Destroying Syria’s chemical weapons: Who wins, who loses?

At a roundtable discussion this past weekend in the Aegean town where Herodotus was born, history-making events, on the scale of those he recorded, provoked sharp debate. At its annual roundtable in Bodrum, the Istanbul-based Edam Centre for Economics and Foreign Policy Studies had invited me to co-lead a discussion on Syria. While I addressed the regional and global implications of the chemical weapons (CW) destruction plan, Al Arabiya’s senior roving correspondent, Rima Maktabi, spoke about the destruction of the country and the ongoing tragedy engulfing the Syrian people.

Looking at it from a non-proliferation perspective, I noted the extraordinarily positive developments of the past month: Putin pulled a rabbit out of his hat in getting Bashar al-Assad to agree to give up his chemical weapons, the United States and Russia quickly hammered out an inspection and elimination plan, the Security Council unanimously endorsed it, Assad’s initial declaration was more thorough than expected and destruction began a week ago with the full cooperation of the Syrian government.

There are huge hurdles ahead, given the tightly compressed timetable, the hostile environment and the untrustworthy partner. Like Saddam Hussein, Assad can be expected to cheat the inspectors, and like Muammar Qaddafi, he may well try to keep some CW stocks hidden for a rainy day. But so far, the destruction process is off to a very good start.

The OPCW

By happy coincidence, I was addressing the CW topic the day after Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan temporarily fell to second place among world-famous Turkish personalities. The top honor now is accorded to Ahmet Uzumcu, head of the Nobel Peace Prize-winning Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). Having toiled in relative obscurity to make the use and possession of chemical weapons an international taboo, the 14-year-old organization deserved the recognition. But as with U.S. president Barack Obama’s Nobel Prize five years ago, selection of the OPCW for the honor was more in anticipation of good deeds to come. By June 30, 2014, Syria’s chemical weapons are to be no more.

At the Bodrum roundtable, the Saturday morning debate centered on what’s in it for Syria. One anguished participant decried the Nobel selection for the way it moved the focus off the plight of the Syrian people. The CW destruction plan and Obama’s failure to intervene sent a strong message, one Turkish participant said, that it is ok for tyrants to kill their own people, as long as they don’t do so with sarin gas. I disagreed, but I acknowledged that Assad’s forces have used conventional weapons to kill maybe 100 times the number that was slaughtered with chemical weapons.

Channeling the plaintive questions she hears from some Syrians, Maktabi said some Syrians and Arabs in the region think Obama shouldn’t have set red lines he didn’t intend to enforce, and shouldn’t have raised expectations for support of rebels that would not be honored.

Those are tough questions, but I pushed back. Training rebels created options, and setting the red line against CW use was the first step in what became a successful employment of coercive diplomacy. If it works – and granted, there are many reasons to be skeptical – the benefits will be far-reaching. Moscow, Tehran and Damascus will not be the only beneficiaries. Obama will get a much-needed foreign-policy victory and humanity will be better off as chemical weapons gradually cease to exist. I delve into this more in an article in the next edition of Survival. Giving diplomacy a chance over the CW issue may also enhance prospects for the diplomacy aimed at ending the Syrian civil war.
This article was first published in the IISS blog on Oct. 15, 2013.


This article was first published in the IISS blog on Oct. 15, 2013.

__________________________

Mark Fitzpatrick directs the IISS Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Program. Mr. Fitzpatrick's research focus includes nuclear proliferation concerns and preventing nuclear danger in the emerging ‘nuclear renaissance’. He is the author of The Iranian Nuclear Crisis: Avoiding worst-case outcomes (IISS Adelphi Paper 398, 200 and has written articles on non-proliferation in the Financial Times, International Herald Tribune, Survival, and other publications.

Zaman AlWsl

 

Amjad Salem, et al,

I'm not sure the Syrians have framed a question.

(COMMENT)

Reasonableness:

The US never wins when it intervenes in Arab Affairs. It certainly has nothing to gain from intervening in Syria, and everything to loose.

• If the US intervenes on the side of the Rebels, then it will be alleged that it supported terrorist like al-Qaeda.
  • If the Rebels win, then there will invariably be a follow-on struggle between rebel factions for control.
• If the US intervenes on the side of the Government, then it will be alleged that it supported Baathist and Hezbollah Terrorists, and a dictatorship.
  • If the government wins, then there will be another wave of anti-Americanism for not supporting the right of self-determination.

There is no reasonable expectation that in either set of outcomes that a democracy will emerge.​

National Security Interest

Can anyone articulate what the national security of the United States is to gain by intervention?

• What is the national security threat to the US in the status quo?
• What is the difference in US national security if the Syrian Government wins?
• What is the difference in US national security if the Rebels win and the Radical Baathist, Hezbollah or al-Qaeda become influential in the government?

​

The US needs to stay as far away from the issues in Syria as it can. No one in the Middle East wants to see another US military intervention.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

I agree US - i.e. the American citizen has nothing to gain by intervention in ME affairs , Washington - your federal Govt 's ME policies are to serve their Zionists Israeli pay masters.

""Every time anyone says that Israel is our only friend in the Middle East, I can't help but think that before Israel, we had no enemies in the Middle East." -- John Sheehan, S.J.



