Breaking: U.S., Russia agree on Syria U.N. chemical arms measure

[babylonsister]

U.S., Russia agree on Syria U.N. chemical arms measure


Kerry and Lavrov reach deal on Syria

7:05pm EDT


By John Irish and Michelle Nichols

UNITED NATIONS | Thu Sep 26, 2013 7:46pm EDT


(Reuters) - Ending weeks of diplomatic deadlock, the United States and Russia reached an agreement on Thursday on a draft U.N. Security Council resolution aimed at ridding Syria of its chemical weapons arsenal.

Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said a deal was struck with Russia "legally obligating" Syria to give up its chemical stockpile and the measure would go to the full Security Council on Thursday night. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said an "understanding" had been hammered out.

The United States had been negotiating on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly with Russia, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's chief ally. The aim was to craft a measure to demand the destruction of Syria's chemical arsenal in line with a U.S.-Russian deal reached earlier this month that averted American military strikes on Syria in the midst of Syria's civil war.

Western powers on the Security Council backed away from many of their initial demands, diplomats say, in order to secure Russia's approval.

more...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/26/us-un-assembly-syria-resolution-idUSBRE98P1AJ20130926

[darkangel218]

1. Good!!!

Get rid of the WMDs and avoid a war both at the same time!

Congrats POTUS, Kerry and Putin!

[leveymg]

2. No Chapter 7 authorization

The compromise draft resolution, seen by Reuters, makes the measure legally binding but provides for no means of automatic enforcement with sanctions or military force. Originally, the United States, Britain and France had wanted the resolution to state explicitly that it was under Chapter 7.

The only reference to enforcement in the draft is a threat that if Syria fails to comply with the resolution, the council would impose punitive measures under Chapter 7, which would require a second resolution that Russia could veto.

[babylonsister]

4. It's progress, they're negotiating-I'll take it. nt

[karynnj]

11. However, the way it is here is what Kerry and Lavrov agreed to last week

It never made sense to me that the US thought they could change that.

[joshcryer]

19. The US always said it didn't need force authorization.

I'm not sure why it's claiming that the US wanted the resolution to state it was under Chapter 7, yes, the US floated it, no doubt (it gives the US more options) but it was never a requirement.

[madrchsod]

3. power was a brilliant pick for our un rep.

probably one of the best picks obama has made so far.

[karynnj]

13. Kerry, not Powers is the one behind this agreement

Powers has supported a strike on Syria for over a year for other things they did. Powers may be an outstanding pick, but if there is anyone on the US side that deserves credit here it is Kerry.


As the Guardian says:

"The development was announced after hastily convened talks between the US secretary of state, John Kerry, and his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov. If the resolution is adopted, it would be the first legally binding resolution on the Syrian conflict. "

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/26/syria-chemical-weapons-un-resolution

The AP says :

"But the draft resolution, seen by The Associated Press, makes clear that there is no trigger for enforcement measures if Syria fails to comply. Instead, it states that the Security Council will "impose measures under Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter," which will require a second resolution.
Chapter 7 allows for military and nonmilitary actions to promote peace and security. Russia, Syria's most powerful ally, had opposed any reference to it. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov held hastily scheduled talks Thursday afternoon to resolve several last-minute disputes on the text."


Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/key-powers-agree-on-resolution-aimed-at-eliminating-syria-s-chemical-weapons-1.1472043#ixzz2g3YHPqDs


Earlier this week, there were comments that Powers wanted the resolution to be chapter 7 and to include references to the ICC - neither are there.

[BKH70041]

5. Let the delays, dodging, and excuses begin

[darkangel218]

6. Huh???

[Uncle Joe]

7. It seems the cynical, glass is half empty undermining already has.

[darkangel218]

8. I would venture to say is less than half empty to this poster.

Yikes

[BKH70041]

10. I've just seen this play before.

It's a comedy and a tragedy all wrapped in a pretty bow.

[darkangel218]

12. Ha!! spare me!!

[Uncle Joe]

17. Apparently you didn't see the play starring Jimmy Carter, Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin.

To be truthful these plays never end, they're always being rewritten and the cast continously changes, but when you have a good or promising act, it should be applauded.

That helps to encourage the actors and writers to come up with more good acts and plays.

If everybody frowned and shot birds at the artists, publicly urinating on a promising screenplays because they had seen bad ones before, that would only serve to estrange and hurt the confidence of the actors and writers making it less likely that good things can come in the future until a whole new set of artists come along, possibly stretching it out for years or decades.

[YvonneCa]

18. Love this post. So...

...true.

[BKH70041]

20. Oh, I saw it alright

For the record, I'm very happy the USA isn't involved militarily. The drawing of red lines should have never been made and I'm confident that won't happen again for the next 3+ years. Condemning chemical weapons is always a must. Securing those weapons in Syria would be preferable.

I'd like to be pleasantly surprised. But I'm not going to pretend I don't know the actors, their tendencies given past performances, and how these things typically go.

[Uncle Joe]

21. Then you believe the actors never change, Lincoln, FDR, JFK, Jimmy Carter, Reagen and George W. Bush

are all the same?

[BKH70041]

22. Back to what I said

Who benefits by delaying?
Who benefits by dodging?
Who benefits by making excuses?

I'll just watch it play out.

Have a good night, Joe.

[Uncle Joe]

23. None of the major negotiating parties do.

Assad doesn't, he wants the Al Qaeda and Islamic Fundamentalist dominated rebels; disarmed of their chemical weapons as well.

Russia; doesn't the longer this festers the more likely those extremist rebel factions will be able to transfer said chemical weapons to threaten them, in places like Chechnya.

The U.S. doesn't for pretty much the same reason as Russia with the primary difference being these weapons could threaten its' own allies.

The one fly in the ointment is the extremist rebels hiding or moving their chemical weapons out of Syria.

That's why border control is extemely important and that's why Al Qaeda has all but wiped out the so called "moderate" rebels at border towns with Iraq and Turkey.

You have a good night as well, BKH.

[freshwest]

9. Thank you, Obama, Kerry and even Putin. Better late than never.

[darkangel218]

14. +1 million

X

[Scurrilous]

15. K & R

[Cha]

16. Glass brimming with optimism here!

thank you, babylonsistah!

[Zorra]

24. Yay! Great news, thank you. nt

[BootinUp]

25. There is some historic stuff happenin.

I hope it continues.

[gopiscrap]

26. Good!