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/2013/11/16/world/middleeast/syria.html

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
Chemical Arms Monitor Debates Syrian Plan to Destroy Weapons Albania Rejects Request to Host Destruction of Syrian Chemical Weapons
(about 4 hours later)
LONDON — Members of the United Nations chemical weapons watchdog met on Friday in The Hague to debate and possibly adopt a Syrian government plan to destroy its stocks of toxic munitions under a deal brokered by Russia and the United States to avert an American-led military strike. LONDON — Albania became the second nation after Norway on Friday to turn down an American request to host facilities for the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons, dealing a blow to Washington’s efforts to find a country prepared to undertake the politically sensitive disarmament project.
But, as the executive council of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons opened its deliberations, the outcome of the discussions seemed to hinge in part on a decision to be made in distant Albania, where the United States is pressing the authorities to permit the destruction of around 1,300 tons of Syrian chemical weapons on its territory. But officials at the international chemical weapons watchdog in The Hague, debating a Syrian blueprint for the destruction of 1,300 tons of toxic munitions, said the decision by the authorities in Tirana, the Albanian capital, would not directly derail their efforts to meet a deadline on Friday to endorse the plan.
Norway has already refused an American request to destroy the arsenal on its soil, and opposition lawmakers in Albania registered powerful objections on Thursday to a similar entreaty from Washington, news reports said. The twin developments came weeks after Syria offered a proposal for the destruction of chemical weapons to the watchdog, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, under a deal brokered by Russia and the United States to avert an American-led military strike.
Russia and the United States want most of the chemical stockpile to be removed from Syria by the end of the year and destroyed by mid-2014. But the idea of receiving tons of toxic weapons has raised environmental, political and other concerns in potential host countries. “It is impossible for Albania to get involved in this operation,” Prime Minister Edi Rama said Friday in a televised address to the nation, according to Reuters. “We lack the necessary capacities to get involved in this operation.”
Demonstrators and opposition lawmakers had displayed strong resistance to the use of Albanian soil to dispose of chemical weapons — a process that would create substantial amounts of toxic waste.
Protesters outside the Albanian Parliament in Tirana carried placards on Thursday proclaiming “No to chemical weapons in Albania,” Reuters said.Protesters outside the Albanian Parliament in Tirana carried placards on Thursday proclaiming “No to chemical weapons in Albania,” Reuters said.
After an initial session on Friday, the 41-member executive council of the chemical watchdog adjourned its talks until later, ostensibly to give delegates more time to work on the wording of an announcement but also to await word from Tirana about Albania’s response to the American request. Norway said several weeks ago that it did not have the facilities or the expertise to destroy chemical weapons on its soil.
Prime Minister Edi Rama of Albania said he would make his country’s position clear shortly before the planned resumption of the meeting in The Hague in late afternoon. Christian Chartier, a spokesman for the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, said the Albanian decision would “absolutely not” affect the body’s efforts to fine-tune its response to the Syrian plan. Members of the body’s 41-nation executive council “were close to a decision” before an adjournment, and “just needed a little more time,” he said in a telephone interview.
Russia and the United States want most of the chemical stockpile to be removed from Syria by the end of the year and completely destroyed by mid-2014. But the idea of receiving tons of toxic weapons has raised environmental, political and other concerns in potential host countries.
The American Embassy in Tirana said in a statement that Washington still believed it would be able to adhere to the timeline, according to news reports. “The United States will continue to work with Allies and partners as well as the O.P.C.W. and the United Nations to ensure the elimination of Syria’s chemical weapons program,” the embassy said in a statement.
“We remain confident that we will complete elimination of the program within the timeline agreed upon,” it said.
Syria agreed to the plan to destroy its production facilities and stockpile of chemical weapons as President Obama, supported by France, threatened military action after a chemical weapons attack on Aug. 21 in a suburb of Damascus killed hundreds of people.Syria agreed to the plan to destroy its production facilities and stockpile of chemical weapons as President Obama, supported by France, threatened military action after a chemical weapons attack on Aug. 21 in a suburb of Damascus killed hundreds of people.
The United States accused President Bashar al-Assad’s forces of responsibility for the attack and said sarin gas had been used. But the Syrian authorities laid blame for the onslaught on rebels in the civil war that has continued and even intensified in some areas using conventional weapons while diplomats have focused on the destruction of nerve agents and other toxins.The United States accused President Bashar al-Assad’s forces of responsibility for the attack and said sarin gas had been used. But the Syrian authorities laid blame for the onslaught on rebels in the civil war that has continued and even intensified in some areas using conventional weapons while diplomats have focused on the destruction of nerve agents and other toxins.
On Oct. 24, Syria presented the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons with “its formal initial declaration covering its chemical weapons program,” the watchdog said at the time.On Oct. 24, Syria presented the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons with “its formal initial declaration covering its chemical weapons program,” the watchdog said at the time.
“Such declarations provide the basis on which plans are devised for a systematic, total and verified destruction of declared chemical weapons and production facilities,” the organization said, adding that the Syrian document included “a general plan of destruction.”“Such declarations provide the basis on which plans are devised for a systematic, total and verified destruction of declared chemical weapons and production facilities,” the organization said, adding that the Syrian document included “a general plan of destruction.”
International chemical weapons inspectors inside Syria said last week that they had verified the destruction of 22 of the 23 sites that the Syrian government declared had been used for the production and mixing of the banned munitions.International chemical weapons inspectors inside Syria said last week that they had verified the destruction of 22 of the 23 sites that the Syrian government declared had been used for the production and mixing of the banned munitions.
But the destruction of the stockpile of weapons and chemicals is far more complex. The arsenal, including mustard gas and sarin, must first be transported through potentially hostile territory inside Syria to a port for shipment overseas. The process of destroying the weapons is likely to produce significant amounts of toxic waste, requiring the creation of costly facilities to dispose of it.But the destruction of the stockpile of weapons and chemicals is far more complex. The arsenal, including mustard gas and sarin, must first be transported through potentially hostile territory inside Syria to a port for shipment overseas. The process of destroying the weapons is likely to produce significant amounts of toxic waste, requiring the creation of costly facilities to dispose of it.
Weapons inspectors and diplomats say they are also concerned about ensuring that the chemicals are protected from thieves or militants.Weapons inspectors and diplomats say they are also concerned about ensuring that the chemicals are protected from thieves or militants.