What's new

UN Security council okays Syrian Resolution

anonymus

BANNED
Joined
Sep 22, 2011
Messages
3,870
Reaction score
-7
Country
India
Location
India
Security Council OKs Syria resolution, warns of consequences


United Nations (CNN) -- The U.N. Security Council, capping a dramatic month of diplomacy, voted unanimously late Friday to require Syria to eliminate its arsenal of chemical weapons -- or face consequences.

"Today's resolution will ensure that the elimination of the Syrian chemical weapons program happens as soon as possible and with the utmost transparency and accountability," Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said.

The U.N. resolution was based on a deal struck this month between the United States and Russia that averted an American military strike over allegations the Syrian government used sarin nerve gas in an August 21 attack on a Damascus suburb that U.S. officials said left at least 1,400 people dead.

The resolution did not authorize the automatic use of force if Syria is said to be in violation, as was previously sought by the United States.

The 15-member Security Council met shortly after the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, or OPCW, voted to fast-track Syria's addition to the Chemical Weapons Convention, which bans such weapons.

Bill Clinton on Putin and Syria U.S., Russia reach deal on Syria Extremists gain influence among rebels

For nearly two years, the U.N. Security Council had been unable to reach a consensus over what to do to bring about an end to Syria's civil war. Russia and China repeatedly vetoed resolutions dating back to October 2011 that condemned President Bashar al-Assad's government and called for him to step down.

The turnaround came this month, when Russia called for Syria to divest itself of its chemical weapons arsenal after U.S. President Barack Obama accused Syria of crossing a "red line" with the use of nerve gas and threatened a strike.
Syria announced this month that it was willing to join the agreement.

A binding obligation

Both the United States and Russia warned that if Syria failed to adhere to the terms of the U.N. resolution, it would face consequences.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said the world community was imposing a binding obligation on the government of al-Assad to get rid of its stockpile.

"This resolution makes clear that those responsible for this heinous act must be held accountable," said Kerry.

If the resolution succeeds, the world "will have eliminated one of the largest chemical weapon arsenals on Earth, eliminating it from one of the most volatile places on Earth," Kerry said.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told the council that his country, long an ally of the Syrian government, "will stand ready to take action" if the resolution needs enforcement.
By agreeing to dismantle its chemical weapons program and provide documentation of its arsenal,

"Damascus has shown its readiness to cooperate," said Lavrov.
Syrian U.N. Ambassador Bashar Jaafari said the resolution holds all parties in Syria accountable for the use of chemical weapons.

Inspectors return to Syria

U.N. weapons inspectors returned to Syria this week to look into at least a half-dozen claims of chemical weapons use -- some allegedly by the government, others allegedly by rebels.
U.N. inspectors have already confirmed the use of chemical warfare in the rural Damascus suburb of Ateibeh in August, but have not explicitly said who was responsible.
The al-Assad government has repeatedly accused rebels of using chemical weapons, an assertion that has been widely dismissed by most Western leaders.
The United Nations estimates more than 100,000 people have died since March 2011 when a brutal government crackdown against protesters devolved into an all-out civil war.
The Security Council vote followed action by the executive council of the OPCW, meeting in the Netherlands. That group adopted its measure by consensus in about 10 minutes.
"We now have a legal mandate to start a verification mission in Syria," OPCW spokesman Michael Luhan.
The OPCW agreed to an "accelerated program for achieving the complete elimination of Syria's chemical weapons by mid-2014," it said in a statement. Inspections in Syria will begin Tuesday.
"The decision also calls for ambitious milestones for destruction, which will be set by the council by 15 November," the organization said.
Obama: 'Very hopeful'
Obama, speaking before the votes, said he was "very hopeful" about the developments, but warned much work remains to be done.
"I think, rightly, people have been concerned about whether Syria will follow through on the commitments that have been laid forth and I think there are legitimate concerns as to how technically we are going to be getting those chemical weapons out while there's still fighting going on the ground," Obama said.
Obama said the threat of U.S. military power pushed Syrian leaders to agree to destroy their chemical weapons and said the resolution "not only deters and prevents additional chemical use but actually goes beyond what could have been accomplished through any military action."
The OPCW plans to send an advance team of inspectors to Damascus, an official with the organization, who declined to be identified while discussing delicate operations, told CNN on Friday.
The official said that in order to meet international deadlines for destruction of Syria's chemical weapons, the group may opt for a "quick and dirty" program that would render the weapons unusable but wouldn't destroy them, the official said.
U.S. official: Syrian CW list more complete than anticipated

'Not a license to kill'

Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu has said his country is willing to transport and destroy Syrian chemical weapons, although only as part of an international coalition.
Russian President Vladimir Putin earlier in September took to The New York Times to argue against military intervention in Syria.

