Saturday, September 14, 2013

Kerry Applauds a Deal While Lavrov Prepares His Veto Pen

The United States and Russia came to an agreement Saturday on a format for securing and destroying Syria's chemical weapons by mid-2014, but there was no decision on imposing UN penalties if the al-Assad regime fails to comply. The deal has garnered widespread sighs of relief from just about everyone in the world except the Syrian rebels and the Free Syrian Army, who had hoped a US military strike would even the civil war playing field somewhat. One could guess that the greatest sigh came from President Obama, whose inept handling of the Syrian chemical attack made it possible, perhaps even necessary, for Russian President Putin to rescue him. The format agreed by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and US Secretary of State John Kerry in Geneva includes : (1). what Kerry called "a shared assessment" of the size but not the location of the weapons stockpile, and a timetable and measures to be followed by al-Assad. International inspectors are to be in Syria by November, charged to complete by the end of November their initial assessment of stockpiles and all mixing and filling equipment to be destroyed. These will be removed from the country or destroyed by mid-2014. While experts say the job can be done, there is almost universal agreement among them that the job will take at least 3-4 years. They also think any attempt to remove chemicals from Syria would be foolhardy, since the only open route is into Lebanon, where they could easily fall into the hands of Hezbollah. (2). After initial disagreement, Kerry and Lavrov agreed to present a UN Security Council resolution that places the agreement under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter authorizing the use of both force and nonmilitary enforcement measures. But, given that Russia is the Syrian regime's chief protector, it seems clear that Russia will veto any resolution calling for military action against al-Assad, making Russia's agreement to a Chapter 7 resolution mere lip service. (3). President Obama has commented, making it clear that "if diplomacy fails, the United States remains prepared to act." But Russia's prior rejection of three resolutions on Syria, makes it equally clear that Russia will veto any future UN move toward military action. This will leave America without a coalition, unless France stays the course, because the nations that would join such a US-led attack will not do so without a UN resolution in place to cover their actions. Kerry told a Geneva news conference that "There can be no games, no room for avoidance or anything less than full compliance by the Assad regime." We can only hope so, because an al-Assad disavowal will leave America once again isolated in face of the al-Assad chemical weapons dilemma. (4). Kerry and Lavrov emphasized that the agreement sends a strong message to Syria and to the world that the use of chemical weapons will not be tolerated. Lavrov added, "We understand that the decisions we have reached today are only the beginning of the road." But, noncompliance by the al-Assad regime or any other party would be referred to the 15-nation Security Council by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. That group oversees the Chemical Weapons Convention, which Syria will apparently join in October. The OPCW president spoke of adopting "necessary measures" to put in place "an accelerated program to verify the complete destruction" of Syria's chemical weapons, production facilities and "other relevant capabilities." Kerry says the OPCW will be working under Chapter 7 rules. "What remedy is chosen is subject to the debate within the Council, which is always true. But there's a commitment to impose measures." Lavrov, however, indicated there would be limits to using such a resolution. "Any violations of procedure...would be looked at by the Security Council and if they are approved, the Security Council would take the required measures, concrete measures," Lavrov said. "Nothing is said about the use of force or about any automatic sanctions." But, given that a thorough investigation of any allegation of noncompliance is required before any possible action, Moscow could drag out the process or veto measures it deems too harsh. ~~~~~ Dear readers, in this agreement we see the result of an indecisive American President being backed into a corner by a Russian president who seized an opportunity to enhance his and Russia's image. Do not blame Vladimir Putin for this "agreement" which is really a wish list of the Obama-Kerry team being shredded by Putin's realpolitik. A leading US Republican Senator, Bob Corker, who a few days ago said Obama is incapable of being the American commander-in-chief, expressed concerns that without the threat of force, it is not clear "how Syrian compliance will be possible under the terms of any agreement." He said Syria's "willingness to follow through is very much an open question" and he said he does not want the negotiations to signal a "retreat from our broader national interests," including support for "moderate" opposition forces in Syria. General Salim Idris, head of the Free Syrian Army, told a news conference in Turkey that the Russian initiative would "buy time" and that rebels will continue "fighting the regime and work for bringing it down." He said that if international inspectors come to Syria in order to inspect chemical weapons, "we will facilitate their passages but there will be no cease-fire." The FSA will not block the work of UN inspectors, he said, and the "inspectors will not be subjected to rebel fire when they are in regime-controlled areas." ~~~~~ Yet President Obama continues to say he has the power to strike unilaterally if the UN deal fails. Act, Mr. President? Your allies will not follow without a UN resolution which you have today injudiciously put into the hands of Russia, which will veto it. Your ill-thought-out decision to ask Congress for authorization to strike is a failure since neither the House nor the Senate will accept your proposal to strike Syria. And, the American people, depending on the region polled, are 70-90% against your entire strike idea. I repeat my prior suggestion. For the good of America and the world : Resign.

9 comments:

  1. An honest and honorable man would do just that. A man that is interested in the state of the world, the safety of it's citizens, a self proclaimed (never have we seen him go to church with the family on a Sunday)Christian, a man that simply has no trump cards left to play in this game ... that man would resign.

