Following hot on the heels of comments by President Bashar Assad backing the idea, the Syrian government has formally ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), obliging them to end production of chemical weapons and move toward their eventual destruction.
Syria was one of seven remaining nations on the planet that haven’t ratified the treaty, and the list will now only include six: Israel, Myanmar, Angola, Egypt, North Korea, and South Sudan.
Seems as if Kerry is trying to undo his gaffe.
"Syria has ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and promised to move forward with a plan within 30 days on the destruction of its chemical arsenal, which will be placed under international control for the duration of its (likely long) process of dismantling them.
Instead of treating the deal as a movie-style happy ending, Secretary of State John Kerry is grousing about the war it has apparently foiled, lashing the deal as “not enough” while pushing the idea that the US might still attack Syria unilaterally in spite of the deal, seemingly just for the heck of it.
Kerry says President Assad’s agreement to the standard international process of dismantling chemical weapons is totally unacceptable because Syria “isn’t standard,” and insists that the US attack could still happen if Assad doesn’t agree to some totally unspecified, less realistic timetable.
The 30 days isn’t something Assad just made up, either, but actually an explicit part of the CWC, just one that annoys Kerry personally, since after several weeks of pushing for a war based on a putative violation of “international norms,” he insists the norms don’t apply to Syria anyhow.
Though some analysts are presenting this as Kerry “testing” the seriousness of the deal in talks with Russia, it is reading more as an attempt to sabotage it outright. With Kerry the primary proponent of the hugely unpopular war that now isn’t happening, the chip on his shoulder and his decision to spurn diplomacy just read like sour grapes."
The White House has flip-flopped on whether or not the Syrian chemical weapons disarmament is a good thing more than once, sometimes several times a day. That has their spokesmen trying to spin the pact every which way.
On the one hand, Press Secretary Jay Carney sought to present the deal as vindication for President Obama’s repeated threats to attack Syria, and his effort to sell the war to the American public and Congress, which failed miserably.
Carney insisted such a deal would’ve been impossible before the threats began, despite the administration simultaneously claiming that the deal was an idea they’d been working on since the 2012 G20 summit.
At the same time, officials are making clear they’re not too happy with the deal getting in the way of their war, and Carney was quick to insist that the deal was entirely Russia’s fault, and that it was Russian prestige on the line if the deal didn’t go the way US officials hope.
This is great news. Kerry is talking tough and holding Assad's feet to the fire. Good gor him! This cowardly dictator must continue to acquiesce to US demands.
However Congress eventually votes on Obama’s plans for Syria — and whatever gratuitous violence might ensue — the proponents of war should be remembered for setting new lows in debating and lobbying tactics.
But before examining their overheated rhetoric, consider the strong possibility that the administration spokesmen do not possess definitive proof that the Assad regime ordered chemical attacks on civilians on Aug. 21. If they do, why haven’t they presented the evidence in plain sight? Classified briefings to members of Congress only heighten the suspicion that the hawks don’t have the goods to make their case honestly and above board.
My skepticism about the Obama-Kerry propaganda campaign is supported by more than 20 years of investigating, and exposing, manufactured atrocities and fantasy Armageddons — doomsday scenarios assembled in the conference rooms of public relations firms in Washington and New York and the black-ops department at the Central Intelligence Agency. When you can’t convince the public to march into battle, you’ve got to come up with more exciting “facts.”
In 1990, it was alleged that Iraqi soldiers were killing babies in Kuwait City hospitals; in 1999, it was claimed that the Serbs were conducting a campaign of genocide against Albanians in Kosovo; in 2002-03, Saddam Hussein supposedly had an atomic-bomb-and-chemical-weapons-building program as well as an alliance with al-Qaida.
Not one of these stories was true, but the lessons learned from the propagandists inform the next generation of politicians and cabinet members. Thus does Secretary of State John Kerry trumpet the “intercepts” of Syrian commanders discussing what he claims are their planned chemical attacks, without letting us hear the recordings. Thus do deskbound reporters in Beirut and Washington recycle second-hand accounts from “intelligence sources” and other interested parties eager for the United States to take sides in the Syrian civil war.
