• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Securing Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal would be formidable task, experts say

Rogue Valley

Using the Shades of Blue skin
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
59,638
Reaction score
44,149
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Securing Syria's chemical weapons arsenal will be formidable task, experts say - The Washington Post
By Joby Warrick and Loveday Morris
September 10

As diplomats wrangled over competing plans for securing Syria’s chemical weapons, arms-control experts warned Tuesday of the formidable challenges involved in carrying out such a complex and risky operation in the midst of a raging civil war. U.N. teams dispatched to Syria for the mission would be attempting something new: finding and safeguarding a long-hidden arsenal in a country that has long stood outside key international arms-control agreements — all while exposed to crossfire from Syria’s warring factions.

Although the mission might be worth the risks, experts say, it would be costly and time-consuming, especially if the goal included the physical destruction of what is estimated to be thousands of chemical warheads and rockets as well as hundreds of tons of liquid toxins kept in bulk storage throughout Syria. “It is doable, and potentially a great idea, but let’s not be naive,” said Jean Pascal Zanders, a Belgian arms-control researcher and writer for the Trench, a blog focusing on weapons of mass destruction. “If you can get around the legal and logistical questions, securing the stocks might be relatively easy to achieve. But if you add destruction of the munitions, you have to think in terms of years.”

Syria is thought to possess the third-largest chemical weapons stockpile in the world, after the United States and Russia, which are in the process of destroying theirs. Syria’s arsenal is thought to include sizable amounts of the deadly nerve agent sarin, as well as mustard gas and other toxins. But until now, the Syrian government had never formally acknowledged its chemical weapons program. That changed Tuesday when Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem said his country is prepared to sign the international treaty governing chemical weapons, to make the location of its chemical arms facilities available to international observers and to dispose of the weapons. The sudden commitment to openness was greeted warily by Western analysts, who noted the habitual secrecy of President Bashar al-Assad’s regime. That tendency could further complicate the task of U.N. teams seeking to lock down as many as a dozen sites used for manufacturing, storage and battlefield preparation, weapons experts said.

Several previous international missions during the Syrian conflict have been notable failures, partly because the Assad government refused to grant access to sensitive sites and partly because spiraling violence put the foreign teams at risk. Much remained unclear Tuesday about how — or even whether — chemical weapons inspections would occur. But several diplomats stressed the importance of a buy-in from all sides, including Assad and key rebel groups. Alexander Kalugin, Russia’s ambassador to Jordan, said any plan must involve “international inspectors” — probably from the United Nations — as well as guarantees for their physical safety. “We are now engaged with Syrians about working out some concrete details on how to do the job,” he said by telephone from Amman, the Jordanian capital. “It’s certainly not an easy mission.”

Assuming that the inspections get off the ground, a first order of business would be conducting an exhaustive inventory to ensure that all chemical munitions are accounted for. With solid numbers in hand, U.N. officials would probably seek to consolidate the arsenal into the lowest possible number of storage sites. Zanders, the arms-control expert, suggested that the weapons could be best stored near the port city of Tartus, where Russia maintains a naval base. Zanders also argued for heavy involvement not only of Russia but also of Iran, another close Assad ally. Both countries are signatories to the treaty on chemical arms control, and he said their presence, despite Western suspicions, could help ensure Syria’s cooperation. The final stage in the process — destroying Syria’s chemical arsenal — would be the most complex, requiring the construction of incineration facilities that must operate under exacting standards to prevent contamination. The United States, which manufactured 31,100 metric tons of chemical munitions during the Cold War, launched a multibillion-*dollar program in 1997 to destroy its stocks. Sixteen years later, it has still not completed the task.

In a further risk for inspectors, the military bases that are thought to contain chemical weapons depots are in areas that have been a focus of intense fighting in recent months. One suspected production facility, the Safira base near Aleppo, has been the target of repeated rebel assaults. There also are legal and logistical obstacles, weapons experts say. Syria is one of only seven countries that have not signed the Chemical Weapons Convention, so there is no internationally recognized legal framework for U.N. arms inspections to proceed. Some U.S. officials have called on the Assad government to quickly sign and ratify the weapons treaty as a way of demonstrating its good intentions.
In order for this initiative to succeed, everyone would have to be onboard - the UN, the Syrian government, Syrian rebels, Russia, the United States, Iran, the Arab League, and non-state militias such as Hezbollah and Al-Nusra. Not everyone will like it because such a far-ranging program would - by necessity - bestow UN immunity on many military bases/depots used by the Syrian government to wage conventional warfare against rebel/anti-government forces.
 

DDD

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 26, 2012
Messages
12,351
Reaction score
1,918
Location
Republic of Dardania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Simpleχity;1062301529 said:
In order for this initiative to succeed, everyone would have to be onboard - the UN, the Syrian government, Syrian rebels, Russia, the United States, Iran, the Arab League, and non-state militias such as Hezbollah and Al-Nusra. Not everyone will like it because such a far-ranging program would - by necessity - bestow UN immunity on many military bases/depots used by the Syrian government to wage conventional warfare against rebel/anti-government forces.

Sounds like UN against Serbs in Bosnia all over again. The UN Force ended up being used as human shields back then!

Such humiliation! If that is the case again I say do not bother!
 
Top Bottom