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 17 Version 18
Obama to Weigh Russia Plan to Control Syria Arms Obama Makes the Case for a Strike Against Syria
(37 minutes later)
WASHINGTON — President Obama, facing an almost certain defeat in obtaining Congressional support for a military strike against Syria, prepared to tell the nation on Tuesday night that he would give serious consideration to a proposal by Russia that international monitors take over and destroy Syria’s arsenal of chemical weapons. WASHINGTON — President Obama, facing an almost certain defeat in obtaining Congressional support for a military strike against Syria, made the case for that strike to the nation on Tuesday night, but said he would give serious consideration to a proposal by Russia that international monitors take over and destroy Syria’s arsenal of chemical weapons.
Mr. Obama, according to aides, was still planning to press Congress to support action against Syria, arguing that only a credible threat of military force would persuade President Bashar al-Assad to surrender his weapons stockpiles. But at the end of two days of fast-moving developments, Congressional leaders said any vote on a strike had been pushed off as the focus shifted to diplomacy. “It’s too early to tell whether this offer will succeed, and any agreement must verify that the Assad regime keeps its commitment,” Mr. Obama said, “but this initiative has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force, particularly because Russia is one of Assad’s strongest allies.”
In a speech that only 48 hours ago was going to be a call to arms against Syria in relatiation for its use of chemical weapons, Mr. Obama was instead to offer a qualified endorsement of a Russian proposal that his own advisers conceded was rife with risk, given Russia’s steadfast refusal to agree to any previous measures to pressure its longtime client in Syria. Mr. Obama, in a speech delivered at the White House, said he had asked Congressional leaders to postpone a vote to authorize the use of force while he pursued what he described as “this diplomatic path,” even while making the moral case for punishing Syria for its deadly use of chemical weapons.
While aides said the president would reiterate a legal and moral case for punishing Syria for its deadly use of chemical weapons, his speech was to be a frank acknowledgment of how radically the political and diplomatic landscape had shifted in just a few days. “When dictators commit atrocities they depend upon the world to look away until those horrifying pictures fade from memory,” he said. “But these things happened. The facts cannot be denied. The question is now, what is the United States and the international community prepared to do about it. Because what happened to those people, to those children, is not only a violation of international law but a threat to our security.”
On Capitol Hill, at the United Nations and in foreign capitals, officials flocked to endorse Russia’s proposal as an alternative to involving the United States in the two-and-a-half-year-old civil war in Syria. The proposal also won the backing of the Syrian government: the foreign minister, Walid al-Moallem, said Tuesday that Syria would turn over its chemical weapons arsenal to Russia, the United Nations and “other countries” — a startling concession, given that as recently as this week Mr. Assad had disputed that Syria even possessed chemical weapons. But in a speech that only 48 hours ago was going to be a call to arms, Mr. Obama offered a qualified endorsement of a Russian proposal that his own advisers conceded was rife with risk, given Russia’s steadfast refusal to agree to any previous measures to pressure its longtime client in Syria. And his speech was a frank acknowledgment of how radically the political and diplomatic landscape had shifted in just a few days.
On Capitol Hill, at the United Nations and in foreign capitals, officials flocked to endorse Russia’s proposal as an alternative to involving the United States in the two-and-a-half-year-old civil war in Syria.
The proposal also won the backing of the Syrian government: the foreign minister, Walid al-Moallem, said Tuesday that Syria would turn over its chemical weapons arsenal to Russia, the United Nations and “other countries” — a startling concession, given that as recently as this week Mr. Assad had disputed that Syria even possessed chemical weapons.
Still, administration officials, lawmakers and diplomats all expressed doubts about the Russian plan. Some said it would allow Syria to play for time and was calculated to undermine the drive for Congressional and international support for a strike. Others said the idea of securing chemical weapons stockpiles in the midst of a brutal civil war was fanciful.Still, administration officials, lawmakers and diplomats all expressed doubts about the Russian plan. Some said it would allow Syria to play for time and was calculated to undermine the drive for Congressional and international support for a strike. Others said the idea of securing chemical weapons stockpiles in the midst of a brutal civil war was fanciful.
