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.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/world/middleeast/syrian-chemical-arsenal.html

The article has changed 27 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 10 Version 11
Key Senators Endorse Global Push to Secure Syria’s Arsenal White House Backs Global Push to Secure Syria’s Arsenal
(about 1 hour later)
WASHINGTON — A bipartisan group of eight senators joined the international diplomatic momentum on Tuesday to avert an American military attack on Syria over its use of chemical munitions in that country’s civil war, responding positively to a Russian proposal aimed at securing and destroying those weapons. WASHINGTON — The White House and a bipartisan group of senators joined the international diplomatic momentum on Tuesday to avert an American military attack on Syria over its use of chemical munitions in that country’s civil war, responding positively to a Russian proposal aimed at securing and destroying those weapons.
The group of senators, including some of President Obama’s biggest supporters and critics, were drafting an alternative Congressional resolution that would give the United Nations time to take control of the Syrian government’s arsenal of the internationally banned weapons.The group of senators, including some of President Obama’s biggest supporters and critics, were drafting an alternative Congressional resolution that would give the United Nations time to take control of the Syrian government’s arsenal of the internationally banned weapons.
If the alternative resolution gained political traction, it could stave off a Congressional vote — and possibly a debilitating defeat for the Obama administration — in the coming days on a more immediate resolution authorizing the use of force, which a majority of Americans appear to oppose. That resolution, approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week, had been losing ground in both parties in recent days. Passage appeared increasingly difficult in the House and possibly the Senate as well.If the alternative resolution gained political traction, it could stave off a Congressional vote — and possibly a debilitating defeat for the Obama administration — in the coming days on a more immediate resolution authorizing the use of force, which a majority of Americans appear to oppose. That resolution, approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week, had been losing ground in both parties in recent days. Passage appeared increasingly difficult in the House and possibly the Senate as well.
The alternative resolution is far from complete, but a Senate aide familiar with the talks said the negotiations are being conducted in consultation with the White House. It would require the United Nations Security Council to pass a resolution condemning the use of chemical weapons by the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and would set a deadline for establishing United Nations control of the arsenal. If that deadline is not met, the resolution would authorize the use of military force. At the same time, a senior White House official said Tuesday that administration officials — who just last week had been dismissing the United Nations as ineffective in the Syrian conflict — had begun working with American allies at the United Nations to further explore the viability of the Russian plan, in which the international community would take control of the Syrian weapons stockpile.
The official said the discussions, including possible elements of a Security Council resolution, followed discussions between President Obama, President François Hollande of France and Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain.
“They agreed to work closely together, and in consultation with Russia and China, to explore seriously the viability of the Russian proposal to put all Syrian chemical weapons and related materials fully under international control in order to ensure their verifiable and enforceable destruction,” the White House official said.
Mr. Cameron, speaking to a parliamentary committee in London, promised Britain’s full cooperation in pursuing diplomacy at the United Nations but said a timetable for compliance would be needed.
“If this is a serious proposal then we should act accordingly and I think a U.N. Security Council Resolution is a good idea,” Mr. Cameron said.
Diplomats at the United Nations said the French had begun to share the text of a resolution drafted by France, which the French foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, announced earlier Tuesday, that would include the threat of force to ensure compliance. One of the diplomats, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said of the discussions that “we’re looking at a process that will last a few days.”
The diplomacy at the United Nations could prove awkward for Russia, which started the process with its proposal on Syria’s chemical munitions. As a permanent Security Council member, it has thrice vetoed previous Western-sponsored resolutions that would authorize force to help resolve the conflict in Syria, now in its third year.
The alternative Senate resolution is far from complete, but a Senate aide familiar with the talks said the negotiations were being conducted in consultation with the White House. It would require passage of a Security Council resolution condemning the use of chemical weapons by the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and would set a deadline for establishing United Nations control of the arsenal. If that deadline is not met, the resolution would authorize the use of military force.
The alternative resolution was likely to be presented to Democratic and Republican senators at meetings later in the day with President Obama, who was still planning to address the nation on Tuesday evening about what he has called the need for military force in response to the use of deadly chemical weapons last month in the Syrian civil war.The alternative resolution was likely to be presented to Democratic and Republican senators at meetings later in the day with President Obama, who was still planning to address the nation on Tuesday evening about what he has called the need for military force in response to the use of deadly chemical weapons last month in the Syrian civil war.
