as in the last decade.  Of course, some of that russophobia has been fed by US propaganda needs, but one quick look at the European press and will show anyone that the worst of this Russia-bashing really comes from Europe, especially the UK.  As for the EU and NATO, their offensive to towards the East is really reminiscent of Hitler's, the only difference is that it is pursued with different means.  Of course, West European revanchism is only part of the picture.  There is definitely a desire by many East Europeans to become "true Europeans" combined with a hope that a EU+NATO combination would protect them from Russia.  Nevermind that Russia is not in the least interested in invading them - most east Europeans are generically afraid of what they perceive as a resurgent superpower in the East.  And if getting the "protection" of NATO and the EU means accepting a semi-colonial status in the US empire - so be it.  Better to be a serf of the US empire than a serf in the Russian one.  That is an ideological position which cannot be challenged by facts or logic.  Most east Europeans probably understand that Russia has no interest in invading them, and most of them must be aware that joining the EU has been disastrous in economic terms for countries like Bulgaria or the Baltic States.  Frankly, most people don't care.  They look at German highways, French stores or Dutch airports and want to get a share of that wealth even if that is only a pipe-dream.

As for the west Europeans, they shamelessly feed that illusion, promising much and delivering nothing.  As for NATO, it continues to follow Hitler's example and attempts to push its influence into the Caucasus.  As a result, the EU+NATO offensive now spans a "front" from Estonia in the Baltic to Georgia in the Caucasus - an exact copy of Hitler's strategy for his war on Russia.

Hitler and his promised "1000 year Reich", of course, was defeated in only 12 years and the EU is not doing too well either.  In fact, it is facing a systemic crisis that it has no idea of how to tackle.

The modern Kulturträgers
I am not even referring to the so-called "PIGS" (Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain), but also to the supposedly "better off" nations of northern Europe.  Did you know that only 3 of the 17 nations of the Eurozone have a AAA credit rating or that while no fewer than seven of the world’s top rated nations are in Europe, most are either not in the Euro (Denmark, Sweden) or not in the EU at all (Norway, Switzerland)?  Anyone doubting the full magnitude of the social and economic crisis which has hit the Eurozone should read the report recently published by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies entitled "Think differently: humanitarian impacts of the economic crisis in Europe" (makes me wonder if anybody in the Ukraine has read this one!).  Europe is in a deep crisis and this begs the obvious question: can Europe really afford a new Cold War with Russia?  What about the US - does it need a new Cold War in Europe?  Isn't it about time to set aside this crazy Drang nach Osten and accept that a non-imperial Europe would have much more to gain from a partnership with Russia than from another Cold War?

Time will show whether this last domino will also fall.  What matters for our purposes here is not to accurately predict the future, but to look at the opportunities such a different future would offer.  Let's ask a key question: if all the dominoes above did fall, would the USA be better or worse off?  My personal reply is that the USA would be far better off, as would be Europe.  And if that is the case, one can wonder, did the US really stumble into a situation which triggered a domino effect or what this the plan all along?  Could it be that some forces of the USA have decided to use the failure of the US policy in Syria to trigger a much larger change?

A project of the "USA-firsters"?


As I have written in a recent article, I believe that the Presidency of Barak Obama has resulted in a shift of power in the US "deep state" which had the previously almighty Neocons pushed aside from the Executive Branch and replaced with what I call "old Anglo imperialists".  They could also be called "USA-firsters" (as opposed to "Israel-firsters").  As a rule, they are far more sophisticated actors than the Neocons.  Typically, the USA-firsters are better educated, more cautious in their discourse and methods and, unlike the Neocons, they can count on the support of patriotically-inclined Americans in the armed forces, State Department, CIA, and elsewhere.  Finally, they enjoy the big advantage over the Neocons in the fact that they have no need to hide their real agenda: in their foreign policy they care first and foremost about US national interests (internally, of course, both the USA-firsters and the Neocons are the prototypical "one percenters" whose real objective is to defend their class interests while keeping the remaining 99% in serf-like conditions).

So could it be that this "domino sequence" was deliberately initiated by Anglo USA-firsters who seized the opportunity to promote their agenda while pushing the Neocon Israel-firsters aside?

Let's look at "domino 1" again.

I think that there is a preponderance of evidence that Obama accepted Putin's gambit against a background of absolute chaos both in Syria and in the USA.  Iranian forces were covertly entering Syria to fight, a powerful  Russian naval task force was positioned right off the coast of Syria, the British Parliament had refused to support an attack on Syria, demonstrations were taking place all over the USA - and elsewhere - against an attack, and all the signs were that Congress would not approve a military operation.   It is hard to prove a negative, of course, but my sense is that the first domino fell pushed by all these factors and not a result of a deliberate change in US policies.

What about "domino 2" then?

In contrast to domino 1, there is strong evidence that domino 2 clearly "fell" as a direct result of a political decision made in Washington.   If we accept that the only change in the Presidency of Iran was mainly a cosmetic one, then we also have to agree that the USA deliberately decided to open negotiations with Iran.  Could it be that somebody in the White House or in the US deep state realized that the fall of "domino 1" presented real opportunities for the USA and the interests of the USA-firsters and decided to deliberately add momentum to  "domino 1" and also push "domino 2"?

I believe that the sequence of events in Syria and Iran does offer a fantastic opportunity for the USA to finally rid itself from the disastrous legacy of many years of Neocon rule (in my opinion from 1993-2009).  I should immediately stress that I am not saying that the Neocons are "out" as they still control the US corporate media and Congress with an iron hand.  I am only saying that I am detecting the signs of a major change in US foreign policy which appears to be breaking free from the "Wahabi-Zionist alliance" of the combined lobbies of Saudi Arabia and Israel.  Again, the fact that both Netanyahu and Bandar felt the need to travel to Moscow to stop Washington is absolutely unprecedented and amazing and I have to interpret that as a real sign of panic.

How far can the US really go?

A shift in the power equation inside the US does not mean regime change, far from it.  In most circumstances US politicians will continue to mantrically repeat "there is no light between the U.S. and Israel”, the constant verbal genuflection before everything Jewish, Israeli or Holocaust-related will continue and it is quite possible that the next Israeli Prime Minister to address Congress will also get more standing ovations than the US President.  However, it is also quite possible that between closed doors the Israelis and the Saudis will be told to "tone it down or else" and that the US support for these two regimes will become contingent of them not doing anything crazy (such as attacking Iran).

Let's look again at dominos 4 and 5 (basically, a stop in anti-Russian policies) from a non-Zionist and non-Wahabi point of view:  would the USA gain or lose from such a development?  It could lose some money if the European missile defense "shield" was scrapped, but the Russians are offering two alternative solutions: either let the Russian military become full partner in this system (thereby removing the threat to Russia) or move the entire system to western Europe away from the Russian borders (thereby also removing the threat to Russia).  Since the Russian asymmetrical response (special forces, relocation of launchers, special missiles) will defeat the proposed system anyway - why not accept either one of the Russian offers?

