This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen
on .
It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
Kerry Floats a Deal on Arms, and Russia and Syria Seize It
Kerry Floats a Deal on Arms, and Russia and Syria Seize It
(35 minutes later)
MOSCOW — A seemingly offhand suggestion by Secretary of State John Kerry that Syria could avert an American attack by relinquishing its chemical weapons received an almost immediate welcome from Syria, Russia, the United Nations, key American allies and even some Republicans on Monday as a possible way to avoid a major international military showdown in the Syria crisis.
MOSCOW — Seizing on a remark by Secretary of State John Kerry, Russia called on Syria on Monday to put its stockpiles of chemical weapons under international supervision and eventually to destroy them, offering a compromise that could avert an American-led strike in response to a poison-gas attack near Damascus last month.
A White House official said the administration was taking a “hard look” at the idea.
As President Obama struggled to secure support at home and abroad for a military response, Russia’s surprise proposal quickly gained widespread and perhaps unexpected backing from the United Nations, Britain, France and even some Republican lawmakers in Washington.
While there was no indication that Mr. Kerry was searching for a political settlement to the Syrian crisis in making his comment, Russia — the Syrian government’s most powerful supporter — seized on it as a way of proposing international control of Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal.
It appeared to offer the possibility of a diplomatic alternative to military action by addressing the source of attacks that killed hundreds and provoked worldwide condemnation. But the Russian proposal also was viewed with some skepticism by the Obama administration, seeing it as a possible delaying tactic that could undermine Mr. Obama’s already tenuous efforts to push for a military strike.
Syria’s foreign minister, Walid al-Moallem, who was in Moscow, welcomed Russia’s proposal, though he stopped short of pledging that Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, would comply. His remarks, however, tacitly acknowledged that Syria possessed a chemical arsenal, something that Syria has never publicly admitted. Mr. Assad himself refused to confirm or deny Syria’s chemical munitions in a television interview on Sunday with Charlie Rose.
A senior State Department official, who was traveling on the plane with Mr. Kerry en route home from London, where he made the remarks in a news conference, said that the Russians had previewed their proposal with the secretary of state before going public.
A senior State Department official, who was traveling on the plane with Mr. Kerry en route home from London, where he made the remarks in a news conference, said that the Russians had previewed their proposal with the secretary of state before going public.
After Mr. Kerry’s news conference in London, conducted with William Hague, Britain’s foreign secretary, Mr. Kerry talked by phone for 14 minutes with Sergey V. Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister on the plane, the official said.
After Mr. Kerry’s news conference in London, conducted with William Hague, Britain’s foreign secretary, Mr. Kerry talked by phone for 14 minutes with Sergey V. Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister, as he flew back to Washington, the official said.
The reactions appeared to reflect a broad international desire to de-escalate the atmosphere of impending confrontation even as President Obama was lobbying heavily at home to garner Congressional endorsement of a military strike.
The eager reactions to Russia’s proposal appeared to reflect a broad international desire to avoid a military intervention that could escalate the conflict in Syria in unpredictable ways, although the proposal did not appear to be one that Mr. Kerry or the Obama administration had intended.
Mr. Kerry’s suggestion — and the Russian and Syrian response — also seemed to represent the first possible point of agreement over how to address the chemical weapons issue that has threatened to turn the Syria conflict, now in its third year, into a regional war.
Asked in London at the end of a three-day trip to Europe whether there were any steps Syria could take to avoid a retaliatory attack, Mr. Kerry responded with seeming frustration and disdain.
But the Russian and Syrian responses, coming just as the White House was stepping up efforts to win Congressional and international support for a military strike, were dismissed by some as either a delaying tactic or a ploy to encourage opposition to Mr. Obama’s plans for a strike.
“Sure,” he said, standing beside Britain’s foreign minister, William Hague. “He could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week — turn it over, all of it, without delay and allow the full and total accounting.”
A top White House national security official, Tony Blinken, later suggested to reporters in Washington that the Obama administration was not dismissing the idea of an internationally supervised sequestering of Syria’s chemical munitions as a possible solution, but that it remained skeptical.