The bipartisan group drafting the measure includes Republican Senators John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire and Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, and Democratic Senators Carl Levin of Michigan, Charles E. Schumer of New York and Chris Coons of Delaware. Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, is in consultations. The bipartisan group drafting the measure included Republican Senators John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire and Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, and Democratic Senators Carl Levin of Michigan, Charles E. Schumer of New York Chris Coons of Delaware, and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania. Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, was in consultations.
News of the proposed bipartisan resolution came hours after France, trying to seize the initiative on the Russian proposal, said it was drafting a Security Council resolution enshrining the idea. In Moscow, Russian officials said they were working with the authorities in Damascus on a “workable, precise and concrete plan” to advance the proposal, which received public endorsements from Syria’s foreign minister and prime minister, but not President Assad himself. The increased diplomatic momentum in Washington and the United Nations came hours after Russian officials said they were working with the authorities in Damascus on a “workable, precise and concrete plan” to advance the proposal, which received public endorsements from Syria’s foreign minister and prime minister, but not President Assad himself.
“We are hoping to present this plan in the near future,” Sergey V. Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, said. “We will be ready to work through this plan and improve it with the participation of the U.N. general secretary, with chemical weapons control organizations and with the members of the Security Council.”“We are hoping to present this plan in the near future,” Sergey V. Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, said. “We will be ready to work through this plan and improve it with the participation of the U.N. general secretary, with chemical weapons control organizations and with the members of the Security Council.”
The Russian blueprint also won backing from China, which has resisted Western calls for military action against Syria but said on Tuesday that it supported Moscow’s plan to avert an American strike.The Russian blueprint also won backing from China, which has resisted Western calls for military action against Syria but said on Tuesday that it supported Moscow’s plan to avert an American strike.
The rapid-fire diplomatic developments elicited skepticism from many regional and international players, who questioned the motives behind the Russian gambit and speculated that Moscow’s plan would enable the Syrian authorities to buy time. Even so, the rapid-fire diplomatic developments elicited skepticism from many regional and international players, who questioned the motives behind the Russian gambit and speculated that Moscow’s plan would enable the Syrian authorities to buy time.
Visiting Moscow, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem repeated on Tuesday that the Syrian government had accepted the Russian initiative to “uproot U.S. aggression.” But, analysts said, his comment fell short of an unambiguous pledge by Syria to give up its arsenal. It was also unclear if the minister had the authority to speak for President Assad, especially without returning to Damascus for consultations.Visiting Moscow, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem repeated on Tuesday that the Syrian government had accepted the Russian initiative to “uproot U.S. aggression.” But, analysts said, his comment fell short of an unambiguous pledge by Syria to give up its arsenal. It was also unclear if the minister had the authority to speak for President Assad, especially without returning to Damascus for consultations.
Syrian state television quoted Prime Minister Wael al-Halki as saying his government supported Moscow’s initiative “to spare Syrian blood.”Syrian state television quoted Prime Minister Wael al-Halki as saying his government supported Moscow’s initiative “to spare Syrian blood.”
For their part, the rebels battling to overthrow Mr. Assad denounced the Russian proposal as a political maneuver, reflecting a belief that President Vladimir V. Putin was seeking to shield the Syrian government, his closest Middle East ally.For their part, the rebels battling to overthrow Mr. Assad denounced the Russian proposal as a political maneuver, reflecting a belief that President Vladimir V. Putin was seeking to shield the Syrian government, his closest Middle East ally.
In Paris, Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said the French approach to the Security Council would be made under Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter, which provides for an array of action, including military, to restore peace and urge the Syrians to accept that their chemical stockpiles would be dismantled.In Paris, Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said the French approach to the Security Council would be made under Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter, which provides for an array of action, including military, to restore peace and urge the Syrians to accept that their chemical stockpiles would be dismantled.
He also said he expected a “nearly immediate” commitment from the Syrian authorities and added that Russia had information about the chemical weapons stockpile amassed by the Syrian authorities. Mr. Fabius said that he hoped the Security Council would approve a tough resolution after months of efforts by China and Russia to thwart Western action at the United Nations. He also said he expected a “nearly immediate” commitment from the Syrian authorities and added that Russia had information about the chemical weapons stockpile amassed by the Syrian authorities.
The French proposal will call for Syria to allow inspectors from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to oversee the destruction of chemical weapons in the country and will require that Syria become a member of the organization. It is one of five states that have not signed the Chemical Weapons Convention, an international convention banning the use and stockpiling of chemical arms and the materials required in their production. The French proposal will call for Syria to allow inspectors from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to oversee the destruction of chemical weapons in the country and will require that Syria become a member of the organization. It is one of a handful of states that are not party to the Chemical Weapons Convention, an international convention banning the use and stockpiling of chemical arms and the materials required in their production.