Politically, such an agreement would open the doors for far more important collaborative opportunities (in Central Asia and the Middle-East) and it would remove the USA from the "collision course with the rest of the planet" it has been on since 9/11.

Clearly, a deal with Russia would be very beneficial for the USA.

What about Palestine?

Here, unfortunately, I have to remain as pessimistic as ever.  As so many times in their history, the Palestinians have again committed something of a "strategic suicide" when they decided to support the anti-Assad forces in Syria.  Just as with Saddam, the Palestinians are yet again with the losing side and, which is even worse, their only halfway decent resistance movement - Hamas - has now been taken over by Saudi interests which basically puts them under Israeli control no less than Fatah.  The last "real" resistance movement in Palestine is now the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, but it is comparatively small and weak and cannot be a partner in any real negotiations with the USA and Israel.  In this context, it is likely the Israelis will simply impose whatever "solution" they want on the ground without having to negotiate with any Palestinians at all.  This is very sad and this did not have to be, but the Palestinians really did it to themselves and they only have themselves to blame now.

Bottom line: no domino effect in Palestine.

Conclusion: a real window of opportunity

The future is by no means certain and the Israel-firsters and their Saudi allies have many options to reverse this process (just imagine Hillary as President!!).  And yet it is also possible that the USA might shift away from the disastrous course it has been following for the past two decades and return to a more traditional, pragmatic, foreign policy: it will remain an imperial power with global imperialist goals, but at least it will be driven by pragmatic - if cynical - considerations and not foreign ideological interests.  In contrast to what the USA has been doing for the past two decades, it is possible that the developments in the Middle-East will convince the USA that negotiations and compromise are more effective foreign policy tools than threat and military actions.

Historically, Republicans have had a comparatively better foreign policy record than the Democrats and senile psychopaths like McCain are not typical of Republican leaders.  In contrast, US Democrats have often provided the most ideological and arrogant leaders and the very real possibility of Hillary running for the Presidency is a frightening indicator that what appears to be the current phase of pragmatism might be short lived.  The good news is that both parties have an opportunity to seize the moment and nominate halfway sane candidates for the next Presidential election.  Of course, if what we end up with is a Sarah Palin - Hillary Clinton race all bets are off and the world will be in for some very, very bad times.  But if the USA-firsters can give the boot to the Israel-firsters currently controlling the key positions inside both parties (folks in the model of Rahm Israel Emanuel) then there is a real possibility that the US could break free from its current subservience to Zionist and Wahabi interests and resume a more pragmatic, reasonable, foreign policy.

Do these USA-firsters really exist?  Honestly, I don't know.  I hope that they do and I want to believe that the fact that the fall of the Syrian domino was followed so soon by the fall of the Iranian domino might be a sign that somebody inside the US deep state has decided to use this opportunity to try finally rid the USA from the foreign interests which have literally hijacked the country. 

If after six month a permanent deal is agreed upon and signed by the P5+1 and Iran and if more or less at the same time the US begins serious negotiations with Russia such a scenario will become credible.  At this point, it is too early to tell. 

The Saker

Saturday, September 28, 2013

Security Council requires Scheduled Destruction of Syria’s Chemical Weapons, Unanimously Adopting Resolution 2118 (2013)

Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York

Security Council requires Scheduled Destruction of Syria’s Chemical Weapons,


Unanimously Adopting Resolution 2118 (2013)


Deeply outraged by the use of chemical weapons on 21 August in a Damascus suburb, as concluded by a United Nations investigation team, the Security Council this evening endorsed the expeditious destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons programme, with inspections to begin by 1 October, and agreed that in the event of non-compliance, it would impose “Chapter VII” measures.


Unanimously adopting resolution 2118 (2013) in a fast-breaking evening meeting, the Council determined that the use of chemical weapons anywhere constituted a threat to international peace and security, and called for the full implementation of the 27 September decision of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which contains special procedures for the expeditious and verifiable destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons.


Specifically, the Council prohibited Syria from using, developing, producing, otherwise acquiring, stockpiling or retaining chemical weapons, or transferring them to other States or non-State actors, and underscored also that no party in Syria should use, develop, produce, acquire, stockpile, retain or transfer such weapons.


Also by the text, Syria should comply with all aspects of the OPCW decision, notably by accepting personnel designated by OPCW or the United Nations and providing them with immediate and unfettered access to — and the right to inspect — any and all chemical weapons sites.


Further, the Council decided to regularly review Syria’s implementation of the OPCW Executive Council decision and the present resolution, requesting the OPCW Director-General, through the Secretary-General, to report to it within 30 days and every month thereafter.  Fully endorsing the Geneva Communiqué of 30 June 2012, the Council called for the convening, as soon as possible, of an international conference on Syria to implement that Communiqué.


United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon hailed the resolution’s passage as “the first hopeful news on Syria in a long time”, but said, even amid that important step, “we must never forget that the catalogue of horrors in Syria continues with bombs and tanks, grenades and guns”.  He said the plan to eliminate Syria’s chemical weapons was “not a license to kill with conventional weapons”.


Stressing that the perpetrators of the chemical attacks in Syria must be brought to justice, he said a United Nations mission had returned to complete its fact-finding investigation.  The team would conclude its work next week and he would promptly transmit a report to all Member States.


He pressed the Council to capitalize on its new-found unity by focusing on two other equally crucial dimensions of the conflict:  the dire humanitarian situation and the political crisis.  For their parts, the Syrian sides must engage constructively towards the creation of a democratic State, while regional actors must challenge those who sought to undermine that process.


In the debate that followed, Council members praised the text for placing binding obligations on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, requiring it to get rid of its “tools of terror”.  United States Secretary of State John Kerry said that that regime bore the burden of meeting the terms of the resolution.


At the same time, Sergey Lavrov, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, emphasized that the responsibility for implementing the resolution did not lay with Syria alone.  The text had not been passed under the Charter's Chapter VII, nor did it allow for coercive measures.  It contained requirements for all countries, especially Syria's neighbours, which must report on moves by non-State actors to secure chemical weapons.


Also speaking in today’s debate were the Foreign Ministers of the United Kingdom, Luxembourg, France, Azerbaijan, Republic of Korea, China, Guatemala, Morocco and Argentina, as well as the Adviser to the Prime Minister on National Security and Foreign Affairs of Pakistan.


The representatives of Rwanda, Togo and Australia also spoke.


The meeting began at 8:15 p.m. and ended at 9:45 p.m.


Background


The Security Council met this evening to consider the situation in Syria.


Statements


Describing the resolution just adopted as "historic" and "the first hopeful news on Syria in a long time", United Nations Secretary-General BAN KI-MOON said the international community had given a firm and united response.


