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 »
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
21 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

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.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Maher Weighs in on Bernie, Trump and Palin
22 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

“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.

Source:
×