    But that is not the man that President Obama is or ever will be. Obama is as we all know only interested in Obama. he must get up each morning and ask the Magic Mirror ... mirror,mirror on the wall what can be done for Obama today?

    And here's a perfectly horrible thought if he would resign are we ready for the next worst thing ... BIDEN as president. Oh my gosh what a thought!

    ReplyDelete
  2. This appears to be nothing more than one gigantic stall on EVERYONE'S part to delay doing anything in side Syria for a laundry list of reasons.

    Everyone again has their reasons and yet not many seem to be reasons that directly affect the savaged citizens of Syria who are caught up in a Civil War that has killed over 100,000 citizens of Syria.

    In the once honored field of Foreign Affairs countries actually took up the causes of those that could not defend themselves or their families from international terrorists and thugs ... both of which Assad is.

    Where our are leaders of principal, dignity, statesmanship, and honor.

    Obama has failed at every Foreign Affairs task placed before him, therefore his entire administration has also. And his new Secretary of State first attempt at foreign affairs negations falls flat on his face. He got just what the Russians were willing to give up ... nothing more and certainly somewhat less probably.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is International One Up Mens Ship being played out on the world stage. Another match that Obama and his team of armatures will loose.

    Why don't these kids pick up their basketballs and go home. Because Madison Square Gardens in NYC is not the local playground "hoops" court that Obama is use to. And further more count the votes ... you already have 3 guaranteed "veto's" against you

    ReplyDelete
  4. Obama’s challenger for the presidency, Mitt Romney, has declared that Russia is again America’s “number-one geopolitical foe,” thereby confirming most worst concerns—that we are on the verge of, or already in, a new cold war period.

    Obama’s renewal of a working relationship with Russia was all but doomed from inception because it was based on the same bipartisan, winner-take-all triumphalism that had guided US policy toward post-Soviet Russia on and off since the 1990s. As before, Obama’s “new” policy meant “selective cooperation”—that is, concessions from Moscow without US reciprocity.

    This administration has demonstrated almost daily in some corner of the world that it is incapable of functioning in a foreign affairs arena.The concept of giving away bargaining chips that had no intrinsic value in the beginning in order to win what was the original concession is foreign to them.

    Negotiating,bartering away one thing of no value in order to obtain a valuable concession is looked upon as defeatism within Obama's circle of his academic theorists.

    ReplyDelete
  5. President Obama has simply failed to reset relations with Moscow. All the while Russia and the US share a few very important interests

    They make cooperating with each other an imperative rather than an option.

    As with the Syrian civil war and use of chemical WMD Obama seems to have NO urgent need to develop a daily working relationship with Putin. is this because he is insecure in dealing with his Russian counterpart, or just insecure in foreign affairs all together.

    We are really all alone in the world folks and Obama's latest defeat in international affairs simply proves it. We are adrift in a sea of once greats and now has beens.

    ReplyDelete
  6. In past history of the US Presidency- during trouble times- there has been talk about a dual presidency. One for domestic policy and the other for foreign affairs. it wouldn't work at all. it would be like Apple having 2 CEO one for general business leadership, and the other for product development. That's what Executive VP's do.

    But considering what a mess we have with the present leadership team in Washington presently ...?

    This comedy of errors didn't seem so destructive or fatal to so many depending on us to do the right thing.But the total lack of anything positive and damaging to the Assad regime and the use of CWMD, except this continuing talk and warning (once warned is action, twice warned is threatening, three times (and more) warned is comical)is like the playground bully ... all talk, no follow through.

    Obama besides having foreign policy plan or knowledge. he seems to lack the simplest of historical knowledge of his predecessors in the Oval Office and and how they succeeded or failed. he is just bumping down the road in his self constructed electric car explaining to everyone how great he is and what he is about to accomplish. But his journey is now 5 years long and we are still waiting.

    "Lead, Follow, or Get Out of Our Way" Mr. President. You are not an asset to us or the world, you are are hindrance, with unbelievable job security.

    In the world of business or military command you'd be long gone sir. It's put up or shut up time ... we need your decision now.

    ReplyDelete
  7. We are all concerned in one way or anther about the savage brutality that is ongoing in Syria and Egypt at the present time. And let's not forget about Lybia where there is still plenty of violence and kills in the name one arm of Islam or another.

    But I just heard a number that is staggering to me. Inside Iraq since early August 2013there has been over 4,000 Iraqi killed in violence between Shitte and Sunni faction of Islam. That would work out to approximently 100 men, women, and children.

    Readers if Casey Pops the countries that are knee deep in violence and killing each others are not directly engulfed in a civil war or a war for human rights and democracy. They are tied up in a RELIGIOUS WAR OVER WHICH RADICLE branch of Islam/Moslim religion will keep these suffering soul living in a life that is based on articulated human rights and a male dominated society.

    Again, Obama for soom reason thinks we need to get involved in this internal mess.

    ReplyDelete
  8. THE PEN IS MIGHTIER THAN THE SWORD. Advantage Lavrov

    ReplyDelete