Stating that the perpetrators of the chemical attacks in Syria must be brought to justice, he said a United Nations mission had returned to complete its investigation.  The team would conclude its fact-finding activities next week and the Secretary-General would promptly transmit a report to all Member States.


Welcoming Syria's accession to the Chemical Weapons Convention, he said the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) established ambitious but realistic deadlines for the verified elimination of the programme.


The resolution would ensure that the elimination of the Syrian chemical weapons programme happened as soon as possible and with the utmost transparency, he said, stressing that the cooperation of the Syrian Government and opposition forces would be crucial.


Declaring that a red light for one form of weapons did not mean a green light for others, he said that all violence must end and all guns must fall silent.  “We must capitalize on the new-found unity of the Council by focusing on the two other equally crucial dimension of the conflict:  the dire humanitarian situation and the political crisis,” he urged.


The text, he noted, also called for an international conference on Syria, which both the Government and the opposition had said they would attend.  He said the conference was aimed for mid-November.


No one was naïve to the challenges of ending the conflict peacefully, he said.  The Syrian sides must engage constructively towards the creation of a democratic State, while the regional actors must challenge those who actively sought to undermine the process and who did not respect Syria’s sovereignty.


As for the Security Council members, he said that, individually and collectively, they had a key role in ushering the Geneva process forward towards a lasting peaceful solution.


SERGEY LAVROV, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, said the resolution was in keeping with the Russian-American agreement.  The lead role in the coming work lay with OPCW, which, along with the United Nations experts, would act impartially in Syria in full respect of its sovereignty.  He expected the Secretary-General and the OPCW Director-General to closely cooperate in that work.  He also expected that the Secretary-General's recommendations would cover the safety of international personnel.


Noting that Damascus had shown its readiness for cooperation by joining the Chemical Weapons Convention, he said that was a precondition for success.  It also had provided a list of its chemical weapons arsenal.  Damascus would continue to cooperate with international inspectors.  The responsibility for implementing the resolution did not lay only with Syria.  He emphasized that the text had not been passed under the Charter's Chapter VII, nor did it allow coercive measures.  Violations of its requirements and use of chemical weapons by anyone must be carefully investigated.  The United Nations would stand ready to take action under the Charter's Chapter VII.  Violations must be 100 per cent proven.


The resolution contained requirements for all countries, he said, especially Syria's neighbours, which must report on moves by non-State actors to secure chemical weapons.  All such situations should be considered immediately by the Security Council, as that would help create a zone free of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery means.  The resolution set up a framework for the political settlement of the conflict by backing the convening of an international conference, which he believed could take place as early as mid-November.  He also expected the Syrian opposition to state its readiness.  The Russian Federation would participate in implementing the chemical disarmament programme and in preparing for the Geneva II conference.


JOHN KERRY, Secretary of State of the United States, said today's strong, "precedent-setting" resolution had shown that diplomacy could be so powerful, it could peacefully defuse the worst weapons of war.  The text stated that chemical weapons use threatened international peace and security — at any time, under any circumstances.  With a single voice, for the first time, binding obligations had been placed on the Assad regime, requiring that it get rid of its tools of terror.  The text reflected what the Presidents of the Russian Federation and the United States had set out to do, and more; it sought to eliminate a country's chemical weapons ability.


He went on to say that those weapons would be destroyed by mid-2014.  The resolution also made clear that those responsible for their use must be held accountable.  The Council had endorsed the Geneva Communiqué, and it had adopted a legally binding resolution that spelled out in detail what Syria must do to comply with it.  It could not accept or reject the inspectors, but must give unfettered access at all sites.  “We are here because actions have consequences,” he said.


Progress would be reported to the Council, he said, stressing that non-compliance would lead to the imposition of Chapter VII actions.  The Council had shown that “when we put aside politics for the common good, we are still capable of great things”.  The Assad regime carried the burden of meeting the terms of the resolution; the world carried the burden of doing what it must to end mass killing by other means — working with the same cooperation that had brought States here today.  Countries also must provide humanitarian aid.  Only then would the world have fulfilled its duty.


WILLIAM HAGUE, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of the United Kingdom, said today's "groundbreaking” text, the first on Syria in 17 months, recognized that any use of chemical weapons posed a threat to international peace and security, thereby establishing an important international norm.  It upheld the principle of accountability for the proven use of those weapons, enforced legally binding obligations on Syria to comply with OPCW, and it endorsed the 2012 Geneva Communiqué.  If properly implemented, the resolution would prevent a repeat of atrocities carried out on 21 August.


He said the United Kingdom was making a $3 million commitment to the OPCW Syria trust fund and urged all States in a position to do so to contribute likewise.  It was vital that the Council build on today's consensus to progress towards sustainable resolution of the Syrian crisis, first, by achieving a negotiated political transition, with a transitional body formed on the basis of mutual consent.  He urged increased efforts to alleviate the humanitarian crisis, for which the United Kingdom, thus far, had provided $800 million.  The Council must apply its weight to secure unfettered access to those in need in Syria.  With that, he urged redoubled determination to work through the Geneva II process and secure a better future for Syria.


JEAN ASSELBORN, Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Luxembourg, said the resolution contained robust and legally binding obligations, with which Syria must fully comply.  One of the most significant chemical weapons programmes had been addressed through peaceful means.  Recounting the horrific images emerging from that country, he said it was important that those never be reproduced.  “For the first time, the Security Council has determined chemical weapons use is a threat to international peace.”


Urging the Syrian Government to respect the aspirations of all Syrians, he called upon all parties to take advantage of the positive dynamics, adding that  any delay would lead to more death and more destruction.  The world could not forget the humanitarian catastrophe in Syria and its neighbours.  In that connection, he urged Syria to grant free and unfettered access and lift bureaucratic obstacles.  “Time has come to refer the perpetrators to the International Criminal Court,” he declared.


LAURENT FABIUS, Minister for Foreign Affairs of France, said “tonight, in the midst of the Syrian crisis, the Security Council can finally live up to its name”.  The use of chemical weapons was obvious; all clues pointed to the regime.  No one in good faith could deny that fact.  The present resolution met France’s three requirements:  it determined that the use of chemical weapons constituted a threat to international peace and security; clearly stated that those responsible for such crimes must be held accountable; and decided that, in the event of non-compliance by the Syrian regime, the Council would take action under Chapter VII of the Charter.  The resolution was only a first step; now it must be implemented.  The Syrian regime, which until recently had denied possessing chemical weapons, could not be trusted.  The United Nations and OPCW should immediately deploy their joint mission; the timetable set forth in the present text must be enforced.


