SYRIAN CHEMICAL WEAPONS: DIPLOMACY MORE POWERFUL THAN WAR

 
Maurice Chukwu

The political maneuverings amongst the five members of the United Nations Security Council (the U.S., UK, France, Russia and China) following the August 21^st poison gas attack that killed hundreds of civilians in a Damascus suburb in Syria, and President Barack Obama's threat of U.S. strikes in retaliation provides an ample opportunity to appreciate the impact of international diplomacy in conflict resolution. The conflict in Syria has lasted for almost two and a half years and has led to the death of thousands of Syrians who are demanding for a change in government. President Bashar al-Assad has been in power since 2000, when he succeeded his father, Hafez al-Assad, who led Syria for 30 years until his death.

 

Russia and the United States had been at odds over the Syrian conflict, and most especially over the use of chemical weapons in Syria. Russia and China had vetoed three US, UK and France-backed resolutions pressuring al- Assad's regime to end the violence. This is because Russia and China being Syrian allies, and also their chief suppliers of war heads, are bent on protecting their economic ties with Syria. This, methinks, explains why Russia and China have rebuffed all attempts by the trio of the U.S., UK and France to declare the use of chemical weapons by Syria as falling under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter.

 

Suffice to state that under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, the Security Council can take enforcement measures to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such measures range from economic and/or other sanctions not involving the use of armed force to international military action. The use of mandatory sanctions is intended to apply pressure on a State or entity to comply with the objectives set by the Security Council. Sanctions thus offer the Security Council an important instrument to enforce its decisions. The Security Council resorts to mandatory sanctions and ultimately military strikes when world peace has been threatened and diplomatic efforts have failed. 

Now, the repercussion of the invocation of Chapter 7 of the UN Charter on Syria is that if the UN makes an explicit determination that the situation in Syria constitutes a threat to the peace, a breach of the peace, or an act of aggression, and then passes a resolution to that effect, it would call for military action against Syria. The US, UK and Frances align with this position and have canvassed for immediate military strikes against the al-Assad-led Syria. The US had even gone further to threaten to single-handedly go to war as it viewed the use of chemical weapons by Syria as constituting ‘a threat to the peace, a breach of the peace, or an act of aggression’

On the other hand, Russia and China would have none of this as their economic interests are obviously involved. Rather, after the UN confirmed "unequivocally and objectively" that chemical weapons have been used in Syria, Russia and China began pushing for an agreement that would allow Syria to place its chemical weapons stockpile under international control. This move, if successful, is aimed at preventing the invasion of Syria by UN forces.

Consequently, Russia and China sought the cooperation of the US, proposing that if there is any violation by any party – as the proposed resolution also calls on the Syrian opposition to assist in the disarmament process – the Security Council will then convene again and decide whether to take enforcement measures in line with Chapter 7. 

Following U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s proclamation that President al-Assad could avert U.S. military action by turning over "every single bit of his chemical weapons" to international control within a week, Russia quickly agreed. Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov signed an agreement in Geneva on 13^th September to put Syria's chemical weapons under international control for later destruction, and Assad's government accepted.

Thus, the U.S. and Russia mapped out benchmarks and timelines for cataloguing, quarantining and ultimately destroying Syria's chemical weapons, their precursors and delivery systems. The U.N. Security Council eventually voted unanimously on Friday, 27^th September, 2013 to secure and destroy Syria's chemical weapons stockpile. The final resolution also states that the Security Council will impose measures under Chapter 7 if Syria fails to comply, but that this would require adoption of a second resolution. Thus, a possible U.S. war with Syria, which many have speculated could lead to the third world war, has been averted.

The lesson of derivable from the foregoing is that international diplomacy can be so powerful that it can peacefully defuse the worst weapons of war. This could also be applied in Nigeria in the war against terrorism. However, it is hoped that eliminating chemical weapons from the Syrian conflict without military action against Syria is not a license for Syria to continue killing its citizens with conventional weapons. It is imperative that President Bashar al-Assad gives the inspectors unfettered access to all sites and people to enable them catalogue, quarantine and ultimately destroy the chemical weapons. One also hopes that members of the UN Security Council should henceforth collectively pursue world peace as the overriding objective of their resolutions, as opposed their self-seeking economic interests. We all need peace on earth.

*Maurice Chukwu, Legal Practitioner, Dr Olu Onagoruwa Chambers, 77 Olonode Street, Alagomeji, Yaba, Lagos. mauricechukwu@gmail.com, 08032332734