Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Chris Doyle , director of the Centre for the Development of British-Arab relations
First of all, I would like to welcome the deal which was concluded between Russia and the U.S. on chemical weapons.
The fact that Syria acceded to the convention is a very important fact, because the use of chemical weapons is extremely dangerous in the case of Syria.
Of course, Syria is going through a serious crisis, and we must say that we have now offered it to the consideration of the UN, and now we see the final deployment of the process for the prohibition of chemical weapons.
And, of course, there are various arguments which support the use of force. I think that we will reach some compromises.
Let's say, the U.S., Britain and France are sure that there was a definite threat that forced Syria to accede to the convention.
I believe that in the end, the conflict in Syria will continue to gain momentum, because refugees are still crossing the border, and children are dying of hunger.
In fact, I do not see any way of resolving this conflict.
In Geneva, these negotiations went on for three days only on a minor issue: what would happen in order to resolve the Syrian conflict entirely?
Yevgeni Satanovsky, president of the Middle East Institute
Unfortunately, most of all, after Assad's resignation Syria will collapse, so there will be no country where Islamists, extremists, moderates or terrorists, "Al Qaeda" or anyone else could come to power.
There's no single force that is fighting against Assad.
There are many disparate groups who also are fighting against themselves, including in Syria.
I am afraid that our British colleagues, if they manage to achieve the defeat of al-Assad in Syria, will meet with their own terrorists from "Al -Qaeda" with British passports in their own territory.
It may be worthwhile addressing the issue of how the insurgents, terrorists, including warlords operating in Damascus, received the chemical components, including sarin and, most likely, mustard gas.
Because the issue of Assads weapons is clear. Assad's chemical weapons are more or less under the control of his government.
This government can be very unsympathetic or authoritarian, although I would like to find at least one non-authoritarian government in Africa and the Middle East.
And what to do with the terrorists, including those who use chemical weapons today in Syria, although not being part of the government?
Do our British colleagues believe that they will not cross the English Channel? Yes, they will.
Heather Williams, expert in the field of security, arms control and disarmament of the Royal Institute
I think we really need to ensure safe removal and destruction of weapons of mass destruction and chemical weapons.
I think it would not make sense to blame one side or another. In fact, we will have time to discuss it in the future, but now we have no time.
Now the most important thing is the withdrawal of chemical weapons and their destruction.
Of course, we are faced with a variety of technical and political challenges and obstacles.
With regard to technical barriers, there is, for example, the security of the weapons.
It will be very difficult, because, first of all , transportation is difficult enough, and secondly, storage is also not that easy.
Thirdly, the UN will also have to ensure the conclusion of a truce or ceasefire, because the inspectors have to work in the framework of this agreement to ensure the safe removal of chemical weapons.
The obvious solution is to take the weapons to Russia; we know we have some Russian factories or businesses, polygons for the destruction of chemical weapons.
This solution is provided in the plan conceived by Kerry and Lavrov. These are technical obstacles.
As for political challenges, these are the adoption of certain resolutions and making a definite decision.
Peter Topychkanov , researcher in the "Nonproliferation Problem Program" at Moscow Carnegie Center
Investigation under the auspices of the United Nations should continue as intensively as it was conducted prior to the publication of the report.
Because the answer to the question of who used chemical weapons in Syria will determine the answer to the question of whether it will be applied in the future.
If it is a power close to the president of Syria - we have quite another story.
Now he will be much less interested in such incidents in Syria.
If it's about the forces that are leading the armed struggle against the Assad regime, the likelihood that chemical weapons will be used against civilians will still remain high.
Of course, if we plan a scenario of concluding an agreement with Assad and starting a project for the destruction of chemical weapons, in this context there is another story about the use of chemical weapons and attacks on civilian objects, and of course, it would undermine the agreements with Assad, his legitimacy would be undermined, especially given that we remember that Barack Obama said that the U.S. has doubts that Assad will open all the arsenals available to him, and after such use, these agreements will be recalled.
Therefore, from this point of view, it seems to me that before we start a project for the destruction of chemical weapons, construction, direction of the special forces there that will protect these objects, it is still necessary to answer the question of whether we have to carry out further research and who used chemical weapons in Syria.