He added that “the cooperation of Syria must be unconditional, and fully transparent”.  The Council, which would be informed regularly, would be the judge of Syria’s commitment, and would impose measures under Chapter VII, if necessary.  France would remain “watchful”.  It wanted to capitalize on the Council’s unity to advance the political process and felt it was necessary to prepare the Geneva II conference within the framework of the Geneva Communiqué.  He had chaired a meeting on Thursday with the President of the Syrian National Coalition, who confirmed a readiness to send a delegation as soon as possible.  The Syrian regime’s supporters must make a similar commitment.  He urged the Secretary-General and his Special Envoy to move quickly in that direction. 


ELMAR MAHARRAM OGLU MAMMADYAROV, Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan, welcomed the resolution and expressed hope that it would help to end the crisis.  He said it was important that the Security Council stressed the need to hold accountable the perpetrators of the chemical attacks in Syria.  Welcoming the American-Russian accord on Syria and the OPCW role, he said it was critical to ensure compliance, adding that tonight’s resolution had made careful provisions for that.  All parties should cease the violence, he said, and seek a political solution to the conflict.


YUN BYUNG-SE, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Korea, said the resolution showed the Council's unity on the Syrian crisis, fulfilling its overdue responsibility to the Syrian people.  Condemning the use of chemical weapons in the strongest possible terms, he reiterated that all such weapons should be eliminated — in Syria and everywhere.  Today's text made it clear that chemical weapons use anywhere was a threat to international peace and security.  Only its full implementation would determine the value of the collective enterprise.  Its binding nature showed the Council's resolve to eliminate chemical weapons in Syria, and the international community bore responsibility for promoting its implementation.  The world could not afford acts of impunity, and, as such, the Council must ensure that those responsible for chemical weapons use were held accountable.  He hoped an international conference would be held as soon as possible.


WANG YI, Foreign Minister of China, said that neither Syria nor the region could afford another war.  The Security Council and the international community must make decisions that would pass the judgement of history.  Stating his opposition to military solutions, he welcomed the resolution's focus on the search for the chemical weapons.  China, itself, had been a victim of chemical weapons during the Second World War, and the country opposed those weapons in all forms.  He called for a comprehensive and accurate settlement of the issue of chemical weapons in Syria, and urged the international community to also step up efforts to deal with the humanitarian crisis there.  The political solution and the destruction of chemical weapons must go side by side, he said, adding that the parties in Syria must redouble efforts in what would be a complex period ahead.


FERNANDO CARRERA, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Guatemala, welcomed the rejection of the use of chemical weapons in Syria by the Russian Federation and the United States and the subsequent 14 September framework agreement.  Today’s Council decision was “highly significant”, as it helped renew efforts to end the violence, address the humanitarian situation and meet the Syrian people’s demands.  Towards that end, Guatemala had persistently backed the 30 June 2012 Final Communiqué of the Action Group for Syria and the need to hold an international conference to facilitate its implementation.  Adoption of the present text, which Guatemala had co-sponsored, was of vital importance, considering that the last resolution on Syria had been adopted in April 2012.  He understood the sensitivity of the issue and the urgency it demanded, and for that reason, had joined the consensus, despite having preferred a greater role in its development.


He recognized the importance of cooperation between the United Nations and OPCW, particularly in terms of personnel access and safety, operational support, privileges and immunities, and sufficient funding to carry out their duties.  He trusted that a date could be set soon for the Geneva II Conference, and added that a transitional Syrian Government with full executive powers could be set up under the mutual consent of all parties.  Such a Government must be inclusive.  He expressed hope for a ceasefire in the short term.


SARTAJ AZIZ, Adviser to the Prime Minister of Pakistan on National Security and Foreign Affairs, said the resolution was a landmark text, which demonstrated the Security Council’s leadership.  Its unanimous adoption meant the international community had taken ownership of the process of eliminating Syria’s chemical weapons programme.  He hoped the new-found unity in the Council would be maintained, and added that the 15-member body would have difficult waters to navigate.  A political settlement was the only way forward, including to mitigate the humanitarian crisis.  The announcement of the convening of Geneva II reflected the urgency of the problem, he said, adding that the international community should proceed with a sense of purpose.  Although it was too late for more than 100,000 Syrians, there was hope for millions of others.


SAAD-EDDINE EL OTHMANI, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Cooperation of Morocco, said "at last" the Council had been able to agree on an important resolution on the Syrian situation that reflected a genuine will to end the conflict.  He appreciated efforts made by the “P-5” towards a solution that would find, destroy and ensure that chemical weapons were never used again.  The League of Arab States also had led initiatives on the Syrian situation and the use of chemical weapons.  Today’s historic text outlined steps for dealing with chemical weapons, in line with the United States-Russian Federation agreement.  For the first time, it recognized chemical weapons were a threat to international peace and security.  That would help to prevent a repeat of recent massacres, eliminating one of the Middle East's largest chemical weapons arsenals in a peaceful manner.  Morocco hoped a date would soon be set for the holding of the Geneva II Conference.  Syria’s humanitarian situation was a catastrophe and every effort must be made to support United Nations agencies to help in that regard.  Syria's neighbours were also suffering.


HÉCTOR MARCOS TIMERMAN, Foreign Minister of Argentina, noting that the unfolding “horror show” was neither isolated nor unpredictable.  Nevertheless, a door had been opened to a solution.  The world saw the pettiness of the geopolitical interests at play, which had prompted ethical outrage in the international community.  There was no leeway for double standards, he said, adding that those using chemical weapons must not go unpunished.  The multilateral regime established by the United Nations Charter must be the basis for the lasting peace.  The resolution established a specific mechanism for the elimination of chemical weapons in Syria on the basis of the United States-Russian Federation accord, and it also contained elements discussed in the Council, which had prompted Argentina to co-sponsor it.  He called for greater efforts to address the other dimensions of the conflict and said the Council must remain seized of the matter.


EUGÈNE-RICHARD GASANA ( Rwanda) said that, as the world prepared for the twentieth anniversary of the killing of Tutsis in his country, the conscience of the international community had been stained by the ongoing conflict in Syria, now in its thirteenth month.  “We said ‘never again’ in Rwanda”; yet ethnic cleansing and other horrors had occurred in many corners of the world.  The Council had not been able to save more than 100,000 people in Syria, due to divisions among certain members.  The 21 August attack had led to the loss of innocent lives.


He welcomed the Council's decision to impose coercive measures under the Charter’s Chapter VII, should Syrian authorities not comply with today's text.  He was pleased it called for the revival of the Geneva process.  A military solution was not viable for that country or for the region.  He urged the Council — especially the “P-5” countries that had influence on Syrian parties — to implement the Geneva Communiqué as soon as possible.  Any political solution should ensure that those who had committed crimes were held accountable.


