General Discussion

morningfog

(18,115 posts) Tue Sep 10, 2013, 01:04 PM Sep 2013

Here comes the rub: France to offer a militarily enforceable resolution at the U.N.

PARIS -- France said Tuesday it would initiate a resolution in the United Nations Security Council demanding that Syria reveal the extent of its chemical weapons program and turn its arsenal over to international inspectors to be neutralized.

The announcement by Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius came a day after Russia floated a proposal to put Syrian chemical weapons under international supervision, a new idea that could delay or forestall a U.S.-led military strike.

President Obama is scheduled to deliver a speech to the nation Tuesday evening regarding Syria. "We will pursue this diplomatic track," Obama said in an interview with Fox News on Monday. "I fervently hope that this can be resolved in a nonmilitary way."

Fabius said he greeted the Russian gambit “with interest and caution.”

“With interest, because it’s the first time there’s been this opening. With caution, because Russia has changed its position, and its proposal is difficult to apply,” Fabius told Europe 1 radio Tuesday morning. “We know that Syria has more than a thousand tons of chemical weapons that are difficult to localize and destroy.”

Fabius told reporters later that France would introduce a militarily enforceable resolution at the U.N. calling on Damascus to give up its chemical arms.

http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-france-un-resolution-syria-chemical-weapons-20130910,0,1706887.story

Would Russia still support a militarily enforceable agreement? Would the US support a plan that is not militarily enforceable?

12 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Here comes the rub: France to offer a militarily enforceable resolution at the U.N. (Original Post) morningfog Sep 2013 OP

If it's NOT enforceable, what's the impetus for Assad to comply? TwilightGardener Sep 2013 #1

The same threat that got us this far? morningfog Sep 2013 #2

Wouldn't Russia and Syria want to have pre-set terms by the UNSC of when military force TwilightGardener Sep 2013 #4

Russia wants a "presidential agreement." morningfog Sep 2013 #6

Why would Assad do this if the various rebel groups also have chemical weapons? djean111 Sep 2013 #3

I've said since yesterday that am not confident in the good faith of any of the parties involved morningfog Sep 2013 #5

Exactly. n/t BlueCheese Sep 2013 #8

Russia has announced they are not in favor of a binding resolution. BlueCheese Sep 2013 #7

Non-binding might also mean Assad doesn't have to answer for the safety of UN weapons inspectors TwilightGardener Sep 2013 #9

that would be a non-starter. Russia will veto it. Warren Stupidity Sep 2013 #10

+1 LittleBlue Sep 2013 #11

Are we still allowed to use the P**** word on DU? Junkdrawer Sep 2013 #12

TwilightGardener

(46,416 posts)

1. If it's NOT enforceable, what's the impetus for Assad to comply?

Reply to morningfog (Original post)

Tue Sep 10, 2013, 01:07 PM

Sep 2013

morningfog

(18,115 posts)

2. The same threat that got us this far?

Reply to TwilightGardener (Reply #1)

Tue Sep 10, 2013, 01:09 PM

Sep 2013

There is a wide gap to be filled here.

TwilightGardener

(46,416 posts)

4. Wouldn't Russia and Syria want to have pre-set terms by the UNSC of when military force

Reply to morningfog (Reply #2)

Tue Sep 10, 2013, 01:13 PM

Sep 2013

is necessitated in this case, rather than the US or France deciding when to put their own "teeth" into it? Force within the UN resolution should help protect Assad NOW--better than a weak piece of non-binding Russian-dictated crap that we have to respond to later.

morningfog

(18,115 posts)

6. Russia wants a "presidential agreement."

Reply to TwilightGardener (Reply #4)

Tue Sep 10, 2013, 01:15 PM

Sep 2013

I'm not convinced any players are coming to the table fully in good faith.

djean111

(14,255 posts)

3. Why would Assad do this if the various rebel groups also have chemical weapons?

Reply to morningfog (Original post)

Tue Sep 10, 2013, 01:12 PM

Sep 2013

Doesn't seem logical.

morningfog

(18,115 posts)

5. I've said since yesterday that am not confident in the good faith of any of the parties involved

Reply to djean111 (Reply #3)

Tue Sep 10, 2013, 01:14 PM

Sep 2013

in this deal, except maybe Ban Ki Moon. Russia, Syria and the US all have very opportunistic reasons to delay the movement for a week.

BlueCheese

(2,522 posts)

8. Exactly. n/t

Reply to morningfog (Reply #5)

Tue Sep 10, 2013, 01:26 PM

Sep 2013

BlueCheese

(2,522 posts)

7. Russia has announced they are not in favor of a binding resolution.

Reply to morningfog (Original post)

Tue Sep 10, 2013, 01:25 PM

Sep 2013

From the Guardian:

The Russian objection to a new UN resolution is cued to any potential use of force, ambassador Alexandre Orlov told French radio TRL, Reuters reports. It appears that Moscow is asking for a nonbinding – and relatively flimsy - resolution.

Orlov did say there "needs to be a resolution":

"There first needs to be a resolution that puts Syria's chemical weapons under international control, which Syria has already accepted, and if there is something lacking we can come back to the U.N. Security council to negotiate a new resolution," Alexandre Orlov told French radio RTL.

Orlov said he had doubts over France's intentions by calling for a Chapter VII resolution of the U.N. charter which could enable the use of force.

My guess is that Russia wants a course of action that will take months or years to resolve-- essentially, punting it down the road indefinitely. The US/UK/France want something much more immediate (by next week, as Kerry said facetiously), and are likely to view anything less as an insincere delaying tactic, which is very well might be.

Nonetheless, while they argue about this, it is very difficult to imagine any military action, which is of course what Russia wanted to begin with.

TwilightGardener

(46,416 posts)

9. Non-binding might also mean Assad doesn't have to answer for the safety of UN weapons inspectors

Reply to BlueCheese (Reply #7)

Tue Sep 10, 2013, 01:34 PM

Sep 2013

and transporters on the ground, allow access, etc.--pretty weak shit. That said, a non-binding UN resolution probably doesn't bind the US from independent military action, either. We can always act.