“Extremely serious consequences” would be planned for any deviation from the obligations of the resolution, Mr. Fabius said, though he remained cautious about the prospect of the French proposal being adopted. Russia, a firm ally of Mr. Assad and permanent member of the Security Council, has vetoed three Security Council resolutions on Syria since the start of the conflict. “
“It is upon the acceptance of these precise conditions that we will judge the credibility of the intentions that were expressed yesterday,” Mr. Fabius said. France emerged as the Obama administrations’s leading European ally after the British Parliament voted against involvement in military action in Syria. Earlier, Mr. Fabius said the Russian proposal represented an about-face by Moscow that showed the impact of French and American diplomacy. “We welcome the Russian proposal with interest and caution,” Mr. Fabius told a radio interviewer in Paris. “Our decisiveness has paid off.”
France has emerged as the Obama administrations’s leading European ally after the British Parliament voted against involvement in military action in Syria. Earlier, Mr. Fabius said the Russian proposal represented an about-face by Moscow that showed the impact of French and American diplomacy. “We welcome the Russian proposal with interest and caution,” Mr. Fabius told a radio interviewer in Paris. “Our decisiveness has paid off.”
Officials in Moscow expressed no small amount of satisfaction that Russia’s plan had — at least for now — averted a military intervention in Syria that Mr. Putin and others have vehemently opposed as a dangerous extension of American meddling in the Middle East.Officials in Moscow expressed no small amount of satisfaction that Russia’s plan had — at least for now — averted a military intervention in Syria that Mr. Putin and others have vehemently opposed as a dangerous extension of American meddling in the Middle East.
Aleksei K. Pushkov, the chairman of the foreign affairs committee in the State Duma, or lower house of Parliament, said in a posting on Twitter that the proposal “cut the ground from under Obama’s launching of military strikes.”Aleksei K. Pushkov, the chairman of the foreign affairs committee in the State Duma, or lower house of Parliament, said in a posting on Twitter that the proposal “cut the ground from under Obama’s launching of military strikes.”
Mr. Lavrov said he had discussed the proposal with the Americans before announcing it at a hastily arranged briefing on Monday evening. Mr. Obama and Mr. Putin discussed the idea privately on the sidelines of last week’s summit of the Group of 20 nations and Mr. Lavrov discussed it with Secretary of State John Kerry.Mr. Lavrov said he had discussed the proposal with the Americans before announcing it at a hastily arranged briefing on Monday evening. Mr. Obama and Mr. Putin discussed the idea privately on the sidelines of last week’s summit of the Group of 20 nations and Mr. Lavrov discussed it with Secretary of State John Kerry.
Mr. Kerry returned to Washington on Monday after first raising the idea in a dismissive way in London on Monday, making clear that the idea of Mr. Assad giving up Syria’s weapons seemed improbable.Mr. Kerry returned to Washington on Monday after first raising the idea in a dismissive way in London on Monday, making clear that the idea of Mr. Assad giving up Syria’s weapons seemed improbable.
In their conversation, Mr. Kerry told his Russian counterpart, “We’re not going to play games,” according to a senior State Department official.In their conversation, Mr. Kerry told his Russian counterpart, “We’re not going to play games,” according to a senior State Department official.
By Monday night, however, the proposal had gained broad support and Mr. Obama said it was worth exploring. “This proposal is a good way out of a complex situation for all the interested parties,” the chairman of the foreign affairs committee of the upper house of the Russian Parliament, Mikhail V. Margelov, said. Noting the American Senate’s postponement of a vote, he said that Mr. Obama had “saved face among hawks demanding that intervention.”By Monday night, however, the proposal had gained broad support and Mr. Obama said it was worth exploring. “This proposal is a good way out of a complex situation for all the interested parties,” the chairman of the foreign affairs committee of the upper house of the Russian Parliament, Mikhail V. Margelov, said. Noting the American Senate’s postponement of a vote, he said that Mr. Obama had “saved face among hawks demanding that intervention.”
The Duma, which opened its fall session on Tuesday, announced that it would adopt a resolution supporting the initiative. The Parliament’s chairman, Sergei Y. Naryshkin, cited “the hopefully positive developments” and credited “the principled and unswerving stand of Russia” to avert an intervention.
The hectic developments came as a leading rights group supported conclusions by Western governments that only the government of Mr. Assad could have launched the attack that killed hundreds of people, many of them children.
While Mr. Assad has denied that his forces used toxic agents in the attacks on the morning of Aug. 21, Human Rights Watch in New York said evidence concerning the type of rockets and launchers involved in the strike “suggests that these are weapon systems known and documented to be only in the possession of, and used by, Syrian government armed forces.”
