Syria Accepts Russia’s Chemical Weapons Plan, Setting Up a Long Day for Obama

The new proposal is gaining traction on the eve of a major address from the president.

President Barack Obama listens to French President Francois Hollande during the G-8 summit at the Lough Erne golf resort in Enniskillen, Northern Ireland, Tuesday, June 18, 2013. The final day of the G-8 summit of wealthy nations is ending with discussions on globe-trotting corporate tax dodgers, a lunch with leaders from Africa, and suspense over whether Russia and Western leaders can avoid diplomatic fireworks over their deadlock on Syria's civil war. 
National Journal
Add to Briefcase
Matt Berman
Sept. 10, 2013, 4:56 a.m.

Bashar al-As­sad’s gov­ern­ment in Syr­ia has agreed to a Rus­si­an plan to hand over its chem­ic­al weapons to in­ter­na­tion­al con­trol, ac­cord­ing to Syr­ia’s for­eign min­is­ter. The min­is­ter, Wal­id al-Moallem, said the agree­ment was quick and in­ten­ded to “up­root U.S. ag­gres­sion.” Rus­sia’s for­eign min­is­ter, Sergey Lav­rov, said Tues­day that his gov­ern­ment is work­ing with Syr­ia to come up with a de­tailed plan, which will be re­vealed soon.

But that’s not all that’s hap­pen­ing this morn­ing. France is now look­ing to take a chem­ic­al-weapons han­dover plan to the United Na­tions Se­cur­ity Coun­cil. Un­der the plan, the chem­ic­al-weapons ar­sen­al would even­tu­ally be dis­mantled. France says that its U.N. res­ol­u­tion would re­quire “ex­tremely ser­i­ous con­sequences” if the deal is broken. The Se­cur­ity Coun­cil’s per­man­ent mem­bers — the United States, Rus­sia, the United King­dom, China, and France — all seem to be sup­port­ive of the idea, with China’s for­eign min­istry of­fer­ing late back­ing for the pos­sible deal.

In a series of tele­vi­sion in­ter­views yes­ter­day, Obama offered some sup­port for the weapons plan, but he ex­pressed strong skep­ti­cism that it would ac­tu­ally come to fruition. Obama told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, “If we can ac­com­plish this lim­ited goal without tak­ing mil­it­ary ac­tion, that would be my pref­er­ence.” But then there’s the skep­ti­cism:

On the oth­er hand, if we don’t maybe main­tain and move for­ward with a cred­ible threat of mil­it­ary pres­sure, I do not think we will get the kind of move­ment I would like to see.

That’s a par­tic­u­larly tough po­s­i­tion for the pres­id­ent to be in on the eve of a tele­vised ad­dress from the White House to ex­plain what he thinks we need to do on Syr­ia. Obama is already fa­cing a pub­lic that’s largely — and in­creas­ingly — against tak­ing mil­it­ary ac­tion. And while it may seem baff­ling to some for the U.S. to wind up as a co­sign­er on a Rus­si­an plan, a new New York Times/CBS poll shows that 62 per­cent of Amer­ic­ans don’t think the U.S. should take a lead­ing role in any in­ter­na­tion­al con­flicts. With a con­sist­ent tor­rent of new de­vel­op­ments, it’s hard to ima­gine what kind of case the pres­id­ent will make Tues­day night.

But, right now at least, it’s start­ing to look as if the Amer­ic­an pub­lic may get its wish and a mil­it­ary strikemight be avoided. Some are already be­rat­ing Obama for not act­ing de­cis­ively strong enough on Syr­ia, and there’s not much doubt that the ad­min­is­tra­tion’s moves over the past two weeks have been con­fus­ing at best. But since “strength” in this case is the un­pop­u­lar route, find­ing a way out may not be such a bad plan.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.