General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGreat news: U.S. won’t seek U.N. approval for strike if Syria reneges on chemical-arms pact
GENEVA — The Obama administration will not press for U.N. authorization to use force against Syria if it reneges on any agreement to give up its chemical weapons, senior administration officials said Friday.
The Russians have made clear in talks here between Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Secretary of State John F. Kerry that the negotiations cannot proceed under the threat of a U.N. resolution authorizing a military strike. Russia also wants assurances that a resolution will not refer Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to the International Criminal Court for possible war-crimes prosecution.
President Obama has said that the unilateral U.S. use of force against Syria for a chemical attack last month remains on the table. But consideration of that action, already under challenge by a skeptical Congress, has been put on hold pending the outcome of the Geneva talks.
The discussions here began this week following a Russian proposal Monday, quickly agreed to by Assad, to place Syria’s chemical arsenal under international control and eventually destroy it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/officials-us-wont-seek-un-approval-for-strike-if-syria-reneges-on-chemical-arms-pact/2013/09/13/a203b068-1cb3-11e3-80ac-96205cacb45a_story.html
This is a huge hurdle in the talks, great to hear this concession.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
rug
(82,333 posts)Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)Instead, the effort is going into diplomacy with no explicit use of force in the resolution. Russia won't block it and disarmament will begin.
rug
(82,333 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)quinnox
(20,600 posts)Americans really don't want to go on another military intervention, and his big speech didn't convince them, despite the emotional appeals of it.
Obama is backing down, and that is a very good thing. Those (very few) who were for the Syrian intervention are gonna be even more pissed. 
babylonsister
(171,094 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)At the disco.
kentuck
(111,110 posts)To me, it is sad news.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)about what is going on.
White House will accept a U.N. resolution that doesn't authorize military force if Assad fails to turn over Syria chemical weapons.
WASHINGTON — In a sign of its weak hand in the Syria crisis, the Obama administration has abandoned for now its hope of winning U.N. authorization for the use of force against President Bashar Assad's government if it fails to surrender its chemical weapons.
Facing steadfast Russian resistance, officials said Friday that they would accept a United Nations resolution that imposed weaker penalties such as economic sanctions and allowed for the Security Council to reconsider the use of force if Assad did not live up to his promises.
The shift, described by administration officials who spoke on condition of anonymity, appeared to be an acknowledgment of the likelihood that Security Council members Russia and China would veto the use of force, and of the overall lack of international support for military strikes to punish Assad for his alleged use of chemical weapons.
http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-syria-talks-20130914,0,2171685.story
grantcart
(53,061 posts)Facing steadfast Russian resistance, officials said Friday that they would accept a United Nations resolution that imposed weaker penalties such as economic sanctions and allowed for the Security Council to reconsider the use of force if Assad did not live up to his promises.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)no problem at all.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)was possible. I see it now. The headline can be read one of two ways.
rug
(82,333 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)of force in the agreement. That was a non start for the Russians. The US gave it up to move the talks. They are getting to the logistics of the disarmament now. And strikes are not on the table, not in the agreement, won't be in a security council resolution that depends on Russia to pass.
TheCowsCameHome
(40,168 posts)
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)as it was tied to the use of force. The Russians said that was a non-start. The US came around and made a big acquiescent.
It shows that these talks are real. If the US was just looking for a pretense to strike, they had it in their hands. Of course, the US could always ramp up the war rhetoric again, and very well may. But, if they were looking for an excuse to restart the drums, they had it and gave it up.