This sort of thing goes on in the run-up to every military conflict. However, it’s no reason to be cynical and shrug, and you don’t have to be an investigative reporter to doubt.
When Kerry makes the preposterous claim that we are experiencing a “Munich moment,” he needs to be challenged, if not ridiculed.
Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) rightly called Kerry’s declaration a “stupid historical metaphor.” My only qualification is about Grayson’s use of the word “stupid,” since comparing dictators to Adolf Hitler is a time-tested winner in public-relations battles. Bush the father used it in 1990 to characterize Saddam Hussein, as did his son in 2003, although George W. and Bill Clinton (regarding Slobodan Milosevic) also invoked Joseph Stalin when the Hitler analogy seemed to lose steam. All three presidents succeeded in dragging America’s reluctant citizens and their hesitant political representatives into military actions.
So why shouldn’t Kerry utter wild exaggerations? Bashar al-Assad is apparently willing to do just about anything to retain power, so why not go even further than Kerry and state explicitly that Assad, rather than fighting for survival, is really trying to swallow up Jordan and the West Bank, like Hitler conned Neville Chamberlain into conceding the Sudetenland? Why not plant stories that Assad is building death camps and mobile gas chambers to exterminate Syria’s Sunni Muslims?
Does this sound absurd? Well, if you think John Kerry has crossed the “red line” between rational, historically accurate argument and appalling hyperbole, consider the interview granted last week by super hawk Sen. John McCain to MSNBC’s Morning Joe program.
I do not think McCain is a stupid man, but he does sound idiotic when he talks about the supposed virtues of the so-called Free Syrian Army: “[The FSA] are doing the bulk of the fighting. They are in areas not controlled by al-Nusra and al-Qaida, who by the way, are spending their time trying to impose Sharia law rather than doing the fighting. ... There’s no doubt in my mind, and there should be no doubt in anybody’s mind, that the Free Syrian Army is not an extremist group.”
I guess McCain doesn’t read the newspapers, but nearly everything I’ve read in recent months points to exactly the opposite conclusion — that Islamist extremists are the most effective, and merciless, fighters against Assad’s forces.
If you don’t believe the front-page photograph in the Sept. 5 New York Times — in which rebel militiamen are depicted standing over captured Syrian soldiers prior to executing them — there are other sources of information to validate the view that the United States should let the Syrians sort out their own mess.
The most reliable, I have found, is the BBC’s Paul Wood, who has chronicled the rising influence of “foreign jihadis” and the resulting persecution of minority Christians by previously moderate Syrian Sunnis. McCain should have no fear of ideological poisoning from Wood, since he can follow him in the conservative Spectator of London. He might learn some facts he could pass on to John Kerry and Barack Obama.
John R. MacArthur, a monthly contributor, is publisher of Harper’s Magazine.
Kondike5 wrote:
Syria was one of seven remaining nations on the planet that haven’t ratified the treaty, and the list will now only include six: Israel, Myanmar, Angola, Egypt, North Korea, and South Sudan.
Israel has signed the treaty.
And Syria has not, yet. They've merely declared their intention of doing so.
Abraham wrote:
And Syria has not, yet. They've merely declared their intention of doing so.
Syria signed yesterday
Abraham wrote:
Kondike5 wrote:Syria was one of seven remaining nations on the planet that haven’t ratified the treaty, and the list will now only include six: Israel, Myanmar, Angola, Egypt, North Korea, and South Sudan.
Israel has signed the treaty.
Of course Israel hasn't signed the CWC. I am a bit surprised they allowed the USA to sign it
As of June 2013, 189 states are party to the CWC, and another two countries (Israel and Myanmar) have signed but not ratified the convention.[1]
sort of half right
fyi here is roughly why israel hasn't signed - the basic reason is that they don't trust their neighbors, who probably also have chemical weapons, and those neighbors have a real habit of attacking Israel.
I am just reporting here - I am not taking a stance. So stfu K.
