A senior Russian diplomat on Thursday said his nation would not accept any Syrian chemical-arms shipment to its territory under plans to subject the weapons to international monitoring and destruction, Reuters reported.
“There can be no doubt — we will not do this,” Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said. An international treaty prohibits such transfers, and domestic legal restrictions also would prevent the United States from importing the weapons, he added in comments reported by the Russian government news agency RIA Novosti.
“We believe the destruction (of chemical weapons) on Syrian territory is the best option,” he said. Interfax quoted him as saying Russian officials “will be ready to help in guarding” Syrian chemical-arms facilities where work is being carried out.
Meanwhile, Moscow and Washington have hammered out broad parameters of a U.N. Security Council resolution on their plan to rid the Syrian government of its chemical-warfare stockpile, the Washington Post reported on Wednesday. The draft would allow for potential penalties in response to any noncompliance by Damascus, but the text would not contain an outright endorsement of possible military strikes.
Meanwhile, Syrian President Bashar Assad reportedly said his government holds weapons more potent than chemical arms, Lebanon’s Daily Star newspaper reported.
“Initially, we manufactured chemical arms in the 80s as a deterrent weapon to confront Israel’s nuclear arsenal,” the Lebanese newspaper al-Akhbar on Thursday quoted him as saying.
“Now, they are no longer a deterrent weapon. Today, we have more important and more sophisticated weapons that can blind Israel in a moment.”
- 1 High Court Vacancy Spells Trouble for Congress
- 2 The Winners and Losers From the South Carolina Republican Debate
- 3 Why Four Justices Were Against the Supreme Court’s Huge Gay-Marriage Decision
- 4 How Do Presidential Candidates Spend $1 Billion?
- 5 Ted Cruz Announces Presidential Agenda Disguised as Plan for GOP Congress
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.