Moreover, the diplomatic efforts — which began after Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, announced his proposal on Monday — quickly ran into trouble. A meeting of the United Nations Security Council was canceled Tuesday afternoon after Russia clashed with the United States and France over whether to make its proposal binding and back it up with the threat of force.Moreover, the diplomatic efforts — which began after Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, announced his proposal on Monday — quickly ran into trouble. A meeting of the United Nations Security Council was canceled Tuesday afternoon after Russia clashed with the United States and France over whether to make its proposal binding and back it up with the threat of force.
“We need a full resolution from the Security Council to have the confidence that this has the force it ought to have,” Secretary of State John Kerry said in a social media interview sponsored by Google. “Right now the Russians are in a slightly different place on that.”“We need a full resolution from the Security Council to have the confidence that this has the force it ought to have,” Secretary of State John Kerry said in a social media interview sponsored by Google. “Right now the Russians are in a slightly different place on that.”
Mr. Kerry and Mr. Lavrov will meet in Geneva on Thursday to work out these disagreements. Before Russia made its announcement, Mr. Kerry expressed blunt skepticism that Syria could be trusted to turn over its stockpile, which is dispersed in multiple locations around the country. In testimony to Congress on Tuesday, he described the Obama administration’s position on the Russian plan.Mr. Kerry and Mr. Lavrov will meet in Geneva on Thursday to work out these disagreements. Before Russia made its announcement, Mr. Kerry expressed blunt skepticism that Syria could be trusted to turn over its stockpile, which is dispersed in multiple locations around the country. In testimony to Congress on Tuesday, he described the Obama administration’s position on the Russian plan.
“It has to be swift, it has to be real, it has to be verifiable,” Mr. Kerry told the House Armed Services Committee. “It cannot be a delaying tactic.”“It has to be swift, it has to be real, it has to be verifiable,” Mr. Kerry told the House Armed Services Committee. “It cannot be a delaying tactic.”
Mr. Obama’s decision to work through the Security Council is itself a shift, given that 10 days ago he described it as “completely paralyzed and unwilling to hold Assad accountable.” But administration officials said they were swayed by the level of detail in the Russian proposal, which grew out of an impromptu conversation between Mr. Obama and President Vladimir V. Putin on the sidelines of a summit meeting in St. Petersburg, Russia, last week. Mr. Obama’s decision to work through the Security Council is itself a shift, given that 10 days ago he described it as “completely paralyzed and unwilling to hold Assad accountable.”
But administration officials said they were swayed by the level of detail in the Russian proposal, which grew out of an impromptu conversation between Mr. Obama and President Vladimir V. Putin on the sidelines of a summit meeting in St. Petersburg, Russia, last week.
“The Lavrov statement was quite comprehensive,” a senior administration official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. “Frankly, it exceeded expectations in the level of detail it went into.”“The Lavrov statement was quite comprehensive,” a senior administration official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. “Frankly, it exceeded expectations in the level of detail it went into.”
On Capitol Hill, where opposition to a strike was hardening, senators emerged from lunchtime meetings with Mr. Obama optimistic that Congress could shift from a resolution authorizing force to one that would give diplomacy more time.On Capitol Hill, where opposition to a strike was hardening, senators emerged from lunchtime meetings with Mr. Obama optimistic that Congress could shift from a resolution authorizing force to one that would give diplomacy more time.
The president impressed on them the need to keep the pressure on Syria and Russia, but expressed support for a delay in any vote until the Security Council makes clear what it plans to do.The president impressed on them the need to keep the pressure on Syria and Russia, but expressed support for a delay in any vote until the Security Council makes clear what it plans to do.
“I didn’t see any anxiety on the part of the president for an immediate need for action,” said Senator Benjamin L. Cardin, Democrat of Maryland.“I didn’t see any anxiety on the part of the president for an immediate need for action,” said Senator Benjamin L. Cardin, Democrat of Maryland.
While the House was considered the major obstacle for Mr. Obama in seeking approval for a strike, a shift in the Senate began taking shape before the Russian proposal Monday, when it became clear that the straightforward resolution authorizing force that the president had sought was highly unlikely to pass there either. Only a handful of Republicans were yes votes, and at least 15 Democrats were likely to vote no.While the House was considered the major obstacle for Mr. Obama in seeking approval for a strike, a shift in the Senate began taking shape before the Russian proposal Monday, when it became clear that the straightforward resolution authorizing force that the president had sought was highly unlikely to pass there either. Only a handful of Republicans were yes votes, and at least 15 Democrats were likely to vote no.
Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona and one of the strongest supporters of a strike, contacted a fellow Republican hawk, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, on Saturday to try to put together a new negotiating group.Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona and one of the strongest supporters of a strike, contacted a fellow Republican hawk, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, on Saturday to try to put together a new negotiating group.
On Monday, Mr. McCain and Mr. Graham met in the Capitol and brought in two senior Democratic senators, Carl Levin of Michigan, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Charles E. Schumer of New York, the Senate’s third-ranking Democrat.On Monday, Mr. McCain and Mr. Graham met in the Capitol and brought in two senior Democratic senators, Carl Levin of Michigan, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Charles E. Schumer of New York, the Senate’s third-ranking Democrat.
Mr. Levin stressed Tuesday that the alternative resolution developed by the group would authorize a military strike, but set aside that authority if Mr. Assad placed his chemical weapons under the control of the United Nations, as Russia has proposed.Mr. Levin stressed Tuesday that the alternative resolution developed by the group would authorize a military strike, but set aside that authority if Mr. Assad placed his chemical weapons under the control of the United Nations, as Russia has proposed.
“This is kind of a twofer,” Mr. Levin said. “It’s a way of keeping the pressure on Syria and on Russia to get rid of chemical weapons, which is the goal of the whole effort, and second, if they fail, it would keep the authorization to launch a strike.”“This is kind of a twofer,” Mr. Levin said. “It’s a way of keeping the pressure on Syria and on Russia to get rid of chemical weapons, which is the goal of the whole effort, and second, if they fail, it would keep the authorization to launch a strike.”
The approach quickly gained supporters in both parties. It meshed with an alternative resolution drafted by two Democratic senators, Joe Manchin III of West Virginia and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, which would have given Mr. Assad 45 days to join and comply with the Chemical Weapons Convention or face “all elements of national power.”The approach quickly gained supporters in both parties. It meshed with an alternative resolution drafted by two Democratic senators, Joe Manchin III of West Virginia and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, which would have given Mr. Assad 45 days to join and comply with the Chemical Weapons Convention or face “all elements of national power.”
Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California and chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said that as many as 40 chemical weapons sites in Syria would have to be consolidated under international control. And missiles and other delivery systems already loaded with chemical weapons would have to be accounted for.Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California and chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said that as many as 40 chemical weapons sites in Syria would have to be consolidated under international control. And missiles and other delivery systems already loaded with chemical weapons would have to be accounted for.
“There’s work to be done, and it has to move very quickly,” Ms. Feinstein said. But she added: “I think we can wait a week. This is an opportunity, and it should be taken fully.”“There’s work to be done, and it has to move very quickly,” Ms. Feinstein said. But she added: “I think we can wait a week. This is an opportunity, and it should be taken fully.”
Mr. Graham cautioned that no one should conclude that the latest negotiations would produce a resolution strong enough to maintain a credible threat but capable of passing Congress. “I’m not going to embrace a U.N. path until I see it’s real,” he said.Mr. Graham cautioned that no one should conclude that the latest negotiations would produce a resolution strong enough to maintain a credible threat but capable of passing Congress. “I’m not going to embrace a U.N. path until I see it’s real,” he said.
Such wariness may be warranted. Russia quickly opposed a draft United Nations resolution being circulated by France because it would authorize force if the weapons transfer fell through.Such wariness may be warranted. Russia quickly opposed a draft United Nations resolution being circulated by France because it would authorize force if the weapons transfer fell through.
Russia favors a presidential statement, which is far less binding. It would call on the United Nations secretary general and the organization that oversees the Chemical Weapons Convention to carry out the plan to put Syria’s arsenal under international control. Russia favors a presidential statement, which is far less binding. It would call on the United Nations secretary general and the organization that oversees the Chemical Weapons Convention to carry out the plan.
The diplomatic maneuvering brought criticism from some Arab countries, which have been impatient to put an end to a destabilizing civil war in the heart of the Middle East.
“This does not stop the bloodshed in Syria,” said Bahrain’s foreign minister, Sheik Khalid bin Ahmed al-Khalifa, after a meeting of Persian Gulf states. “We are tired of procrastination and delay.”