World News

International community rushes to find Syria solution

Posted September 10, 2013

— Secretary of State John Kerry says Syria must do more than just declare its chemical weapons stockpiles and sign the international treaty that bans them if it wants a Russian-led effort to avert U.S. military strikes to work.

Just minutes after Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime announced Tuesday that it would take those steps, Kerry said he hoped that it would "go further" in the interests of peace. He said the Syrian government must "live up to what they said just said they would do" and then cooperate with Russia "to work out a formula by which those weapons could be transferred to international control and destroyed."

Syria's foreign minister Walid al-Moallem said Syria will also place chemical weapons locations in the hands of representatives of Russia, "other countries" and the United Nations.

The commitment comes after heated exchanges of threats from the United States, where President Barack Obama lobbied Congressional leaders for support for U.S. airstrikes against Assad's regime. 

Obama discussed plans for U.N. action with French President Francois Hollande and British Prime Minister David Cameron, then traveled to Capitol Hill to talk over diplomatic and military options with Democratic and Republican senators growing increasingly wary of U.S. military intervention. He was poised to address the American people from the White House on Tuesday night, still ready to press the case for congressionally-approved military action if diplomacy falls short.

"The key is, to paraphrase Ronald Reagan, that we don't just trust, but we also verify," Obama said in an interview with CBS. "The importance is to make sure that the international community has confidence that these chemical weapons are under control, that they are not being used, that potentially they are removed from Syria and that they are destroyed."

Secretary of State John Kerry says any deal with Syria to give up its chemical weapons stockpiles must be enshrined in a binding U.N. Security Council resolution that sets consequences for Syrian non-compliance.

Kerry said Tuesday that Russian suggestions that the U.N. endorsement come in the form of a non-binding statement from the rotating president of the Security Council would be unacceptable to the Obama administration. Kerry said the U.S. has to have "a full resolution from the Security Council in order to have confidence that this has the force that it has to have." He added that the resolution must have "consequences if games are played and somebody tries to undermine this."

Prospects for a diplomatic breakthrough unfolded rapidly Tuesday: Assad's government accepted a Russia-advanced plan to turn over its chemical weapons stockpile. France pitched a U.N. Security Council resolution to verify the disarmament. The U.N. Security Council, at Russia's request, scheduled closed consultations for late afternoon.

Kerry said Obama, Holland and Cameron agreed to work closely together in consultation with Russia and China to explore the Russian proposal to put all Syrian chemical weapons "under the control of a verifiable destruction enforcement mechanism."

The path forward was far from certain. Russian President Vladimir Putin, in an interview with a Russia Today television, said the plan would only work if the U.S. renounced the use of force against Syria because no country will disarm under threat of military action.

Obama's dramatic shift in tone came after weeks of threatening tough reprisals on the Assad regime and in the face of stiff resistance in Congress to a resolution that would authorize him to use military force.

North Carolina Rep. G. K. Butterfield (D-1st) told WRAL News that feedback from his constituents played a bigger role in his decision-making than a meeting with the president.

GK Butterfield NC delegation resists Syria strike

"When the president first brought this subject to the attention of the world, I was probably leaning toward supporting military action, but after I saw that more than 90 percent of my constituents who have called this office have been vehemently opposed to any type of military action that put me back in the undecided category," he said.

A majority of the senators staking out positions or leaning in one direction were expressing opposition, according to an Associated Press survey. The count in the House was far more lopsided, with representatives rejecting military action by more than a 6-1 margin even as the leaders of both parties in the House professed their support.

Rep. Mike McIntyre (D-7th) went even further. He began the week undecided on military action in Syria. On Tuesday, he came out against it making the North Carolina house delegation clearly against.

On Tuesday, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell became the first congressional leader to come out against a resolution giving the president authority for limited strikes, saying, "there are just too many unanswered questions about our long-term strategy in Syria." In another blow to the administration, Democratic Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, announced his opposition, saying the resolution was too broad, "the effects of a strike are too unpredictable, and because I believe we must give diplomatic measures that could avoid military action a chance to work."

Eager for an alternative, a bipartisan group of senators worked on a retooled resolution that would call on the United Nations to state that Syria used chemical weapons and require a U.N. team to remove them within a specific time period, possibly 60 days. If that can't be done, then Obama would have the authority to launch military strikes, congressional aides said, speaking on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to publicly discuss the reworked resolution.

Butterfield said he wanted to hear the president offer a diplomatic compromise Tuesday night in his address. 

"The diplomatic and military options are interrelated in complicated ways," said Rep. David Price (D-4th). "The military option is definitely on the table. I'm sure the president will line that out tonight as a limited targeted option."

