Nine months after Syria agreed to give up its entire chemical-weapons stockpile, almost all of it has left the country, headed for destruction in the open sea.
But nearly 8 percent, or some 100 metric tons of chemicals, remain at a single site in Syria. Reaching that site has not been easy, and it looks like the country will miss its target date of June 30 for the total destruction of its arsenal. The other 92 percent has been carted out of the country on Norwegian and Danish ships traveling to Italy. There, the chemical weapons were handed over to U.S. Navy vessels, which have been tasked with destroying them in international waters.
The last shipment out of the country took place around June 8. The remaining 8 percent is packed up and ready to go, but Syrian authorities now say that the security situation near the storage site would make any attempt to remove the chemicals too dangerous.
They have reason to worry. On May 26, a team of experts and officials from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the lead group in the disarmament effort, and the United Nations was ambushed while traveling to the city of Kafr Zita to investigate allegations of chlorine use against civilians. The militants responsible had ignored a local cease-fire that had been “carefully negotiated” with the Syrian government and armed opposition groups in the area for that specific day. The team made it back to safety in Damascus; one driver sustained minor injuries.
But the Obama administration says that Syria is using safety concerns as an excuse to stall the OPCW investigation into its chemical-weapons use. When the disarmament operation began, the area surrounding the site was much safer than it is now, officials say. “From the beginning, we have pressed the Assad regime and we will continue to press the Assad regime to complete expeditiously removal operations,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said a few days after the attack near Kafr Zita.
The question is whether Syrian President Bashar al-Assad will listen to the U.S. on that score — and whether Russian President Vladimir Putin, his primary sponsor, will push him to do it.
- 1 Hillary Clinton Will Win the Nomination, But Then What?
- 2 Bernie Sanders Is a Loud, Stubborn Socialist. Republicans Like Him Anyway.
- 3 How Politics Breaks Our Brains, and How We Can Put Them Back Together
- 4 The Pen, Phone, and Stray Voltage
- 5 Divided GOP Ponders Way Forward on Criminal Justice Reform
What We're Following See More »
Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”
“We haven’t seen a true leftist since FDR, so many millions are coming out of the woodwork to vote for Bernie Sanders; he is the Occupy movement now come to life in the political arena.” So says Bill Maher in his Hollywood Reporter cover story (more a stream-of-consciousness riff than an essay, actually). Conservative states may never vote for a socialist in the general election, but “this stuff has never been on the table, and these voters have never been activated.” Maher saves most of his bile for Donald Trump and Sarah Palin, writing that by nominating Palin as vice president “John McCain is the one who opened the Book of the Dead and let the monsters out.” And Trump is picking up where Palin left off.