The Russian breather - but for how long?

by Eze Eluchie

When Russia's Foreign Minister (Sergey Lavrov) invited his Syrian counterpart (Walid al-Moallem) to a meet in Moscow, scheduled for a date when United States federal legislators were scheduled to reconvene to formally begin consideration for President Barack Obama’s request for congressional backing to found military attack against Syria, it was obvious that some form of announcement geared at resolving the buildup against Syria would trail from the Moscow summit of Russia and its major ally in the Middle East. Two options seemed viable from the Summit: One, an announcement increasing Russian military assistance to Syria to fortify its protégé against what seemed an inevitable attack from US forces, a move that would certainly have upped the ante as it would have meant that strikes against Syria would also signify US strikes against Russia. The second projected outcome of the Moscow summit had been an announcement that Russia would support a broad based open ended dialogue process which would, whilst offering a chance of peace in Syria, ensure face-saving safe passage for the al-Assad dynasty, which had been allied to the Russians for decades.

The absolutely brilliant and totally unanticipated offer of international control and demobilization of Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal announced after the Moscow summit, and which was instantly welcomed and agreed to by the Syrians completely took the wind out of the sail of the build-up to a needless and wasteful military operation being orchestrated against Syria.  With details of how the disarmament process would be pursued still hazy, and most probably extremely difficult to effect, in view of the fact that Syria was still engaged in a protracted civil war, world leaders nevertheless saw no qualms in falling over themselves in a bid to grasp at what seemed the sole dignified lifeline to all parties at avoiding a crisis that was brought about in part by an apparent senseless addiction to self destruction by the Syrians and in another part by the 'red line' political gaffe of US President Obama (see http://ezeluchie.blogspot.com/2013/05/when-tail-wags-dog.html). 

From UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, to Chinese, British, French and US governments, the sigh of relief that there could be a political solution to the Syrian impasse which spared the world the gory spectacle of watching cruise missiles bombarding defenseless civilians in Damascus and other Syrian cities, and the ensuing damages and fatalities that would result from likely retaliatory strikes Syria and its allies may unleash at their foes, reverberated across the continents.

The offer from the Russians was indeed stunning. And like all 'successes', soon enough, it had many entities claiming ownership and credit for it.

At last someone had hearkened to the call to put on a reasoning cap.

But for how long will the sense of relief last? Unfortunately not for quite long. 

The very forces which unleashed the initial chemical weapon attack in the suburbs of Damascus on the 21st day of August, be they fringe elements within al-Assad's army or rouge rebel commanders, will certainly be miffed that their objective of expanding the conflict by drawing in more combatants has been rubbished by the brilliant offer proffered by the Russians. Those who deployed the chemical weapon attack have neither claimed credit for the deed nor have they informed anyone that their stock of such lethal weapons would be handed over for containment and eventual destruction - there will most likely be further chemical weapon attacks in Syria.

In the euphoria of a time for rethink and deeper reflection brought about by the Russian offer, several questions seem to have been temporarily swept under the carpet. These include:

1. With denials from all sides of the Syrian conflict as to origin of the use of chemical weapons, what happens in the event of another chemical weapon attack before or during efforts to contain and demobilize chemical weapons officially under the control of al-Assads forces?

2. With Russia's claims that Syrian rebels had used chemical weapons in the ongoing conflict, who will contain and demobilize the chemical weapons at the disposal of the several real and fringe Rebel elements? If only one sides chemical arsenal is demobilized, the problem is merely half addressed, which in the context of this unfortunate episode, means the problem has not been addressed.

3. Will a new 'red line' have been crossed in the event of a new chemical weapon attack?

4. Will the already assembled armada in the Mediterranean and the Red Sea be put to instantaneous use in the event of a renewed chemical weapon attack without prior efforts at identifying with certainty, the culprit?

5. With the expertise for chemical weapon development available at the click of the mouse on the internet, and so many desperadoes out there, can it be ascertained with any element of accuracy who deployed what, when and where?

It is suggested that a comprehensive global ban and destruction of all stockpiles of chemical weapons, held by all countries, irrespective of stature or perceived might,  and entrenchment of regulatory mechanisms under the auspices of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) to prevent the production and stockpiling of such weapons will erase the likelihood of the world being pushed to the brink over usage of such lethal weapons.

Vladimir Putin's masterstroke has given the world a breather, but for how long?  

Picture: Russian President, Vladinir Putin, basking in and seemingly enjoying his new found role as global peace maker.