Striking Syria would have many negative ramifications, Putin argued in the piece, including the killing of innocent people, spreading violence around the Middle East, clouding diplomatic efforts to address Iran's nuclear crisis and resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and "unleash(ing) a new wave of terrorism."

In his remarks Friday night, Ban called on both the Syrian government and rebels to stop the
fighting.

"As we mark this important step, we must never forget that the catalog of horrors in Syria continues with bombs and tanks, grenades and guns," he said. "A red light for one form of weapons does not mean a green light for others. This is not a license to kill with conventional weapons."

Syria submits 'initial disclosure' of chemical weapons program

'No meaningful enforcement mechanisms'

Two Republican U.S. senators criticized the Security Council vote, saying it will do little to end the civil war.
"This resolution is another triumph of hope over reality," John McCain and Lindsey Graham said in a statement. "It contains no meaningful or immediate enforcement mechanisms, let alone a threat of the use of force for the Assad regime's noncompliance."
The pair said al-Assad's forces will continue to "use every weapon in their arsenal short of chemical weapons" on the Syrian people while receiving outside assistance from Russia, Iran and Hezbollah while doing so.


U.N. Security Council OKs resolution on Syrian chemical weapons - CNN.com


Summary:

1.Syria to dismantle it's nuclear weapons

2, Syria to sign Organization for prohibition of chemical weapons convention.

3. Provisions for punitive action in case of non-compliance but no automatic strikes.

...................................................................................................................................

Even though, it may seem like a victory of Putin over Obama, on deeper analysis it would reveal that while Russia may have averted strikes on it's ally which would have resulted in downfall of Assad,West and particularly Israel has gained all it's objectives in Syria and it's position in the region now is stronger than it ever was.


Whatever may be the outcome of this Civil war,victor would be weakened enough so as not to mount any serious challenge for Israel for at least a couple of Decades and with majority Sunni's becoming politically conscious, Assad would never be able to hold on to Power in long run.


The way war is progressing, it seem destined to end in a stalemate with FSA holding Aleppo along with bulk of sparsely populated interior and Assad holding Tartus, Latakia with fate of Damascus hanging in balance.

By getting rid of Assad's chemical weapons, US has neutralize only credible threat that Assad could have posed to Israel. Irrespective of what retarded Russophile(prominently from India) believes,West in general and Israel in particular possess massive qualitative edge over Russian armaments which no supply of MBRL's or S-300 would be able to neutralize.
 
.
now all the people advocating strikes can go and sleep ,you must be tired as you have been trying for long.
 
. .
now all the people advocating strikes can go and sleep ,you must be tired as you have been trying for long.

LOL

What is that?

I was not advocating anything and my interest in this conflict is that of curious observer, more like watching a game.


Sorry to hurt your mush mushy feelings for Putin.

The only thing that matters now, is who will win the Civil war.

As things are going, Divided Syria seems like most probable option.
 
.
As things are going, Divided Syria seems like most probable option.

Maybe. It might be like Sudan and South Sudan, where one gets the oil, and the other gets the pipeline. So they have to work together to sell oil.

Just a theory, I don't know which regions Syria's oil or pipelines would fall into, or which side would control them.
 
.
LOL

What is that?

I was not advocating anything and my interest in this conflict is that of curious observer, more like watching a game.


Sorry to hurt your mush mushy feelings for Putin.



As things are going, Divided Syria seems like most probable option.

It was genralised statement , i never ment you advocated strikes.it was for people who did.
 
.
Maybe. It might be like Sudan and South Sudan, where one gets the oil, and the other gets the pipeline. So they have to work together to sell oil.

Just a theory, I don't know which regions Syria's oil or pipelines would fall into, or which side would control them.

