The distrust and verification of Syrian chemical weapons

Never give up the initiative. Barack obama has twice broken this basic diplomatic rule in dealing with Bashar al-Assad's use of chemical weapons in Syria. First, the president submitted his government's chaotic case of retaliation to a hostile Congress for a vote. Now he has handed the steering wheel to Russian President Vladimir Putin, who is not a friend of the United States. Putin supports the plan to disarm Syrian gas and nerve agents.

Never give up the initiative. On the issue of dealing with Syrian Bashar al-Assad's use of chemical weapons, barack obama broke the basic rules of diplomacy twice. For the first time, the president submitted his revenge by voting in a hostile congress in the case of chaotic management. Now, Russian President Vladimir Putin is turning the steering wheel. He has no American friends. Putin's plan to disarm Syria's poisonous gas and nerve agent.

Disarmament may work. But the danger is that Assad will be free to evade and pretend to attack until his determination to punish him disappears like sarin in the Damascus breeze. In order to regain control, Obama and his western allies should seek a tough UN resolution instructing Syria to cooperate. If Assad or Putin cynically obstructs the United Nations, then the United States should be ready to attack now.

The Conference on Disarmament is at work. But the danger is that Assad will let the ducks go until he decides to be punished like a breeze in Damascus to disperse sarin. In order to regain control, Obama and his western allies should seek a close UN resolution to guide Syria's cooperation. If Assad or Putin obstructs the United Nations, then the United States should be ready to strike now.

Best result

Best result

Before the Russian proposal, John Kerry, Obama's secretary of state, made an irrelevant remark at a news conference, saying that the Syrian regime can only escape the attack by giving up chemical weapons, but this does not mean that it will never. Russia seized his words and suggested. The statement said that Assad should agree to destroy his chemical weapons under the supervision of Russia and the United Nations. This will prevent him from launching another nerve agent attack, just like the one that killed nearly 1500 people on August 26th. This will prove that the world will not tolerate chemical warfare. In addition, after months of acrimony, big countries finally have the opportunity to cooperate in the United Nations to end the bloody conflict in Syria.

After the Russian proposal, John Kerry, Obama's secretary of state, said at a news conference that the Syrian regime could only give up chemical weapons, but could not escape the blow. Russia seized his words and put forward precision. The statement said that Assad should be allowed to destroy his chemical weapons under the supervision of Russia and the United Nations. That will prevent him from launching another nerve gas attack, just like killing nearly 1 people and 500 people on August 2 1 day. This will prove that the world will not tolerate chemical warfare. After several months of disagreement, the big countries finally had the opportunity to work together at the United Nations to end the bloodshed in Syria.

This plan is attractive because it is in the interest of many people. Mr. Assad will avoid a possible devastating blow from the United States. He will also get a rare opportunity to look reasonable-or at least more reasonable than the rampant al-Qaeda rebels in Syria. As a demonstration of statesmanship, Putin may point out that diplomatic means can achieve more results than western subconscious calls for regime change. For some people, this will make up for his support for Assad in the brutal civil war. Obama will not be humiliated as he defeated the Syrians in Kungl's SS. He can claim that his brilliant strategy has borne fruit. American voters are relieved that they don't have to go to war again, and may even believe him.

This plan is because it has many, many benefits. Assad will avoid a possible devastating attack. He will also have at least one rare opportunity to look reasonable, or more reasonable than the rebels plagued by Al Qaeda in Syria. When showing it to politicians, Putin also pointed out that diplomacy can get more than the instinctive requirement of changing political power in the West. For some people, this will save his support for Assad during the brutal civil war. Obama's failure in the Syrian parliament may be humiliating. He claimed that his brilliant strategy had worked. American voters, it is easy not to go to war and even trust him.

Unfortunately, however, there may be problems. Even if all parties reach an agreement in good faith, the actual operation is daunting. Any action to destroy the Syrian arsenal may take years. During the civil war, it will be very difficult to protect UN inspectors and let them enter all chemical sites in Syria. Trust is almost non-existent, so inspectors will need the freedom to go where they choose when they choose. It's also hard.

Unfortunately, however, something may happen. Even if the two sides reach a good faith agreement, it is actually huge (see article). Any action to destroy the Syrian arsenal may take years. When the civil war breaks out, it will be difficult to protect the UN inspectors, who can visit all Syrian chemical websites. Trust is almost non-existent, so inspectors need to be free to go where they choose. This is also an arduous task.

What about the lack of integrity? Saddam Hussein showed the world in Iraq how a deliberately difficult regime played a cat-and-mouse game with weapons inspectors. The possibility that Mr Assad obstructs disarmament without directly rejecting it is almost limitless. Thanks to his efforts in the past few weeks, he now knows that western voters are not interested in attacking Syria. The British Prime Minister was defeated in Parliament. The French president, a hero who sent troops to Mali at the beginning of this year, obviously wanted to hit Mr. Assad's zero score. So far, Mr. Obama's efforts to convince his compatriots of the reasons for going to war seem to only strengthen their desire to stay at home.

If integrity is lacking? Saddam Hussein showed how embarrassing it was for the regime to play cat and mouse with weapons inspectors in Iraq. The scope of Assad's disarmament failure is complete and almost infinite, and it is not excluded. In the past few weeks, he now knows that western voters don't want to attack Syria. The British Prime Minister was defeated in Parliament. The French president, the hero who sent troops to Mali at the beginning of this year, obviously wanted to 100 to attack Assad. Mr. Obama tried to convince him that the peasant war seems to have only intensified so far, and they want to stay at home.

Therefore, a vague and open plan will be a blueprint for Assad to escape guilt. As long as he makes some conciliatory gestures and avoids another chemical attack, he can at least keep some of his chemical weapons. He will also be more free than ever to commit the worst acts against his own people, convinced that no external forces will intervene to protect them.

A vague and open plan has thus become a blueprint for Mr. Assad to clean up his crimes. As long as he makes some conciliatory gestures without another chemical attack, he will at least stick to some of his chemical weapons. He will also be more free than ever to be the person he is most against himself, and there is absolutely no external force to protect them.