KODJO MENAN ( Togo), welcoming the resolution’s adoption, said the spirit of compromise had eventually prevailed.  The Russian-American framework laid the groundwork for the text, he said, adding that, by co-sponsoring it, Togo not only had demonstrated its desire to see the elimination of Syria’s chemical weapons, but also of all weapons of mass destruction.  The Security Council must step up efforts for a radiant future for Syria through the Geneva II Conference, he said, adding that the unity demonstrated in the Council must be used to bring together all parties in Syria for a political solution.  The Council also must pay attention to the terrorist violence committed in that country, he said, adding that an inclusive and multi-faith Syria would bring unity and conciliation.


GARY QUINLAN ( Australia) expressed hope that today's text would mark a turning point in the Council's approach to Syria, showing that the body could use its authority to help achieve a stable and secure future for Syrians.  For the first time, the Council had made clear that chemical weapons use was a threat to international peace and security, strengthening a fundamental norm of international relations:  that the use of those weapons was abhorrent and breached international law.


He said that the text imposed legally binding obligations on Syria to secure and destroy its chemical weapons, and place them and related materials under international supervision.  The Council decided that non-compliance by Syria would result in Chapter VII consequences.  Importantly, the Council reaffirmed that the perpetrators of that mass atrocity crimes must be held accountable.  Australia believed that available data showed that the Syrian authorities were responsible for chemical weapons use and that the Council should refer the situation to the International Criminal Court.  Also, for the first time, the Council endorsed the Geneva Communiqué.  It must now address humanitarian crisis more decisively.


Resolution


The full text of Security Council resolution 2118 (2013) reads as follows:


The Security Council,


Recalling the Statements of its President of 3 August 2011, 21 March 2012, 5 April 2012, and its resolutions 1540 (2004), 2042 (2012) and 2043 (2012),


Reaffirming its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic,


Reaffirming that the proliferation of chemical weapons, as well as their means of delivery, constitutes a threat to international peace and security,


Recalling that the Syrian Arab Republic on 22 November 1968 acceded to the Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925,


Noting that on 14 September 2013, the Syrian Arab Republic deposited with the Secretary-General its instrument of accession to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction (Convention) and declared that it shall comply with its stipulations and observe them faithfully and sincerely, applying the Convention provisionally pending its entry into force for the Syrian Arab Republic,


Welcoming the establishment by the Secretary-General of the United Nations Mission to Investigate Allegations of the Use of Chemical Weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic (the Mission) pursuant to General Assembly resolution 42/37 C (1987) of 30 November 1987, and reaffirmed by resolution 620 (1988) of 26 August 1988, and expressing appreciation for the work of the Mission,


Acknowledging the report of 16 September 2013 (S/2013/553) by the Mission, underscoring the need for the Mission to fulfil its mandate, and emphasizing that future credible allegations of chemical weapons use in the Syrian Arab Republic should be investigated,


Deeply outraged by the use of chemical weapons on 21 August 2013 in Rif Damascus, as concluded in the Mission’s report, condemning the killing of civilians that resulted from it, affirming that the use of chemical weapons constitutes a serious violation of international law, and stressing that those responsible for any use of chemical weapons must be held accountable,


Recalling the obligation under resolution 1540 (2004) that all States shall refrain from providing any form of support to non-State actors that attempt to develop, acquire, manufacture, possess, transport, transfer or use weapons of mass destruction, including chemical weapons and their means of delivery,


Welcoming the Framework for Elimination of Syrian Chemical Weapons dated 14 September 2013, in Geneva, between the Russian Federation and the United States of America (S/2013/565), with a view to ensuring the destruction of the Syrian Arab Republic’s chemical weapons programme in the soonest and safest manner, and expressing its commitment to the immediate international control over chemical weapons and their components in the Syrian Arab Republic,


Welcoming the decision of the Executive Council of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) of 27 September 2013 establishing special procedures for the expeditious destruction of the Syrian Arab Republic’s chemical weapons programme and stringent verification thereof, and expressing its determination to ensure the destruction of the Syrian Arab Republic’s chemical weapons program according to the timetable contained in the OPCW Executive Council decision of 27 September 2013,


Stressing that the only solution to the current crisis in the Syrian Arab Republic is through an inclusive and Syrian-led political process based on the Geneva Communiqué of 30 June 2012, and emphasising the need to convene the international conference on Syria as soon as possible,


Determining that the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic constitutes a threat to international peace and security,


Underscoring that Member States are obligated under Article 25 of the Charter of the United Nations to accept and carry out the Council's decisions,


“1.   Determines that the use of chemical weapons anywhere constitutes a threat to international peace and security;


“2.   Condemns in the strongest terms any use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic, in particular the attack on 21 August 2013, in violation of international law;


“3.   Endorses the decision of the OPCW Executive Council 27 September 2013, which contains special procedures for the expeditious destruction of the Syrian Arab Republic’s chemical weapons programme and stringent verification thereof and calls for its full implementation in the most expedient and safest manner;


“4.   Decides that the Syrian Arab Republic shall not use, develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile or retain chemical weapons, or transfer, directly or indirectly, chemical weapons to other States or non-State actors;


“5.   Underscores that no party in Syria should use, develop, produce, acquire, stockpile, retain, or transfer chemical weapons;


“6.   Decides that the Syrian Arab Republic shall comply with all aspects of the decision of the OPCW Executive Council of 27 September 2013 (Annex I);


“7.   Decides that the Syrian Arab Republic shall cooperate fully with the OPCW and the United Nations, including by complying with their relevant recommendations, by accepting personnel designated by the OPCW or the United Nations, by providing for and ensuring the security of activities undertaken by these personnel, by providing these personnel with immediate and unfettered access to and the right to inspect, in discharging their functions, any and all sites, and by allowing immediate and unfettered access to individuals that the OPCW has grounds to believe to be of importance for the purpose of its mandate, and decides that all parties in Syria shall cooperate fully in this regard;


“8.   Decides to authorize an advance team of United Nations personnel to provide early assistance to OPCW activities in Syria, requests the Director-General of the OPCW and the Secretary-General to closely cooperate in the implementation of the Executive Council decision of 27 September 2013 and this resolution, including through their operational activities on the ground, and further requests the Secretary-General, in consultation with the Director-General of the OPCW and, where appropriate, the Director-General of the World Health Organization, to submit to the Council within 10 days of the adoption of this resolution recommendations regarding the role of the United Nations in eliminating the Syrian Arab Republic’s chemical weapons program;


“9.   Notes that the Syrian Arab Republic is a party to the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, decides that OPCW-designated personnel undertaking activities provided for in this resolution or the decision of the OPCW Executive Council of 27 September 2013 shall enjoy the privileges and immunities contained in the Verification Annex, Part II(B) of the Chemical Weapons Convention, and calls on the Syrian Arab Republic to conclude modalities agreements with the United Nations and the OPCW;