The report identified the delivery systems used on Aug. 21 as a Soviet-era 140-mm rocket “designed to carry and deliver” about five pounds of sarin, and a 330 mm rocket capable of carrying “a large payload of liquid chemical agent.”
On Monday, President Obama tentatively embraced the Russian proposal, adding new uncertainty to his push to win support among allies, the American public and members of Congress for a limited attack.
But the proposal seems freighted with uncertainties relating as much to the tactical considerations behind it as to the practical issues involved in enforcing it at the height of a bloody civil war that has claimed more than 100,000 lives since March 2011.
“If Syria were to put its chemical weapons beyond use under international supervision, clearly that would be a big step forward and should be encouraged,” Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain told Parliament on Monday. “I think we have to be careful, though, to make sure this is not a distraction tactic to discuss something else rather than the problem on the table, but if it is a genuine offer, then it should be genuinely looked at.”
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, facing elections on Sept. 22, seemed noncommital, saying the Russian proposals were “interesting suggestions.”
The sharpest criticism came from opponents of President Assad, who said in a statement in Beirut that the Russian proposal “is a political maneuver and is part of useless procrastination that will only result in more deaths and destruction for the Syrian people,” Agence France-Presse reported.The sharpest criticism came from opponents of President Assad, who said in a statement in Beirut that the Russian proposal “is a political maneuver and is part of useless procrastination that will only result in more deaths and destruction for the Syrian people,” Agence France-Presse reported.
In Jerusalem, the Israeli government had no immediate comment on the Russian proposal, in line with its policy of trying to keep out of the heated American debate over how to deal with Syria.In Jerusalem, the Israeli government had no immediate comment on the Russian proposal, in line with its policy of trying to keep out of the heated American debate over how to deal with Syria.
Avigdor Lieberman, the former foreign minister of Israel who now chairs the parliamentary Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee and is a political ally of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, told Israel Radio on Tuesday that it was not yet clear if the Russian proposal entailed the removal of all of Syria’s chemical weapons or supervising them on Syrian territory, and that Israel should not take a stand. But Israel views its stake in the outcome of the Syrian chemical weapons debate as bigger than most countries: Israeli officials say this as a test case for the upholding of red lines and how President Obama and the international community might deal with Iran’s nuclear weapons program.
But, like some in the West, Mr. Lieberman expressed skepticism about the initiative, saying that Mr. Assad was “gaining time, and lots of it,” that there was no clarity about the quantity of chemical weapons in Syria’s possession and that Mr. Assad could not be taken at his word.
Israel views its stake in the outcome of the Syrian chemical weapons debate as bigger than most countries: Israeli officials say this as a test case for the upholding of red lines and how President Obama and the international community might deal with Iran’s nuclear weapons program.
Mr. Netanyahu and his aides have long argued that a diplomatic solution to the Iran problem has no chance unless it is coupled with a credible military threat. If the Russian deal on Syria works out in the end to everybody’s satisfaction, some Israelis said it could be seen as a good precedent.Mr. Netanyahu and his aides have long argued that a diplomatic solution to the Iran problem has no chance unless it is coupled with a credible military threat. If the Russian deal on Syria works out in the end to everybody’s satisfaction, some Israelis said it could be seen as a good precedent.
“In Jerusalem they should be happy,” wrote Ron Ben-Yishai, a military affairs analyst on Ynet, a leading Hebrew news site. “It has clearly been proven that a credible American military option can be a successful deterrent. The Iranian context is as clear as the sun, as is the future direction of the joint strategic course of the United States and Israel regarding Tehran.”“In Jerusalem they should be happy,” wrote Ron Ben-Yishai, a military affairs analyst on Ynet, a leading Hebrew news site. “It has clearly been proven that a credible American military option can be a successful deterrent. The Iranian context is as clear as the sun, as is the future direction of the joint strategic course of the United States and Israel regarding Tehran.”
But other Israelis were already viewing the developments on Syria as tokens of American weakness.

Jonathan Weisman reported from Washington, and Alan Cowell from London. Reporting was contributed by Michael D. Shear from Washington, Steven Lee Myers from Moscow, Scott Sayare from Paris, Alison Smale from Berlin, Isabel Kershner from Jerusalem and Rick Gladstone from New York.

Jonathan Weisman reported from Washington, and Alan Cowell from London. Steven Lee Myers contributed reporting from Moscow, Scott Sayare from Paris, Alison Smale from Berlin, Isabel Kershner from Jerusalem and Rick Gladstone from New York.