The UN Security Council has passed Resolution 2118 on Syria, which “underlines the fact that it is unacceptable for chemical weapons to end up in the hands of non-state actors, such as, in general, the opposition,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated today in his interview with Channel One Russia. Furthermore, the minister noted the document emphasizes that, “all nations, members of the UN, and especially Syrian neighbours, must take all necessary actions to ensure that their territory is not used to supply the opposition with chemical weapons”. What about supplying the insurgents with non-chemical weapons, such as the MANPADs and the ATGMs? Why does the resolution keep silent about these?
The Russian foreign minister noted, “Moscow is proceeding based on the assumption that the experts from the OPCW and the UN will conduct themselves professionally, impartially and while fully respecting Syrian sovereignty”. According to Lavrov, Russia is ready to participate in all aspects of the upcoming Syrian operation.
The Minister further emphasized, “The Syrian resolution completely eliminates the use of force. The resolution’s conclusion states that if either Syrian side, the government or the opposition, is to ‘throw sand in the wheels’ of the inspectors or if anyone in Syria is to use chemical weapons, then these cases will be immediately reported to the UN Security Council”. According to the Minister, the Security Council will react if the facts surrounding the use of chemical weapons will be “presented in a convincing and unambiguous manner”. Lavrov pointed out that, “the possibility of a reaction in accordance with Chapter 7 of the UN Charter has been pushed back, and now, certainly, implies the passing of a new resolution”. He also stressed that the current resolution does not fall under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter and “does not allow for any automatism with respect to employing coercive measures”.
Why is there such a deep obsession with this chapter of the UN Charter? It is not easy to recall similar resolutions passed on Iraq and Syria, which were interpreted by Washington as giving full rights to automatically use force? Which led to both legitimate governments being overthrown by military force.
The Russian Minister highlighted that the responsibility for adhering to the chemical weapons resolution does not only fall on the Syrian government, but on the opposition as well. “We expect that the increasingly fragmented groups of Syrian opposition will finally be able to attest to their readiness to join the international Geneva 2 convention without additional prerequisites, as the Syrian government had done long ago. We call upon the opposition’s sponsors to influence them accordingly,” he stated.
But, to “call upon” is not the same as the strict binding language of a UN Security Council resolution. Which means that the Syrian civil war continues. The Security Council is powerless here. On the other hand, they have stripped Syria of its only powerful deterrent while providing practically nothing in return. The UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has also announced that the second Syrian peace conference will be held in the middle of November. Did the western countries and the opposition agree to this? Or will the conference table include only Russia, Syria represented by its government and the UN special representative Lakhdar Brahimi?
Let us now carefully examine the speech of State Secretary John Kerry after the vote. After all, he likely knows what’s going to happen. The Russian interpretation of the document is one thing, but the American interpretation is a whole other story. Indeed, the U.S. does not just talk, they also act, and act more often than not through the use of military force.
“The UN Security Council has shown that when we put aside politics for the common good, we are still capable of doing big things,” stated U.S. State Secretary John Kerry at the UN Security Council session after the voting results. While at the same time he emphasized that the passing of the resolution does not eliminate the possibility of using force against Syria.
Therein lies the rub! Where’s the seventh chapter now? What about the words on how there is no place for automatism with regards to the use of force? Where’s Geneva 2?
“The option of military force President Obama has kept on the table. But tonight’s resolution, in fact, accomplishes even more through peaceful means,” said Kerry.
Accomplish what exactly? It’s actually crystal clear – the destruction of Syrian chemical weapons. “Provided this resolution is fully implemented, we will have eliminated one of the largest chemical weapons programs on Earth from one of the most volatile world places ,” Kerry said.
There it is, the goal of the UN Security Council resolution. Not to end the Syrian war, but to strip it of a powerful means of hypothetical protection!
We now continue further, again examining other statements made by John Kerry. The U.S. State Secretary claimed that the Security Council endorsed the Geneva communique, which called for, with mutual consent of the belligerents, “the establishment of a transitional government with full executive powers”. “This will allow democratic elections to take place,” Kerry clarified. “Our aim is also to hold the Assad regime publicly accountable for its horrific use of chemical weapons against its own people on August 21st. And this resolution makes clear that those responsible for this heinous act must be held accountable,” Kerry emphasized. The head of U.S. diplomacy added that the resolution is legally binding. The international community is responsible for stopping the mass murders in Syria, which are perpetrated not only by chemical weapons, but by other means as well, stated Kerry. “Diplomacy can be so powerful that it can peacefully defuse the worst weapons of war… Together, the world, with a single voice for the first time, is imposing binding obligations on the Assad regime requiring it to get rid of weapons that have been used to devastating effect as tools of terror,” Kerry stated.
Here we go. That means Assad and his legitimate government are terrorists, while the Al-Qaeda, which is cutting the heads off Syrian soldiers and civilians, is not! The goal isn’t Geneva 2, but to “hold the Assad regime publicly accountable”! Washington is already talking about a transitional government in Damascus, where the legitimate government is still ruling! As we can clearly see, the Russian and American interpretations of the same document are markedly different.
Incidentally, here is the Syrian interpretation: “All countries will need to adhere to the resolution, including those neighbouring Syria, which are currently sheltering or aiding terrorists. The governments of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, France, U.S.A. and Great Britain are all responsible” for abiding by the provisions of the document, emphasized Syrian resident representative Bashar Ja’afari in an interview with journalists after the results of the vote.
For good measure, we’ll provide the French interpretation as well. According to the French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, the Security Council “has finally lived up to its name”. The resolution 2118 /2013/ is “only the first step” on the path to regulating the internal conflict in this Arabian nation, the minister warned. He called for members of the Security Council to remain vigilant. “We cannot trust the claims of a regime, which has only recently completely denied the fact that it possesses these weapons at all. The cooperation on Syrian issues needs to be absolute, transparent and include all parties,” the minister stated.
So in the end, who emerged victorious in New York?
Alexander Orlov is a political scientist and an expert orientalist, with a special report for the online magazine New Eastern Outlook.