“10.  Encourages Member States to provide support, including personnel, technical expertise, information, equipment, and financial and other resources and assistance, in coordination with the Director-General of the OPCW and the Secretary-General, to enable the OPCW and the United Nations to implement the elimination of the Syrian Arab Republic’s chemical weapons programme, and decides to authorize Member States to acquire, control, transport, transfer and destroy chemical weapons identified by the Director-General of the OPCW, consistent with the objective of the Chemical Weapons Convention, to ensure the elimination of the Syrian Arab Republic’s chemical weapons programme in the soonest and safest manner;


“11.  Urges all Syrian parties and interested Member States with relevant capabilities to work closely together and with the OPCW and the United Nations to arrange for the security of the monitoring and destruction mission, recognizing the primary responsibility of the Syrian Government in this regard;


“12.  Decides to review on a regular basis the implementation in the Syrian Arab Republic of the decision of the OPCW Executive Council of 27 September 2013 and this resolution, and requests the Director-General of the OPCW to report to the Security Council, through the Secretary-General, who shall include relevant information on United Nations activities related to the implementation of this resolution, within 30 days and every month thereafter, and requests further the Director-General of the OPCW and the Secretary-General to report in a coordinated manner, as needed, to the Security Council, non-compliance with this resolution or the OPCW Executive Council decision of 27 September 2013;


“13.  Reaffirms its readiness to consider promptly any reports of the OPCW under Article VIII of the Chemical Weapons Convention, which provides for the referral of cases of non-compliance to the United Nations Security Council;


“14.  Decides that Member States shall inform immediately the Security Council of any violation of resolution 1540(2004), including acquisition by non-State actors of chemical weapons, their means of delivery and related materials in order to take necessary measures therefore;


“15.  Expresses its strong conviction that those individuals responsible for the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic should be held accountable;


“16.  Endorses fully the Geneva Communiqué of 30 June 2012 (Annex II), which sets out a number of key steps beginning with the establishment of a transitional governing body exercising full executive powers, which could include members of the present Government and the opposition and other groups and shall be formed on the basis of mutual consent;


“17.  Calls for the convening, as soon as possible, of an international conference on Syria to implement the Geneva Communiqué, and calls upon all Syrian parties to engage seriously and constructively at the Geneva Conference on Syria, and underscores that they should be fully representative of the Syrian people and committed to the implementation of the Geneva Communiqué and to the achievement of stability and reconciliation;


“18. Reaffirms that all Member States shall refrain from providing any form of support to non-State actors that attempt to develop, acquire, manufacture, possess, transport, transfer or use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and their means of delivery, and calls upon all Member States, in particular Member States neighbouring the Syrian Arab Republic, to report any violations of this paragraph to the Security Council immediately;


“19.  Demands that non-State actors not develop, acquire, manufacture, possess, transport, transfer or use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and their means of delivery, and calls upon all Member States, in particular Member States neighbouring the Syrian Arab Republic, to report any actions inconsistent with this paragraph to the Security Council immediately;




“21.  Decides, in the event of non-compliance with this resolution, including unauthorized transfer of chemical weapons, or any use of chemical weapons by anyone in the Syrian Arab Republic, to impose measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter;


“22.  Decides to remain actively seized of the matter.


Annex I


OPCW Executive Council Decision


Decision on destruction of Syrian chemical weapons


“The Executive Council,


“Recalling that following its thirty-second Meeting, 27 March 2013, the Chairperson of the Executive Council (hereinafter “the Council”) issued a statement (EC-M-32/2/Rev.1, dated 27 March 2013) expressing “deep concern that chemical weapons may have been used in the Syrian Arab Republic”, and underlining that “the use of chemical weapons by anyone under any circumstances would be reprehensible and completely contrary to the legal norms and standards of the international community”;


“Recalling also that the third Review Conference (RC-3/3*, 19 April 2013) expressed “deep concern that chemical weapons may have been used in the Syrian Arab Republic and underlined that use of chemical weapons by anyone under any circumstances would be reprehensible and completely contrary to the legal norms and standards of the international community”;


“Noting the “Report on the Alleged Use of Chemical Weapons in the Ghouta area of Damascus on 21 August 2013,” (S/2013/553, dated 16 September 2013) prepared by the United Nations Mission to Investigate Allegations of the Use of Chemical Weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic, dated 16 September 2013, which concludes that “chemical weapons have been used in the ongoing conflict between the parties in the Syrian Arab Republic, also against civilians, including children, on a relatively large scale”;


“Condemning in the strongest possible terms the use of chemical weapons;


“Welcoming the Framework for Elimination of Syrian Chemical Weapons agreed upon by the United States and the Russian Federation on 14 September 2013
(EC-M-33/NAT.1, dated 17 September 2013);


“Noting also that on 12 September 2013, in its communication to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the Syrian Arab Republic notified its intention to apply the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling, and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction (hereinafter “the Convention”) provisionally;


“Noting further that on 14 September 2013, the Syrian Arab Republic deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations its instrument of accession to the Convention and declared that it shall comply with its stipulations and observe them faithfully and sincerely, applying the Convention provisionally pending its entry into force for the Syrian Arab Republic, which was notified to all States Parties by the depositary on the same date (C.N.592.2013.TREATIES-XXVI.3), and taking into account that the depositary received no communications to the contrary from the States Parties with regard to this declaration;


“Noting further that the Convention enters into force for the Syrian Arab Republic on 14 October 2013;


“Recognizing the extraordinary character of the situation posed by Syrian chemical weapons and determined to ensure that the activities necessary for the destruction of the Syrian chemical weapons programme start immediately pending the formal entry into force of the Convention with respect to the Syrian Arab Republic, and are conducted in the most rapid and safe manner;


“Recognizing also the invitation of the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic to receive immediately a technical delegation from the OPCW and to cooperate with the OPCW in accordance with the provisional application of the Convention prior to its entry into force for the Syrian Arab Republic, and noting the designation by the Syrian Arab Republic to the Technical Secretariat (hereinafter “the Secretariat”) of its National Authority;


“Emphasising that the provisional application of the Convention gives immediate effect to its provisions with respect to the Syrian Arab Republic;


“Noting further that the Syrian Arab Republic submitted on 19 September 2013 the detailed information, including names, types and quantities of its chemical weapons agents, types of munitions and location and form of storage, production, and research and development facilities;


“Noting further that pursuant to paragraph 36 of Article VIII of the Convention, the Council, following its consideration of doubts or concerns regarding compliance and cases of non-compliance, shall, in cases of particular gravity and urgency, bring the issue or matter, including relevant information and conclusions, directly to the attention of the United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Security Council;


“Taking into account the Agreement Concerning the Relationship between the United Nations and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons of 17 October 2000;


“Strongly urging all remaining States not Party to the Convention to ratify or accede to it as a matter of urgency and without preconditions, in the interests of enhancing their own national security, as well as contributing to global peace and security; and