Mr. Kerry’s remarks, especially the reference to the short window of time, underscored the urgency of the administration’s preparations for a strike, and it did not appear to signal a shift in policy. The State Department’s spokeswoman, Jen Psaki, later clarified in an e-mail to reporters that Mr. Kerry was simply “making a rhetorical argument about the impossibility and unlikelihood of Assad turning over chemical weapons he has denied using.”
“We’re going to take a hard look at this,” Mr. Blinken said. “We’ll talk to the Russians about it.”
In Moscow, however, Mr. Lavrov, hammered the essence of Mr. Kerry’s statement into a compromise proposal that could at a minimum slow down an attack that Russia has vehemently opposed.
Asked at the news conference in London if there were steps the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, could take to avoid an American-led attack, Mr. Kerry said, “Sure, he could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week — turn it over, all of it, without delay and allow the full and total accounting.”
“We don’t know whether Syria will agree with this,” he said at a hastily scheduled briefing at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs here in Moscow, “but if the establishment of international control over chemical weapons in the country will prevent attacks, then we will immediately begin work with Damascus. And we will call on the Syrian leadership to not only agree to putting the chemical weapons storage sites under international control but also to their subsequent destruction.”
Mr. Kerry immediately dismissed the possibility that Mr. Assad would or could comply, saying, “But he isn’t about to do it, and it can’t be done.”
Such an effort, even if Syria agreed, would be a laborious and prolonged effort, especially since Mr. Assad’s government has shrouded its arsenal in secrecy for decades. As United Nations inspectors discovered in Iraq after the Persian Gulf War in 1991, even an invasive inspection regime can take years to account for chemical stockpiles and never be certain of complete compliance, something that President George W. Bush used to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
However, in Moscow, Russia’s foreign minister, Mr. Lavrov, who was meeting with Syria’s foreign minister, Walid al-Moallem, said in response that Russia would join any effort to put Syria’s stockpile of chemical weapons under international control and ultimately destroy them.
Russia’s proposal quickly gained momentum, however, even as Mr. Kerry flew back to Washington on Monday afternoon to attend evening briefings on Capitol Hill to lobby for a congressional endorsement of Mr. Obama’s threats to use force.
Mr. Lavrov appeared at a previously unscheduled briefing only hours after Mr. Kerry made his statement in London, taking Mr. Kerry’s comments as a way to suggest a possible compromise.
Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain, who failed to win parliamentary support for a military strike, endorsed the idea, saying “it would be hugely welcome,” according to news agencies in Britain. The United Nations Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, said that the proposal could form the basis of a resolution at the Security Council, which has been paralyzed by the war in Syria because of repeated vetoes by Russia and China over what Western and Arab nations have called any meaningful international actions against Mr. Assad’s government.
“We don’t know whether Syria will agree with this, but if the establishment of international control over chemical weapons in the country will prevent attacks, then we will immediately begin work with Damascus,” Mr. Lavrov said at the Foreign Ministry. “And we call on the Syrian leadership to not only agree to setting the chemical weapons storage sites under international control, but also to their subsequent destruction.”
Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius of France, whose government has joined with the Obama administration in pressing for military intervention, also welcomed the Russian proposition, but said Mr. Assad must “commit without delay” and place all chemical munitions under “international control.” In a statement, Mr. Fabius also called for a Security Council resolution that would carry the threat of “firm consequences” for noncompliance.
Mr. Moallem said later in a statement that his government welcomed the Russian proposal, Russia’s Interfax News Agency reported, in what appeared to be the first acknowledgment by the Syrian government that it even possessed chemical weapons. The Syrian government has historically neither confirmed nor denied possessing them.
In Washington, where the public debate over intervening in Syria has become increasingly divisive, Representative Mike Rogers of Michigan, a Republican who is the chairman of the House’s intelligence committee, expressed cautious support. “Just the fact the Russians have moved tells me having this debate on military action is having a positive outcome,” he said in a telephone interview.
In quick succession, the idea of sequestering Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile was also endorsed by Britain’s prime minister, David Cameron, the United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon and France’s foreign minister, Laurent Fabius.
Mr. Rogers said that Congress should still vote a resolution backing American military action as a means of increasing American leverage on the Russians to carry through with any international effort to destroy Syria’s chemical weapons.
Mr. Ban said he might propose a formal resolution to the Security Council, which has been paralyzed over how to deal with the Syria crisis from the beginning.
In Moscow, Mr. Lavrov said Russia was prepared to join any effort to dismantle Syria’s arsenal if it would avoid an American-led intervention, though he did not say whether it would support binding action in the Security Council.
Mr. Cameron told lawmakers in London that if Syria handed over its chemical weapons arsenal for destruction under international supervision, “it would be hugely welcome,” news agencies in Britain reported.
He added significant details to Mr. Kerry’s suggestion, saying that Syria would not only put its chemical weapons under international control but also sign the international Convention on Chemical Weapons, the treaty that bans the manufacture, stockpiling and use of poison gas.
Mr. Fabius of France, whose government has joined with the Obama administration in pressing for military intervention, also welcomed the Russian proposition, but said Mr. Assad must “commit without delay” and place all chemical munitions under “international control.” In a statement, Mr. Fabius also called for a Security Council resolution that would carry the threat of “firm consequences” for noncompliance.
Syria is one of seven nations that are not parties to the treaty, the others being Angola, Egypt, Israel, Myanmar, North Korea and South Sudan, a newly founded country that won its independence only in 2011. “We are counting on a quick and, I hope, positive answer,” Mr. Lavrov said.
In Washington, Representative Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican who heads the House Intelligence Committee, expressed cautious support for Mr. Lavrov’s response. “Just the fact the Russians have moved tells me having this debate on military action is a having a positive outcome,” Mr. Rogers said in a telephone interview.
Mr. Lavrov’s appearance was his second of the day and appeared calculated to be a direct response to Mr. Kerry. He had appeared with Mr. Moallem, Syria’s foreign minister, earlier on Monday, and both excoriated the United States for threatening military action. Mr. Moallem said an American attack would only aid the Al Qaeda militants who attacked on Sept. 11, 2001.
The United States and Russia had discussed the problem of how to deal with Syria’s chemical weapons before, including in May when Mr. Kerry went to Moscow. In his conversation with Mr. Kerry on Monday, however, Mr. Lavrov outlined the proposal that he planned to unveil later in the day: Syria should allow international monitors to control the chemical weapons and agree ultimately to give them up.
The shift in tone between Mr. Lavrov’s two appearances was striking. Mr. Lavrov said he made the proposal to put Syria’s weapons under international control directly to Mr. Moallem, who later told the Interfax news agency that Syria was prepared to accept it because of “the concern of the Russian leadership about the life of our citizens and the security of our country.”
“We are not going to play games,” Mr. Kerry told Mr. Lavrov, the State Department official said. If the Russians had a serious proposal, the Obama administration was prepared to consider it, Mr. Kerry added.
Although Mr. Moallem also serves as deputy prime minister, it remains to be seen whether he has the authority to commit Mr. Assad to such a significant step as the international control and ultimate destruction of an arsenal that Syria has maintained in large part as a deterrent to its enemy next door, Israel, which is widely assumed to have a nuclear arsenal that it has never officially acknowledged.
Mr. Kerry also told Mr. Lavrov that his comments earlier in the day suggesting that Syria might avert an American strike by giving up its chemical weapons within a week, which Mr. Lavrov cited at their beginning of their phone conversation, had merely been a rhetorical point.
Mr. Kerry himself expressed skepticism. He went on in his remarks in London to say that he did not believe that Mr. Assad would ever agree to such a step and expressed doubt about whether it would even be feasible as the civil war continues to rage across the country. “But he isn’t about to do it, and it can’t be done,” Mr. Kerry said. Ms. Psaki’s statement said Mr. Assad was “a brutal dictator with a history of play fast and loose with the facts.”
And Mr. Kerry also said that the White House would not slow down its efforts to win Congressional approval of a military strike, the State Department official said.
Steven
Lee Myers reported from Moscow, Michael R. Gordon reported from London. Reporting was contributed by Eric Schmitt and Michael D. Shear from Washington, Rick Gladstone from New York, and Scott Sayare from Paris.