There are also, however, strong arguments in opposition to Israeli ratification of the CWC. The first is the expectation of the critics that the verification regime will be ineffective and signatories such as Iran will be able to violate the CWC. Even with comprehensive verification, unless Egypt, Syria and Libya (all of whom are reported to possess large CW arsenals) also sign and ratify the CWC, (which is seen as highly unlikely) and the regime is very effective, the threat to Israel will remain. As former Defense Mordechai noted in 1998, "I think that we have to wait and see how things develop. The problem is that some of the states in the region are not signing, and there is no way of inspecting those who are [not signing]. We had discussions in the cabinet, and we decided to postpone decisions for a certain period. We will discuss it again."[6]
Abraham wrote:
And Syria has not, yet. They've merely declared their intention of doing so.
Kondike5 wrote:
Syria signed yesterday
Not yet. They submitted the application paperwork yesterday.
Abraham wrote:
Israel has signed the treaty.
Kondike5 wrote:
Of course Israel hasn't signed the CWC. I am a bit surprised they allowed the USA to sign it
He wrote, "Israel HAS signed".
Egypt, North Korea, Angola, South Sudan, Israel and Myanmar haven't ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention, and Russia and the US haven't met their obligations under the convention.
Israel is in its usual good company
Klondike5 wrote:
Egypt, North Korea, Angola, South Sudan, Israel and Myanmar haven't ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention, and Russia and the US haven't met their obligations under the convention.
Israel is in its usual good company
And Syria.
They can sign whatever they want, won't change a thing on the ground.
From the WSJ:
Elite Syrian Unit Scatters Chemical Arms Stockpile
A secretive Syrian military unit at the center of the Assad regime's chemical weapons program has been moving stocks of poison gases and munitions to as many as 50 sites to make them harder for the U.S. to track, according to American and Middle Eastern officials.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324755104579071330713553794.html
WiIson wrote:
This is great news. Kerry is talking tough and holding Assad's feet to the fire. Good gor him! This cowardly dictator must continue to acquiesce to US demands.
I take it you are not a Christian.
The more the USA poke their noses into the Middle East, the more the Christian minorities (who have lived in those areas for 2000 years, long before Islam) are murdered to extinction.
Before the US invasion, Christians enjoyed protection under Saddam, indeed, he had some in his government.
Now, of the some 1.4 million living in Iraq before the war, only around 400,000, mainly poor and the old remain.
Where did the majority flee to for sanctuary?
Assad’s Syria.
There are 2 million indigenous Christians in Syria and already, in rebel held areas, they face sharia law and the horrific consequences to those of their faith, starting with priests being murdered and their eyes gouged out.
Since Mubarak in Egypt was overthrown with American encouragement, 58 Christian churches, as well as several convents, monasteries and schools and dozens of homes and businesses have been looted, burned and in many cases destroyed.
And getting rid of Gaddafi, turned Libya into a cess-pit of Muslim militants led by al-Qaeda, who recently invaded neighbouring Mali to spread Islamic fundamentalism.
And as for anybody actually believing a word from an American Secretary of State, here is Colin Powell admitting he lied through the teeth to the UN about Saddam’s ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction.’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZTLmOoPzjsforester wrote:
Klondike5 wrote:Egypt, North Korea, Angola, South Sudan, Israel and Myanmar haven't ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention, and Russia and the US haven't met their obligations under the convention.
Israel is in its usual good company
And Syria.
Not and Syria as of yesterday.
Actually Syria has only submitted their application. They haven't signed the treaty yet. But they will. Just like Israel.
Joe Binks wrote:
Actually Syria has only submitted their application. They haven't signed the treaty yet. But they will. Just like Israel.
You do realize that Israel refuses to ratify the CWC and does not comply with it?
And has dropped white phosphorous on the Gazans and cluster bombs on the Lebanese.
And has an undeclared, uninspected, illegal nuclear weapons program that was created from raw material and know how stolen from the US nuclear plan NUMEC in the 1960s by American co-religionists?
And you defend them?