Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Vladimir Orlov, President of the PIR-Center
In my understanding, as a result of complicated negotiations between Russia and America in Geneva,
a big breakthrough on the Syrian problem was reached,
first of all concerning weapons of mass destruction in Syria, i.e. chemical weapons.
Potentially, it means an unprecedented agreement which can be characterized as a working plan or a road map.
There has been no situation in the last decades
when weapons of mass destruction would be destroyed
in the context of an internal political conflict, a civil war.
The main vulnerability of the plan is historical memory, probably.
These are questions of guaranteed non-aggression by the United States and their allies
against a state which decides to destroy its chemical weapons.
The agreement is as unprecedented as it is fragile.
Another challenge in this context is the not well-established atmosphere of trust
between Russia and the United States,
not to mention the participation of the regional players in this process,
particularly in Syria itself, where the atmosphere of trust, of course, is even worse.
This is, I repeat, not an obstacle, but a challenge.
These are the questions of how to destroy chemical weapons,
transport these weapons and provide security to the experts.
In my opinion, Russia has no right to encourage the disarmament of Syria,
if the Syrian government wonít get significant guarantees of security.
The problem is that, as far as we know, a cheque for overthrowing Assad has been drawn already.
It was made by the Sunni regimes, first of all by Saudi Arabia.
Qatar has stepped aside for the moment, and its role is less destructive, sometimes even constructive,
but Saudi Arabia continues its line.
The money is huge, and it has been allocated.
Those who feel responsible must work off the cheque.
Probably, there are such agreements between the monarchies and Israel,
which bet on the isolation of Iran and the exclusion of pro-Iranian Syria
from the game on the grounds of anything ñ chemical weapons, humanitarian aspects, human rights and so on.
Kerry went from Geneva to Jerusalem,
and I think there were no constructive results which could be expected from Israel as a regional power.
I canít imagine how the process of destruction of chemical weapons can be accomplished
without a political resolution in Syria and the end of the civil war.
Under no circumstances should the terrorist gangs out there
who are at war with al-Assad see Assad's willingness to go for the destruction of chemical weapons
as a signal that now everything is permitted.
I cannot but welcome the fact that Syria is willing to join
the Convention on the non-use of chemical weapons
and to carry out the gradual destruction of chemical weapons on its territory.
The answers to the questions that still exist should be found in the course of the negotiations
that Russian diplomats hold in Damascus in a very dynamic and fast way.
In particular, Syria in the coming days, by the end of this week, by Saturday,
should fully disclose its chemical sites.
In this context, the physical protection of the facilities that will be declared,
accounting and control of materials until complete destruction of chemical weapons
is of fundamental importance.
Will Syria be capable of providing such a degree of security in the conditions of a civil war,
so that everyone, us and the Americans, and the French, and the people in the region e.g. the Israelis,
are sure that these weapons are not lost,
hidden and do not get into the hands of terrorists?
Perhaps this will require an unprecedented international effort.
Could the weapons be destroyed in Syria itself,
or will the removal of these weapons and their destruction at other sites be necessary?
This is an important and serious issue that is being debated.
This is an extremely labour-intensive process,
and it is better to carry it out in the state without transporting it,
given the fact that they are chemical weapons.
Other experts have a different point of view and suggest
that these weapons under certain circumstances could be transported elsewhere,
for example the Russian Federation has facilities for the destruction of chemical weapons.
This option currently is not being actively discussed, but I would take note of it.
If you look at a map of the territories adjacent to Syria,
I would like to draw your attention to the state of Albania.
Albania is now a NATO member state, so NATO countries could probably contribute
and sleep peacefully if the weapons were destroyed there.