In this game China has come out the worst while Russia has regained its stature.

Ample proof that Economic power does not equate to Military power or political influence.

Like India, China is actually an insular, inward looking nation. And like India, its actions are ultimately defensive. It can never be a major world player. At the most, its influence, like India's, will extend to its periphery.

China will face decline both economically and politically in coming years as Russia ascends.
 
. .
What does Syria have to do with us? It has always been more important to Russia and Iran.



More Indian predictions. :no:

All observations need not be taken as insults. Has China ever been imperialistic? So how can it be in future?

People's nature does not change.

The whites are by nature barbaric and imperialistic, so only they can make expansionist powers. Same with the Muslim nations.

China, like India, is a civilizational power. The only kind that endures in the long run.
 
.
In this game China has come out the worst while Russia has regained its stature.

Ample proof that Economic power does not equate to Military power or political influence.

Like India, China is actually an insular, inward looking nation. And like India, its actions are ultimately defensive. It can never be a major world player. At the most, its influence, like India's, will extend to its periphery.

China will face decline both economically and politically in coming years as Russia ascends.

You are overestimating Russia at the expense of China.

China did not gave two fûcks for Syria is because it has nothing at stake. As time progress and China's influence spreads ( prominently in Africa ) it would be forced to play an active role.
 
.
China did not gave two fûcks for Syria is because it has nothing at stake.

That's right. :tup:

As time progress and China's influence spreads ( prominently in Europe ) it would be forced to play an active role.

I hope not. I would prefer to leave the job of Global policing to America.

Active involvement is messy and expensive. And unnecessary as long as others are willing to do it and finance it out of their own pockets.
 
.
You are overestimating Russia at the expense of China.

China did not gave two fûcks for Syria is because it has nothing at stake. As time progress and China's influence spreads ( prominently in Africa ) it would be forced to play an active role.

Chinese do not have it in them to be imperialists. And they have nothing to offer the world.

To be a Super power, imperialism is must. And there must be a new paradigm too to justify expansion. US does it in the name of Liberal Democracy, USSR did in the name of Communism. The Muslim world has Jih#d. What does China have?

Just being rich does not make you important. Of course China will be very important for its neighbours - but that will be the extant of its military influence.

Large, old, self reliant countries are by nature not expansionist, because for them there is no need. China may make a few resource grabs here and there, but nothing more. And when the resources decline, it will draw back into itself and go on living at a lower standard.

Your history is an accurate predictor of future actions.
 
.
Chinese do not have it in them to be imperialists. And they have nothing to offer the world.

To be a Super power, imperialism is must. And there must be a new paradigm too to justify expansion. US does it in the name of Liberal Democracy, USSR did in the name of Communism. The Muslim world has Jih#d. What does China have?

Just being rich does not make you important. Of course China will be very important for its neighbours - but that will be the extant of its military influence.

Large, old, self reliant countries are by nature not expansionist, because for them there is no need. China may make a few resource grabs here and there, but nothing more. And when the resources decline, it will draw back into itself and go on living at a lower standard.

Your history is an accurate predictor of future actions.

That's good then, considering that we have no desire to be a superpower, and we have no desire for regional OR global hegemony.

As our leaders have stated on numerous occasions.

Frankly I could not give two f*cks about being able to "project power" to Nicaragua or somewhere else halfway across the world. Let the USA handle it, or Russia, or the EU.
 
.
That's good then, considering that we have no desire to be a superpower, and we have no desire for regional OR global hegemony.

As our leaders have stated on numerous occasions.

Frankly I could not give two f*cks about being able to "project power" to Nicaragua or somewhere else halfway across the world. Let the USA handle it, or Russia, or the EU.


Projecting power requires huge and disproportionate resources. All nations which tried to project power are practically dead - USSR, the Western imperialist nations, The Muslim world, the same will be America's fate.

Plus, imperialist takes its huge toll on the home country too, turning it into an aggressive, militaristic society. Its civilization is brutalized. For as Nietzsche said - "If you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss does gaze back into you".

China is not innocent in this regard for it has indulged in internal imperialism against its own citizens through violence of ideas and practice. The Communist years cannot have left the society untouched.
 
. .

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom