Syria – Obama And Kerry Converted On Road To Damascus…writes David Singer
The swiftness with which attention is now being focused on collecting and destroying chemical weapons located in Syria has been truly breathtaking.
Last Friday 6 September – President Obama was waving a joint declaration signed by Australia, Canada, France, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States of America at the G20 Summit in St Petersburg – in which there was not one mention of the need to collect and destroy those chemical weapons.
That same day President Obama in his press conference in St Petersburg had been dismissive of a similar proposal suggested by the Congress – when it was specifically drawn to his attention by a reporter.
Yet on Monday 9 September – US Secretary of State John Kerry – when asked in London if there was anything Syrian President Bashar al-Assad could do to avert a US military strike – replied:
“Sure. He could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week. Turn it over, all of it, without delay, and allow a full and total accounting for that”
Kerry seemed to shoot down his own idea – adding immediately:
“But he isn’t about to do it, and it can’t be done, obviously.”
Kerry was made to look rather stupid when Russia’s Foreign Minister – Sergei Lavrov just hours later proposed the idea to Syria:
“We have given our proposal to Syria’s Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem and are counting on a fast and, I hope, positive response,”
Al-Moallem’s response was short and to the point:
“I carefully listened to Sergei Lavrov’s statement about it. In connection with this, I note that Syria welcomes the Russian initiative based on the Syrian leadership’s concern about the lives of our nationals and the security of our country. We also hail the wisdom of the Russian leadership which is trying to prevent an American aggression against our people.”
German Chancellor Angela Merkel and British Prime Minister David Cameron were quick to jump on the bandwagon and spoke positively of the proposal.
Merkel said:
“Today there were very interesting proposals about the chemical weapons. If this is intended to lead to action and not to just play for time, then Germany will push hard for this path to be further pursued.”
Cameron – who only three days earlier had remained supportive of US President Barack Obama and his plan to embark on military intervention in Syria despite failing to get his own motion through government – was instantly converted to this proposal
“If that were to be the case it would be hugely welcome. If Syria were to put its chemical weapons beyond use, under international supervision, clearly that would be a big step forward and should be encouraged.”
Even UN General Secretary Ban Ki-moon – who had stood by watching the United Nations Security Council being paralysed as it struggled to get a resolution passed on the atrocity caused by the use of chemical weapons in Syria on 21 August – told reporters on Monday:
“I am considering urging the Security Council to demand the immediate transfer of Syria’s chemical weapons and chemical precursor stocks to places inside Syria where they can be safely stored and destroyed.”
It seems inconceivable that all of the above players, their advisors and Foreign Offices could have allowed the chemical weapons crisis to spiral seriously out of control to the point where a military attack on Syria was the only option being considered.
But the most amazing conversion of all was that of President Obama himself.
Asked by Diane Sawyer of ABC News if he would put plans for an attack on pause should Assad yield control of his chemical weapons – Obama answered:
“Absolutely, if in fact that happened… Let’s see if we can come up with language that avoids a strike but accomplishes our key goals to make sure that these chemical weapons are not used”
Hopefully President Obama has since been on the phone to President Putin to knot out a resolution that can go to the Security Council for approval within the next 24 hours and allow the process of collecting and destroying all chemical weapons in Syria to be collected and destroyed without further delay.
There will no doubt be those who will question whether all such chemical weapons can be collected from both the Assad regime and the rebels.
One needs to wait and see.
Those weapons collected and destroyed under UN supervision will show Assad and the rebels that the world means business – and that any attempt to subvert the Security Council’s resolve will be met with an immediate response.
In a shameful self serving statement – President Obama is seeking to claim the credit for his amazing conversion from advocating and planning a military assault on Syria to securing agreement with Russia on collecting and destroying all chemical weapons in Syria – telling Diane Sawyer:
“I don’t think we would have gotten to this point unless we had maintained a credible possibility for a military strike and I don’t think now is the time for us to let up on that”
Had President Obama addressed the issue of collecting and destroying those chemical weapons rather that trying to blame Assad for having fired them – the process of destruction would have already been underway.
Obama and Kerry’s judgement has been seriously compromised.
Their conversion to sanity and reality is to be welcomed.
My only observation David is that I somehow doubt that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad would have ever agreed to this, let alone admit that he holds chemical weapons, were it not for the US warships floating in the Mediterranean and their massive cargoes of tomahawk missiles.
Am sceptical this will work but any solution that avoids inevitable collateral damage and the targeting of Israel in response has to be a good one.
If it does work, historians may one day reflect on how Kerry’s off the cuff comment triggered a chain of events that saved thousands of lives.
Ben David
Kerry’s remark might not have been off the cuff as American spin and you yourself are now suggesting.
Kerry or someone in the State Department could well have read my following article in JWire:
http://www.jwire.com.au/featured-articles/syria-obama-left-red-faced-over-red-line-writes-david-singer/37007
Following the G20 summit – my following further article might have reinforced Kerry’s view that the gung ho approach he and Obama were pursuing was going to be disastrous.
http://www.jwire.com.au/featured-articles/syria-obama-hell-bent-on-creating-hell-writes-david-singer/37131
Strange that his supposedly off the cuff remark appeared after these two articles were published by JWire.
I believe publications like J Wire are read by people in Government and have the ability to influence their opinion. This certainly seems to have been the case in the remarkable turnaround by Obama and Kerry. Their change of direction has certainly been welcome.
What do you think?
David
There is no doubt you have been a prolific commentator on this issue and when you are not merely venting a somewhat predictable animus towards the Obama administration (am not sure you have ever written a kind word about them), you are often right.
But lets not otherwise get ahead of ourselves. As interesting as your articles are or the stories on JWire are about BJE’s Rosh Hashanah Cookie Baking at OBK or the latest instalment on Sydney’s Strathfield Synagogue, I am fairly confident that this site is not on the top of the daily reading list for the US Secretary of State or his department.
If you also don’t mind me saying, I always think its best to be a little modest about one’s influence in the world.
Ben David
My response to your above claim denigrating JWire in particular can be read at:
http://www.jwire.com.au/letters/singer-defends-j-wire/37255
Continue this correspondence there if you wish – and also note the evidence posted there of J Wire’s international reach.
Good analysis David (for a change)
#Slaimaan – a completely irrelevant comment for reasons that others will, no doubt, explain to you.
…and Israel keeps it nukes
Deal with the issue at hand – the actual use of chemical weapons in Syria on 21 August and the possibility of those weapons being used again in a conflict that has been raging for 30 months causing more than 100000 deaths, 2 million refugees and 5 million displaced Syrian civilians.
Your inane and mischievous comment is pathetic, irrelevant, contributes nothing to a discussion of the matters dealt with in my article and shows no care or concern for the hapless Syrians caught in the crossfire of their civil war.