This week, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Secretary Sergei Lavrov announced a joint plan for the destruction of the Syrian chemical weapons program. This replaces last week’s plan of the Obama administration to seek congressional approval for limited missile strikes against the Syrian regime for its use of chemical weapons, which took the lives of an estimated 1,400 people.
The joint Russian-U.S. Framework for Elimination of Syrian Chemical Weapons calls for the submission of a comprehensive listing “including names, types, and quantities of its chemical weapons agents, types of munitions, and location and form of storage, production, and research and development facilities.” The framework also calls for the freedom of movement and protection for international chemical weapons’ inspectors as well as the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons by the first half of 2014.
Many analysts argue that the delay of the congressional vote for limited missile strikes with this joint framework is a huge victory for the Obama administration, politically and practically. A CNN poll released on Sept. 9 showed that roughly 60 percent of Americans opposed even a limited missile strike against the Syrian regime, even with the belief that Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons against the Syrian people.
The polling numbers in Congress were no more supportive regarding voting for limited missile strikes. Peter Wallsten of The Washington Post states, “As of Sunday, 227 House members either opposed or leaned against military action, while 181 remained undecided and just 25 were in favor. Twenty-seven senators were opposed or leaning against, with 23 in favor and 50 undecided.” With these polls indicating lackluster support at best for limited missile strikes against Syria, a decision to delay this vote by the Obama administration is certainly pragmatic.
Further, many analysts argue that the decision to replace limited missile strikes with the joint framework is not only politically convenient but also strategic. Fareed Zakaria of CNN notes that the framework strictly focuses U.S. interests in Syria on stopping chemical weapons usage by the al-Assad regime. He argues that this is a better policy than limited missile strikes against Syria’s chemical facilities, which would have certainly failed to destroy all of Syria’s chemical weapons and could have even released toxins into the atmosphere.
While Assad’s abuses against the Syrian people are abhorrent, the focus on eliminating Syria’s chemical weapons is the most practical way, for the time being, to help the Syrian people. With Chinese and Russian veto power in the U.N. Security Council, it is currently impossible for the international community to reach a consensus that would oust Bashar al-Assad from power or stop the civil war that has killed more than 100,000 Syrians and displaced millions.
Also, actions by the United States, even with allies such as France and Turkey, to achieve broader objectives such as removing al-Assad and stopping his abuses against the Syrian people would require heavy military costs, perhaps even boots on the ground. This would be a cost much higher than Congress and the American people are willing to pay, based on such strong opposition to even limited missile strikes. Even after the hypothetical overthrow of Assad, with the presence of al-Qaida-linked groups such as the al-Nusra front, it is unclear what dangers a post-Assad Syria would hold for the United States.
For the time being, the joint framework appears to be in line with American interests in Syria as well as the will of the American people. The joint framework allows the Obama administration to achieve its goal of enforcing the international standard against chemical weapons while avoiding direct military involvement in the Syrian civil war. However, this objective is only achieved if the Syrians stick with their side of the bargain, which is a large assumption to make.
The first major test comes this week with the Syrian release of the comprehensive listing of their chemical weapons. It will be the job of the Obama administration to hold both the Russian and Syrian leadership accountable for achieving the release of this comprehensive listing as well as the eventual dismantling of the chemical weapons. This accountability will make the difference as to whether the framework is a substantive achievement that will remove chemical weapons from a dangerous regime or whether the framework is simply a delaying tactic for Bashar al-Assad to continue his abuses against the Syrian people. Regardless of the framework, the Syrian civil war will not end in the near future; however, it does buy time for the United States to define its strategic objectives in Syria.
Vinod Kannuthurai is a senior public policy leadership major from Hazlehurst.
