Weapons inspectors could do more if given teeth
Play
Ridding Syria of its chemical arsenal may be easier said than done, and the West may come to regret its decision on which side to support in the country's civil war
Members of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) are set to arrive in Damascus to take part in the elimination of Syria’s chemical-weapons arsenal. This is something that should be welcomed by anyone who wishes to see peace prevail in Syria, where more than 100,000 people have been killed since the civil war broke out.
The OPCW mission is a result of a diplomatic breakthrough between the United States and Russia. A week ago the UN Security Council also unanimously passed a resolution calling for the elimination of the Syrian chemical-weapons stockpile. However, while this political commitment is welcome, it lacks teeth in the sense that it proposes no enforcement mechanism should Syria refuse to comply.
The long-overdue diplomatic response was to the August 21 gas attack that killed hundreds of innocent civilians on the outskirts of Damascus. Russia blamed the Syrian rebels but offered no proof. The UN resolution laid no blame, but just about every independent group and Western government believes the attack to be the work of government forces.
The diplomatic breakthrough that resulted in the creation of the OPCW will face challenges, of course. One of the biggest is to keep up with the timetable. The organisation has only 150 staff members, who must travel to numerous sites around the country in the middle of a bloody civil war.
Naturally, at the back of their minds will be whether the government of Bashir al-Assad will deceive them by showing only what they want to show. Government troops have had ample time to move the arsenal around since Washington threatened air strikes to eliminate these weapons that have no place in the modern world.
If Syria decides not to cooperate with the inspectors, there isn’t much the OPCW can do, other than report back to the inspector-general and the executive council that is made up of 41 nations.
Moscow basically ruled out giving any support to UN action against Syria by saying it must be “proven 100 per cent”, in Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov’s words, that the country violated the international charter by using chemical weapons against its own people. Moreover, any violation must be “serious enough to merit punishment”.
Well, how serious is “serious enough” when it comes to the use of chemical weapons?
Syria has one of the world’s largest chemical arsenals, and something has to be done about it. Getting rid of these weapons will not end the war, but it will reduce the dangers and bring some degree of “civility” to the war.
The US decision to cooperate with Russia on this issue, instead of going ahead with air strikes, has been a big disappointment to a number of rebel factions in Syria. Some have decided to break away from the Western-backed factions and join forces with extremist groups affiliated with al-Qaeda.
For the time being, the war in Syria remains “someone else’s war” as President Barack Obama stated in his recent UN address. But if the rebels are victorious with their extremist allies, their guns might very well be turned towards the US and its allies. If history is to be any lesson, how a war is fought will determine how the peace is carried out.