“Recalling that, pursuant to paragraph 8 of Article IV and paragraph 10 of Article V of the Convention, a State acceding to the Convention after 2007 shall destroy its chemical weapons and its chemical weapons production facilities as soon as possible, and the Council shall determine the “order of destruction and procedures for stringent verification” of such destruction;


“Hereby:


“1.   Decides that the Syrian Arab Republic shall:


(a)   not later than 7 days after the adoption of this decision, submit to the Secretariat further information, to supplement that provided on 19 September 2013, on the chemical weapons as defined in paragraph1 of Article II of the Convention that the Syrian Arab Republic owns or possesses, or has under its jurisdiction or control, in particular:


(i)   the chemical name and military designator of each chemical in its chemical weapons stockpile, including precursors and toxins, and quantities thereof;


(ii)  the specific type of munitions, sub-munitions and devices in its chemical weapons stockpile, including specific quantities of each type that are filled and unfilled; and


(iii)the location of all of its chemical weapons, chemical weapons storage facilities, chemical weapons production facilities, including mixing and filling facilities and chemical weapons research and development facilities, providing specific geographic coordinates;


(b)   not later than 30 days after the adoption of this decision, submit to the Secretariat the declaration required by Article III of the Convention;


(c)   complete the elimination of all chemical weapons material and equipment in the first half of 2014, subject to the detailed requirements, including intermediate destruction milestones, to be decided by the Council not later than 15 November 2013;


(d)   complete as soon as possible and in any case not later than 1 November 2013, the destruction of chemical weapons production and mixing/filling equipment;


(e)   cooperate fully with all aspects of the implementation of this decision, including by providing the OPCW personnel with the immediate and unfettered right to inspect any and all sites in the Syrian Arab Republic;


(f)   designate an official as the main point of contact for the Secretariat and provide him or her with the authority necessary to ensure that this decision is fully implemented.


“2.   Decides further that the Secretariat shall:


(a)   make available to all States Parties, within five days of its receipt, any information or declaration referred to in this decision, which shall be handled in accordance with the Annex to the Convention on the Protection of Confidential Information;


(b)   as soon as possible and in any case not later than 1 October 2013, initiate inspections in the Syrian Arab Republic pursuant to this decision;


(c)   inspect not later than 30 days after the adoption of this decision, all facilities contained in the list referred to in paragraph 1 (a) above;


(d)   inspect as soon as possible any other site identified by a State Party as having been involved in the Syrian chemical weapons programme, unless deemed unwarranted by the Director-General, or the matter resolved through the process of consultations and cooperation;


(e)   be authorized to hire, on a short-term basis, qualified inspectors and other technical experts and to rehire, on a short-term basis, inspectors, other technical experts and such other personnel as may be required whose term of service has recently expired, in order to ensure efficient and effective implementation of this decision in accordance with paragraph 44 of Article VIII of the Convention; and


(f)   report to the Council on a monthly basis on implementation of this decision including progress achieved by the Syrian Arab Republic in meeting the requirements of this decision and the Convention, activities carried out by the Secretariat with respect to the Syrian Arab Republic and its needs for any supplementary resources, particularly technical and personnel resources.


“3.   Decides further:


(a)   to consider, on an urgent basis, the funding mechanisms for activities carried out by the Secretariat with respect to the Syrian Arab Republic, and to call upon all States Parties in a position to do so to provide voluntary contributions for activities carried out in the implementation of this decision;


(b)   to meet within 24 hours if the Director-General reports delay by the Syrian Arab Republic in meeting the requirements of this decision or the Convention, including, inter alia, the cases referred to in paragraph 7 of Part II of the Annex to the Convention on Implementation and Verification, or a lack of cooperation in the Syrian Arab Republic or another problem that has arisen with regard to the implementation of this decision and at that meeting to consider whether to bring the matter, including relevant information and conclusions, to the attention of the United Nations Security Council in accordance with paragraph 36 of Article VIII of the Convention;


(c)   to remain seized of the matter; and


(d)   to recognize that this decision is made due to the extraordinary character of the situation posed by Syrian chemical weapons and does not create any precedent for the future.


Annex II


Action Group for Syria Final Communiqué


30 June 2012


“1.   On 30 June 2012, the Secretaries-General of the United Nations and the League of Arab States, the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the United States of America, Turkey, Iraq (Chair of the Summit of the League of Arab States), Kuwait (Chair of the Council of Foreign Ministers of the League of Arab States) and Qatar (Chair of the Arab Follow-up Committee on Syria of the League of Arab States) and the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy met at the United Nations Office at Geneva as the Action Group for Syria, chaired by the Joint Special Envoy of the United Nations and the League of Arab States to Syria.


“2.   The members of the Action Group came together out of grave alarm at the situation in the Syrian Arab Republic.  They strongly condemn the continued and escalating killing, destruction and human rights abuses.  They are deeply concerned at the failure to protect civilians, the intensification of the violence, the potential for even deeper conflict in the country and the regional dimensions of the problem.  The unacceptable nature and magnitude of the crisis demands a common position and joint international action.


“3.   The members of the Action Group are committed to the sovereignty, independence, national unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic.  They are determined to work urgently and intensively to bring about an end to the violence and human rights abuses, and to facilitate the launch of a Syrian-led political process leading to a transition that meets the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people and enables them independently and democratically to determine their own future.


“4.   In order to secure these common objectives, the members of the Action Group (a) identified steps and measures by the parties to secure the full implementation of the six-point plan and Security Council resolutions 2042 (2012) and 2043 (2012), including an immediate cessation of violence in all its forms; (b) agreed on principles and guidelines for a political transition that meets the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people; and (c) agreed on actions that they would take to implement the objectives in support of the Joint Special Envoy’s efforts to facilitate a Syrian-led political process.  They are convinced that this can encourage and support progress on the ground and will help to facilitate and support a Syrian-led transition.


Identified steps and measures by the parties to secure the full implementation of the six-point plan and Security Council resolutions 2042 (2012) and 2043 (2012), including an immediate cessation of violence in all its forms


“5.   The parties must fully implement the six-point plan and Security Council resolutions 2042 (2012) and 2043 (2012). To that end:


(a)   All parties must recommit to a sustained cessation of armed violence in all its forms and to the implementation of the six-point plan immediately and without waiting for the actions of others. The Government and armed opposition groups must cooperate with the United Nations Supervision Mission in the Syrian Arab Republic (UNSMIS), with a view to furthering the implementation of the plan in accordance with the Mission’s mandate;


(b)   A cessation of armed violence must be sustained, with immediate, credible and visible actions by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic to implement the other items of the six-point plan, including:


(i)   Intensification of the pace and scale of release of arbitrarily detained persons, including especially vulnerable categories of persons, and persons involved in peaceful political activities; the provision, without delay and through appropriate channels, of a list of all places in which such persons are being detained; the immediate organization of access to such locations; and the provision, through appropriate channels, of prompt responses to all written requests for information, access or release regarding such persons;


(ii)  Ensuring freedom of movement throughout the country for journalists and a non-discriminatory visa policy for them;


(iii)Respecting freedom of association and the right to demonstrate peacefully, as legally guaranteed;


(c)   In all circumstances, all parties must show full respect for the safety and security of UNSMIS and fully cooperate with and facilitate the Mission in all respects;


(d)   In all circumstances, the Government must allow immediate and full humanitarian access by humanitarian organizations to all areas affected by the fighting. The Government and all parties must enable the evacuation of the wounded, and all civilians who wish to leave must be enabled to do so.  All parties must fully adhere to their obligations under international law, including in relation to the protection of civilians.