Obama administration had discussed the idea of some sort of ultimatum that might be presented to Mr. Assad to give up his chemical weapons stocks. But the idea seemed to have many problems. Among the unknowns were how would the stocks be secured and transported, and how would inspectors ensure that stocks were not hidden.
Mr. Kerry had said on Sunday that he hoped to get additional nations within 24 hours to sign on to a statement calling for a strong international response. And Mr. Lavrov’s proposal may have been intended to thwart such an outcome.
Mr. Lavrov went into more detail than Mr. Kerry’s suggestion — which Mr. Kerry’s own spokeswoman, Jen Psaki, had described as more of a rhetorical exercise than a proposal.
Mr. Lavrov said Russia was proposing that Syria join the international Convention on Chemical Weapons, which bars the manufacture, stockpiling and use of poison gas.
Syria is one of seven nations that are not parties to the treaty, the others being Angola, Egypt, Israel, Myanmar, North Korea and South Sudan. “We are counting on a quick, and I hope, positive answer,” Mr. Lavrov said Monday evening as Mr. Kerry flew back to Washington to attend briefings on Capitol Hill intended to build support for a military response to Syria’s use of such weapons.
For Mr. Hague, the British foreign secretary, whose government has already ruled out participation in a military strike on Syria in deference to parliamentary opposition, his meeting with Mr. Kerry on Monday was nonetheless an opportunity to affirm British support for the United States, its most important ally.
“Our government supports the objective of ensuring that there can be no impunity for the first use of chemical warfare in the 21st century,” Mr. Hague said in his joint appearance with Mr. Kerry. “As an international community, we must deter further attacks and hold those responsible for them accountable.”
Mr. Hague also said, “We admire the leadership of President Obama and Secretary Kerry himself, in making this case so powerfully to the world.”
Mr. Kerry said that Mr. Assad’s claims that he was not responsible for the chemical attack on Aug. 21 that provoked an international crisis over whether to launch punitive military strikes were not credible because Syria’s arsenal of poison gas is tightly controlled.
Mr. Kerry said that three senior officials in the Syrian government have held control over the nation’s chemical weapons stocks and their use: Mr. Assad, his brother Maher and a senior general.
Mr. Kerry said that “high level” members of the government gave the instructions to use chemical weapons in the Aug. 21 attack near Damascus “with the results going directly to President Assad.”
When asked if the White House would consider making public additional intelligence to counter Mr. Assad’s claims that he had nothing to do with the attack, like physical samples that documented the use of sarin gas produced by the Syrian government, Mr. Kerry said that he did not know what President Obama would decide.
But he asserted that the Obama administration had already made available copious amounts of intelligence, and that the case against Mr. Assad was airtight.
In a discussion on Sunday with Charlie Rose, the American television interviewer, Mr. Assad asserted that Mr. Kerry had lied about the intelligence, drawing an analogy to the presentation that Colin Powell made to the United Nations about Iraq in 2003. Mr. Kerry appeared unruffled by that allegation and recalled that his own experience in dealing with Mr. Assad as a senator had convinced him that the Syrian leader could not be trusted.
In early 2009, Mr. Kerry met with Mr. Assad in Damascus to explore the possibility of improving relations between the United States and Syria. Mr. Kerry said that he confronted Mr. Assad about intelligence confirming that Syria had transferred Scud missiles to Hezbollah.
Mr. Kerry said that Mr. Assad had “denied it to my face,” adding, “This is a man without credibility.”
Repeating a point he has stressed throughout his four days of discussions with European allies, Mr. Kerry said that if an attack was carried out, it would be limited in scope and duration, would not involve ground troops, and would not drag the United States and its allies into a prolonged conflict. He emphasized that it would be nothing like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the NATO bombing of Kosovo or the intervention in Libya.
Steven Lee Myers reported from Moscow, Michael R. Gordon reported from London and Rick Gladstone from New York. Eric Schmitt and Michael D. Shear contributed reporting from Washington, and Scott Sayare from Paris.
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: September 9, 2013
Correction: September 9, 2013
A previous version of this article misspelled the surname of a State Department spokeswoman. She is Jen Psaki, not Jen Paski.
A previous version of this article misspelled the surname of a State Department spokeswoman. She is Jen Psaki, not Jen Paski.