Every time you vote for any of the two cheeks of the same Ars-hole Party Demo-Gops - your voting for a Party controlled by/in the pay of - AIPAC

...
...​

 

Pro Islamists allways find a route to enter Zionists into threads ... even if the subject is " Destroying Syria’s chemical weapons"
Give us a break and stop the Muslim propaganda.
Our day is bad enough after reading that "Muhhamed" is the most common name in London .. Blahhhhh

 

Marlowe, et al,

For a moment I thought I misspoke. I had to go back an reread what said.

(COMMENT)

Let's see:

Yes, I think I said "Arab Affairs;" as opposed to "Middle East affairs."

While it is true that the US has taken a tremendous amount of flak as a result of supporting the preservation of the Jewish National Home, there is are a number of US National Interest arguments that can be made for such support (security wise, economically, commercially, and politically) that can not be made for Syria.

As far as the Middle East in general, the lack of a coherent US policy is rooted in the complexion and self-destructive trends in the various cultures which is ever changing; as well as the general defiance Arab Nations generally display in regards to international civility.

But let me make it clear: No matter who wins --- in the case of Syria, there is no reasonable expectation that the US would be favorably viewed by the general "Arab Population;" even if we just intervened and wiped-out the Assad Regime. Which we could do, but will not. I think that the US has learn some very valuable lessons in the Arab World concerning the nature of the Arab. And we don't need AIPAC to tell us what they are. The Arab reputation is well understood; first hand in many cases.

But this is all really a discussion for another thread.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

I have never ever believed in that Obama has set red line on Syrian domestic war ...
.
US doesnt care how many innocent people slaughtered by a tyranny. It is also not important for USA whether they killed by chemical weapons or conventional weapons or how many iSyrian civilian killed by Asad Regime....

As I have told US has no Red Lines on humanity,never had.....

According to American view The only important things are

1-)Security of Israel
2-)Petro-dollars

On Syrian case US has given up to intervene the war in Syria ıt is only becuse they got what they want:It was the chemical weapons which can threat Israel's security.... but not Syrian civilians....
and that's all..Red Lines of US suddenly disapeeared cos they have never existed..

When US petro-dollar interests required, in seconds, US will decide to intervene any country in the Middle East without asking permission or cooperation of Russia.......just like in Libya and in Iraq....

When it comes to give an answer to the question who won who lost?

United Nations lost
Humanity lost
Humankind lost....

From now on United Nation is just poor puppet organization which encourages tyrannies to kill more civilians.....

 

What a silly quote. I know of no nation in the ME that is an 'Enemy' of the US.

 

OMG - What a -- . -- comment -

Looks like you've got reading/comprehension problems

Read the quote again , and see if you can find any mention of the word - "NATION" ?

...

 

I suspect that the Syrian civil war will drag on for the next three years.

The Arab Spring has been one of those disasters that no one could predict the outcome... One could only hope for the best.... and try to stand back.

They don't want democracy.. They don't want Sharia law.. They don't want religious tolerance.

 

Marlowe, et al,

I guess this is subjective.

(OBSERVATION)

(COMMENT)

Sometimes you have to look at it in reverse. Who is our ally?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

HUH ?

Please explain - What has the Hamas quote got to do with my post #3 and #8 ?

....

 

"en·e·my (n-m)
n. pl. en·e·mies
1. One who feels hatred toward"

Oh I see, some people in the ME don't like the US.

I'm sure that lots of people do and lots of people don't. So the quote is still pretty lame as there were people in the ME who didn't like the US prior to Israel just as there are people in Europe who also don't and, probably in Israel as well. Heck, there are people in Antarctica who more than likely don't like the US and can be considered enemies of her just as there are people on these very forums who are enemies of the US so, once again, what a silly quote.

As for the word 'nation,' I merely use the definition of the word 'enemy' as I'm sure the author didn't go around inventing his own language ....

"en·e·my (n-m)
n. pl. en·e·mies
a. A hostile power or force, such as a nation."

So it would seem you have the reading/comprehension problem.

 

I've no reason to doubt that if the author meant a nation , he'd have said so .
....
Hamas - Al-Qaeda - Hizbullah , etc.etc. are not nations states .

FYI - US foreign policies is the main cause of anti-American sentiments not in in the Middle East but world wide.

.....

 

I've no reason to to doubt that if the author meant a terrorist organization he'd have said so . So if not individuals or nations then whom did he mean?

 

Marlowe, et al,

Yes, that is where I thought you were going with this.

(COMMENT)

• HAMAS is a duly elected party in power; not FATAH.
• Hezbollah if a quasi-Official minority political party, holding duly elected seats in government and protected by the national armed forces of Lebanon.
• The organization of al-Qaeda is a stateless, terrorist group in support of anti-government activities.

Yes, I agree that the with the exception of HAMAS, none of the Regional Governments have declared the US an enemy state. However, that does not mean that they are allied states. American Foreign Policy is a very nebulas thing. In most cases, the US Policy is to trade aid for cooperation.

Most anti-US activity is centered on the case that the US support the right of Jewish Immigrants to establish a Jewish National Home in the former Mandate of Palestine. And that the US has supported the implementation of the General Assembly Resolution 181(II) in the face of the open aggressive defiance of the Arab League and the Arab Higher Committee (an Arab League Puppet). And that the US supported the State of Israel in the two subsequent wars after their successful 1948 War of Independence against the foreign interference of the five aggressor Arab Armies.

Israel is not truly the cause of the Anti-American position; but it was a key factor. And it is in the best interest of the power that be in the regional governments, that such a face be perpetuated.

Most Respectfully,
R