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.
White House Backs Global Push to Secure Syria’s Arsenal
U.S. to Work Through U.N. on Syria Arms Proposal
(about 2 hours later)
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.
WASHINGTON — The United States will begin working with its allies at the United Nations to explore the viability of a Russian plan to avert military action against Syria by having the international community take control of the Syrian chemical weapons stockpile, a senior White House official said on Tuesday.
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 decision to work through the United Nations came after President Obama spoke Tuesday morning with President François Hollande of France and Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain, the White House official said.
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.
“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 official said. “These efforts will begin today at the United Nations.”
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.
France has already begun to share a draft Security Council resolution on Syria, which members of the council were consulting about on Tuesday afternoon. “Discussions have just begun,” said a United Nations diplomat, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “We’re looking at a process that will last a few days.”
The official said the discussions, including possible elements of a Security Council resolution, followed discussions among President Obama, President François Hollande of France and Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain.
But Russia’s Foreign Ministry announced in a statement that it opposed any resolution that would authorize the use of force. Sergey V. Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, telephoned his French counterpart and told him a resolution like the one proposed by France was “unacceptable,” the ministry said in a statement.
“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.
Instead, Russia will propose a presidential statement, which is far less binding, calling on the secretary general and the organization that oversees the Chemical Weapons Convention to carry out the proposal to put Syria’s arsenal under international control.
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.
“The Russian draft confirms that there is no alternative to a political and diplomatic settlement of the conflict” in Syria, the statement said.
“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.
Mr. Obama’s decision to embrace a United Nations process came as he prepared to consult with senators on Capitol Hill and deliver a speech to the nation Tuesday night, which was originally scheduled to explain why he was asking Congress for authorization to take military action against the government of President Bashar al-Assad in retaliation for its use of chemical weapons.
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.”
Aides to Mr. Obama said he would continue to press for military action against Syria, but the proposal floated Monday by Mr. Lavrov has transformed both the domestic and international debate over Mr. Obama’s plan after he appeared to be waging a losing battle to win support for a military response.
However, Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, told Mr. Fabius in a phone call that the threat of force was “unacceptable,” according to the Russian Foreign Ministry. The ministry said Russia would make its own proposal at the Security Council that allowed only for political and diplomatic settlement to the conflict.
Under the Russian proposal, international monitors would be sent to Syria to take control of the chemical stocks, which would ultimately be eliminated. Syria has welcomed the Russian initiative but has not specifically endorsed the idea of disposing of its huge chemical weapons arsenal.
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.
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 from Mr. Assad himself.
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.
President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia said that the proposal to take control of Syria’s chemical weapons — and to resolve the crisis in general — was possible only if the United States and others forswore the use of military force. He said he had discussed the issue with Mr. Obama on the sidelines of the Group of 20 meetings in St. Petersburg last Friday. Mr. Putin also said he welcomed the initial response of Syrian officials.
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.
“Undoubtedly, all of this makes sense and can function, can work, only if we hear that the American side and those who support the United States in this sense rule out the use of force,” Mr. Putin said in televised remarks on Tuesday night, “because it is difficult to make any country — Syria or any other country, any other government in the world — unilaterally disarm if the use of force is being prepared against it.”
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.
He noted that Syria had “a certain arsenal of chemical weapons,” and that “the Syrians have always regarded it as an alternative to the nuclear weapons in Israel.” He said he and Mr. Obama had agreed to ask Mr. Lavrov and Secretary of State John Kerry to work intensively to try to resolve the issue.
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.
On Capitol Hill on Tuesday, a bipartisan group of eight senators announced plans for a new Congressional resolution that would authorize an attack on Syria, but only after the introduction of a United Nations resolution that would set a deadline for the Assad government to hand over its chemical stockpile. If that deadline is not met, the resolution would authorize the use of military force.
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.
Mr. Kerry, appearing before a Congressional committee Tuesday morning, expressed caution about the diplomatic efforts even as he pledged that the president would “take a hard look at” the Russian plan in the days ahead. Mr. Kerry said any diplomatic response to the chemical weapons attack in Syria must be viewed cautiously.
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.
“It has to be swift, it has to be real, it has to be verifiable,” Mr. Kerry told members of the House Armed Services Committee. “It cannot be a delaying tactic.”
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.
Mr. Kerry said the administration would continue to push for Congress to authorize military action against Syria, believing that the threat of an attack had prompted the new diplomatic initiative. “The use of force absolutely should not be off the table,” Mr. Kerry said.
Syrian state television quoted Prime Minister Wael al-Halki as saying his government supported Moscow’s initiative “to spare Syrian blood.”
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, appearing at the same committee hearing, said in his prepared statement that “for this diplomatic option to have a chance of succeeding, the threat of U.S. military action must continue to be very real and credible.”
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.
“So Congress has a responsibility,” he added, “to continue this important debate on authorizing the use of force against the Syrian regime.”
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.
While Mr. Obama said on Monday that the Russian proposal might produce a diplomatic breakthrough, there is concern among American officials that it may be a maneuver to undermine the administration’s effort to mobilize international and Congressional support for a military strike.
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.
Obama administration officials have previously discussed the idea of some sort of ultimatum that might be presented to Mr. Assad to give up his chemical weapons stocks, a senior administration official said on Monday. But the idea seemed to have many problems. Among the questions was: How would the stocks be secured and transported out of Syria during a war? And how would inspectors ensure that stocks were not hidden?
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.
The administration had dismissed the United Nations for days, saying that diplomacy there had failed to rein in Mr. Assad. Susan E. Rice, the national security adviser, said Monday morning that Mr. Obama believed that the United Nations Security Council had been ineffective.
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.”
By Tuesday morning — with governments around the world seizing on the Russian proposal as a serious idea — the White House tone had changed. The White House official said that the efforts at the United Nations would “include a discussion on elements of a potential U.N. Security Council resolution.”
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.
Developments in Congress reflected the fast-moving diplomacy.
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.”
In the Senate, which had already delayed an initial vote on military strikes that had been scheduled for Wednesday, the bipartisan group drafting an alternative Congressional resolution said its plan would give the United Nations time to take control of the Syrian government’s arsenal of the internationally banned weapons.
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.
If that resolution gains support, it could stave off a debilitating defeat for the Obama administration on a resolution authorizing an attack that was approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week, but that had been losing ground in both parties in recent days.
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.
The alternative resolution is far from complete, but a Senate aide familiar with the talks over its wording said the negotiations were being conducted in consultation with the White House.
In their conversation, Mr. Kerry told his Russian counterpart, “We’re not going to play games,” according to a senior State Department official.
The group drafting the measure includes Senators John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire and Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, all Republicans, and Senators Carl Levin of Michigan, Charles E. Schumer of New York, Chris Coons of Delaware and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, all Democrats. Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, is also involved in the discussions.
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 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.
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.
Visiting Moscow, Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem of Syria 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 foreign minister had the authority to speak for Mr. Assad, especially without returning to Damascus for consultations.
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.
Syrian state television quoted Prime Minister Wael al-Halki as saying that his government supported Moscow’s initiative “to spare Syrian blood.”
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.
Reporting
was contributed by Alan Cowell from London, Steven Lee Myers from Moscow, and Rick Gladstone from New York.
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.”
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.