Agreed principles and guidelines for a Syrian-led transition


“6.   The members of the Action Group agreed on the principles and guidelines for a Syrian-led transition set out below.


“7.   Any political settlement must deliver to the people of the Syrian Arab Republic a transition that:


(a)   Offers a perspective for the future that can be shared by all in the Syrian Arab Republic;


(b)   Establishes clear steps according to a firm timetable towards the realization of that perspective;


(c)   Can be implemented in a climate of safety for all and of stability and calm;


(d)   Is reached rapidly without further bloodshed and violence and is credible.


“8.   Perspective for the future.  The aspirations of the people of the Syrian Arab Republic have been clearly expressed by the wide range of Syrians consulted.  There is an overwhelming wish for a State that:


(a)   Is genuinely democratic and pluralistic, giving space to established and newly emerging political actors to compete fairly and equally in elections.  This also means that the commitment to multiparty democracy must be a lasting one, going beyond an initial round of elections;


(b)   Complies with international standards on human rights, the independence of the judiciary, accountability of those in Government and the rule of law.  It is not enough just to enunciate such a commitment.  There must be mechanisms available to the people to ensure that these commitments are kept by those in authority;


(c)   Offers equal opportunities and chances for all.  There is no room for sectarianism or discrimination on ethnic, religious, linguistic or any other grounds.  Numerically smaller communities must be assured that their rights will be respected.


“9.   Clear steps in the transition.  The conflict in the Syrian Arab Republic will end only when all sides are assured that there is a peaceful way towards a common future for all in the country.  It is therefore essential that any settlement provide for clear and irreversible steps in the transition according to a fixed time frame.  The key steps in any transition include:


(a)   The establishment of a transitional governing body that can establish a neutral environment in which the transition can take place, with the transitional governing body exercising full executive powers.  It could include members of the present Government and the opposition and other groups and shall be formed on the basis of mutual consent;


(b)   It is for the Syrian people to determine the future of the country.  All groups and segments of society in the Syrian Arab Republic must be enabled to participate in a national dialogue process.  That process must be not only inclusive but also meaningful.  In other words, its key outcomes must be implemented;


(c)   On that basis, there can be a review of the constitutional order and the legal system.  The result of constitutional drafting would be subject to popular approval;


(d)   Upon establishment of the new constitutional order, it will be necessary to prepare for and conduct free and fair multiparty elections for the new institutions and offices that have been established;


(e)   Women must be fully represented in all aspects of the transition.


“10.  Safety, stability and calm.  Any transition involves change. However, it is essential to ensure that the transition can be implemented in a way that ensures the safety of all in an atmosphere of stability and calm.  This requires:


(a)   Consolidation of full calm and stability.  All parties must cooperate with the transitional governing body to ensure the permanent cessation of violence.  This includes completion of withdrawals and addressing the issue of the disarmament, demobilization and reintegration of armed groups;


(b)   Effective steps to ensure that vulnerable groups are protected and that immediate action is taken to address humanitarian issues in areas of need.  It is also necessary to ensure that the release of the detained is completed rapidly;


(c)   Continuity of governmental institutions and qualified staff.  Public services must be preserved or restored.  This includes the military forces and security services.  However, all governmental institutions, including the intelligence services, have to perform according to human rights and professional standards and operate under a leadership that inspires public confidence, under the control of the transitional governing body;


(d)   Commitment to accountability and national reconciliation.  Accountability for acts committed during the present conflict must be addressed.  There also needs to be a comprehensive package for transitional justice, including compensation or rehabilitation for victims of the present conflict, steps towards national reconciliation and forgiveness.


“11.  Rapid steps to come to a credible political agreement.  It is for the people of the Syrian Arab Republic to come to a political agreement, but time is running out.  It is clear that:


(a)   The sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic must be respected;


(b)   The conflict must be resolved through peaceful dialogue and negotiation alone. Conditions conducive to a political settlement must now be put in place;


(c)   There must be an end to the bloodshed.  All parties must recommit themselves credibly to the six-point plan.  This must include a cessation of armed violence in all its forms and immediate, credible and visible actions to implement points 2 to 6 of the six-point plan;


(d)   All parties must now engage genuinely with the Joint Special Envoy.  The parties must be prepared to put forward effective interlocutors to work expeditiously towards a Syrian-led settlement that meets the legitimate aspirations of the people.  The process must be fully inclusive in order to ensure that the views of all segments of Syrian society are heard in shaping the political settlement for the transition;


(e)   The organized international community, including the members of the Action Group, stands ready to offer significant support for the implementation of an agreement reached by the parties.  This may include an international assistance presence under a United Nations mandate if requested.  Significant funds will be available to support reconstruction and rehabilitation.


Agreed actions


“12.  Agreed actions that the members of the Group will take to implement the above in support of the Joint Special Envoy’s efforts to facilitate a Syrian-led political process are as follows:


(a)   Action Group members will engage as appropriate, and apply joint and sustained pressure on, the parties in the Syrian Arab Republic to take the steps and measures outlined in paragraph 5 above;


(b)   Action Group members are opposed to any further militarization of the conflict;


(c)   Action Group members emphasize to the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic the importance of the appointment of an effective empowered interlocutor, when requested by the Joint Special Envoy to do so, to work on the basis of the six point plan and the present communiqué;


(d)   Action Group members urge the opposition to increase cohesion and to be in a position to ensure effective representative interlocutors to work on the basis of the six-point plan and the present communiqué;


(e)   Action Group members will give full support to the Joint Special Envoy and his team as they immediately engage the Government and the opposition, and will consult widely with Syrian society, as well as other international actors, to further develop the way forward;


(f)   Action Group members would welcome the further convening by the Joint Special Envoy of a meeting of the Action Group, should he deem it necessary to review the concrete progress taken on all points agreed in the present communiqué and to determine what further and additional steps and actions are needed from the Action Group to address the crisis. The Joint Special Envoy will also keep the United Nations and the League of Arab States informed.”

source: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2013/sc11135.doc.htm