Destroying Syria’s Chemical Arms Would Be Complex Undertaking

Global Security Newswire Staff
See more stories about...
Global Security Newswire Staff
Sept. 11, 2013, 9:02 a.m.

Were Syr­ia to agree give up its siz­able chem­ic­al ar­sen­al, des­troy­ing the weapons and veri­fy­ing that no trace ma­ter­i­als or mu­ni­tions re­main would be a highly com­plic­ated and dan­ger­ous un­der­tak­ing that likely would take years to fin­ish, the Los Angeles Times re­por­ted on Tues­day.

Bashar As­sad’s re­gime has said it is open to sur­ren­der­ing its chem­ic­al weapons to the in­ter­na­tion­al com­munity in or­der to avoid a threatened U.S. mil­it­ary strike. However, a spe­cif­ic agree­ment on the mat­ter is far from be­ing reached.

A ma­jor con­cern of the United States and its al­lies is mak­ing sure that Dam­as­cus re­veals all of the de­tails of its chem­ic­al-weapons pro­gram. Those in­clude its pro­cesses for ac­quir­ing, re­search­ing and man­u­fac­tur­ing chem­ic­al tox­ins as well as the loc­a­tions and types of all the mu­ni­tions used to de­liv­er the agents.

“The Syr­i­ans would have to tell us ba­sic­ally everything,” Uni­versity of Mary­land chem­ic­al arms spe­cial­ist Markus Bind­er told the Times.

Des­troy­ing the chem­ic­al-war­fare ma­ter­i­als can be ac­com­plished by in­cin­er­a­tion or neut­ral­iz­a­tion — a chem­ic­al pro­cess that renders the tox­ins no longer dan­ger­ous. Both op­tions pose phys­ic­al risk to the work­ers hand­ling the bulk agent and chem­ic­al-filled mu­ni­tions, as there could be leak­age or ac­ci­dent­al ex­plo­sions. Some ma­ter­i­als could be des­troyed in­side Syr­ia and oth­ers could be trans­por­ted to an­oth­er coun­try for elim­in­a­tion.

Syr­ia is a not a sig­nat­ory of the Chem­ic­al Weapons Con­ven­tion but might agree to ac­cede to the non­pro­lif­er­a­tion ac­cord un­der a pos­sible deal to avoid U.S. at­tacks. The CWC treaty re­quires that chem­ic­al dis­arm­a­ment be over­seen by spe­cial­ists from the Or­gan­iz­a­tion for the Pro­hib­i­tion of Chem­ic­al Weapons — the body that im­ple­ments the ac­cord — but that the ac­tu­al elim­in­a­tion work be car­ried out by the state it­self, the Bo­ston Globe re­por­ted.

The Ar­ab na­tion presently does not have the ne­ces­sary tech­no­logy and in­fra­struc­ture to safely des­troy its chem­ic­al ar­sen­al. For­eign na­tions such as the United States and Rus­sia, which both have con­sid­er­able ex­pert­ise in chem­ic­al-arms dis­arm­a­ment, might provide help in this area.

“It’s a gar­gan­tu­an task for the in­spect­ors to moth­ball pro­duc­tion, in­stall pad­locks, in­vent­ory the bulk agent as well as the mu­ni­tions,” Amy Smith­son, a chem­ic­al-weapons ana­lyst at the Monterey In­sti­tute of In­ter­na­tion­al Stud­ies, told the New York Times. “Then a lot of it has to be des­troyed — in a war zone.”

A con­sid­er­able quant­ity of for­eign-mil­it­ary per­son­nel likely would have to be de­ployed to Syr­ia to pro­tect the OP­CW in­spect­ors as they go about their work, ac­cord­ing to ana­lysts.

“We’re talk­ing boots on the ground,” an an­onym­ous one­time U.N. weapons in­spect­or with ex­per­i­ence in Ir­aq said. “We’re not talk­ing about just put­ting someone at the gate. You have to have lay­ers of se­cur­ity.”

A 2012 es­tim­ate by the De­fense De­part­ment con­cluded it could take in ex­cess of 75,000 mil­it­ary per­son­nel to se­cure Syr­ia’s chem­ic­al weapons.

“Whichever coun­try would be sent in there to try to get the ac­count­ab­il­ity and do the se­cur­ity, and maybe even­tu­ally get to the de­struc­tion — they will be a tar­get for someone, for one group or an­oth­er,” the ex-U.N. in­spect­or said. “Be­cause no mat­ter who you are, you get mortared some­where by one of the parties” in the Syr­i­an civil war.

A great­er num­ber of OP­CW weapons in­spect­ors likely would have to be hired.

An­oth­er chal­lenge is find­ing and des­troy­ing all of the spe­cial­ized rock­ets that were util­ized in the Aug. 21 large-scale gas at­tack in the Dam­as­cus sub­urbs that pre­cip­it­ated threats of a re­tali­at­ory U.S. at­tack. The rock­ets seem to have been newly built and of a make not pre­vi­ously known about. Thus far, it has not been pos­sible to find out which fa­cil­ity man­u­fac­tured the weapons and Dam­as­cus con­tin­ues to claim that it has noth­ing to do with the rock­ets.

Cor­rec­tion: An earli­er ver­sion of this art­icle in­cluded an er­ror in its ini­tial ref­er­ence to Syr­ia’s siz­able chem­ic­al ar­sen­al.

What We're Following See More »
LOTS OF STRINGERS
Inside the AP’s Election Operation
2 hours ago
WHY WE CARE
THE QUESTION
What’s the Average Household Income of a Trump Voter?
2 hours ago
THE ANSWER

Seventy-two thousand dollars, according to FiveThirtyEight. That's higher than the national average, as well as the average Clinton or Sanders voter, but lower than the average Kasich voter.

Source:
VERY FEW DEMS NOW REPRESENT MINING COMMUNITIES
How Coal Country Went from Blue to Red
4 hours ago
WHY WE CARE
STAFF PICKS
History Already Being Less Kind to Hastert’s Leadership
7 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

In light of his recent confessions, the speakership of Dennis Hastert is being judged far more harshly. The New York Times' Carl Hulse notes that in hindsight, Hastert now "fares poorly" on a number of fronts, from his handling of the Mark Foley page scandal to "an explosion" of earmarks to the weakening of committee chairmen. "Even his namesake Hastert rule—the informal standard that no legislation should be brought to a vote without the support of a majority of the majority — has come to be seen as a structural barrier to compromise."

Source:
‘STARTING FROM ZERO’
Trump Ill Prepared for General Election
7 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Even if "[t]he Republican presidential nomination may be in his sights ... Trump has so far ignored vital preparations needed for a quick and effective transition to the general election. The New York businessman has collected little information about tens of millions of voters he needs to turn out in the fall. He's sent few people to battleground states compared with likely Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, accumulated little if any research on her, and taken no steps to build a network capable of raising the roughly $1 billion needed to run a modern-day general election campaign."

Source:
×