Russia, Assad's biggest international backer, championed the diplomatic path forward in the hope of preventing the instability that might arise from a broader, Iraq-like conflict involving the United States. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem said after meeting with the Russian parliament speaker that his government had agreed to the Russian initiative to "thwart U.S. aggression." But the Syrian National Coalition, which had hoped for airstrikes to tip the balance in the 2-year-old civil war, cast Assad's move as a ploy to escape punishment for a crime against humanity.

Kerry, appearing before the House Armed Services Committee, said the U.N. approach must not be used as a delaying tactic and that it has to provide verifiable, real and include tangible conditions for Assad to forfeit his chemical weapons.

Seeking to reassure legislators worried about a deep U.S. entanglement in Syria, he said, "I don't see any route by which we slide into Syria. I don't see the slippery slope."

For the Obama administration, presenting just the possibility of a diplomatic solution offered an "out" as it struggled to find the 60 votes needed for Senate passage of a use-of-force resolution. Reflecting the difficulty, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., unexpectedly postponed a test vote originally set for Wednesday on Obama's call for legislation explicitly backing a military strike. Reid cited ongoing "international discussions."

Several lawmakers, conflicted by their desire to see Assad punished and their wariness about America getting pulled into another Middle East war, breathed sighs of relief.

"I always thought an international coalition to secure and destroy the chemical weapons is a far better option than military intervention," said Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas. He called for an "American plan" to do accomplish these tasks.

But there was plenty of skepticism about the latest diplomatic initiative, too.

"I hope it's not just a delaying tactic," said Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., after a closed meeting of House Republicans on Tuesday morning. But he added, "Let's see what the president has to say."

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., appeared to be dropping her support for a military strike authorization.

"The few supporters that he had, he's losing them quick," she said. "This is crazy to say that the folks who started the fire — Syria and Russia — are now going to be the firefighters putting out the fires. It's crazy to have Putin be in charge and for us to put credibility and trust with him. Oh, and who's along with this? Iran thinks it's a great idea and China thinks it's a great idea. That should tell you a lot."

In interviews Monday, Obama conceded he might lose the vote in Congress and declined to say what he would do if lawmakers rejected him. But, he told CBS, he didn't expect a "succession of votes this week or anytime in the immediate future," a stunning reversal after days of furious lobbying and dozens of meetings and telephone calls with individual lawmakers.

Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., chairman of the Armed Services Committee, complained of reversals and inconsistency from the administration, saying he and other lawmakers had a classified briefing Monday with top Obama advisers in which they portrayed the Russian initiative as less than serious — then later heard the president had said it would be considered.

"This message seems to be changing mid-sentence," McKeon said. "This is a joke."

A resolution approved by a Senate committee would authorize limited military strikes for up to 90 days and expressly forbids U.S. ground troops in Syria for combat operations. Several Democrats and Republicans announced their opposition Monday, joining the growing list of members vowing to vote "no." Fewer came out in support and one previous advocate, Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., became an opponent Monday.

Sixty-one percent of Americans want Congress to vote against authorization of U.S. military strikes in Syria, according to an Associated Press poll. About a quarter of Americans want lawmakers to support such action, with the remainder undecided. The poll, taken Sept. 6-8, had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.7 percentage points.


This story is closed for comments.

Oldest First
View all
  • notexactly Sep 11, 2013

    No Obama and Kerry( another Hilary) got egg on their face. Putin made them look like a puppet. Putin called Obama's bluff and now Obama is back pedaling. It is a good thing if they give up their weapons, but Putin and Assad are in control here, not Obama.

  • BernsteinIII Sep 11, 2013

    "Rushes"? Seriously? LOL.

  • bombayrunner Sep 10, 2013

    Obama will be changing his mind and his plan right up to the public address .. where he will be a mumbling stumbling ...

  • Ex-Republican Sep 10, 2013

    "Puuuhleeese. I know you guys have to criticize 24-7 anything Obama does. But if the Administration has applied pressure in a way that results in chemical weapons being destroyed, then they did a GOOD thing. Period"

    Well, MyWord, I agree. But it must have been divine intervention that turned bluff and blunder on the part of Kerry and Obama into POSSIBLY a good thing. We still don't know the outcome.

  • HockeyPlayerX Sep 10, 2013

    "The real tragedy is how the international community could allow this horrid civil war to continue for so long." ... Ummm... think about what you just said. Seriously.

  • Ex-Republican Sep 10, 2013

    "What does Benghazi have to do with any of this?" fordrp

    Nothing, in my opinion. Except that tomorrow is the 1 year anniversary of the needless death of four Americans there. 12th anniversary of the 911 attacks. The timing of all this could not have been worse.

  • HockeyPlayerX Sep 10, 2013

    "The international community might have a chance here to rid Syria of chemical weapons. This is a good thing." ... yeah, the Tooth Fairy might bring us all a thousand dollars tonight too.

  • GovernmentMule Sep 10, 2013

    "The real tragedy is how the international community could allow this horrid civil war to continue for so long." - RockGuitar

    The UN was created (League of Nations, originally) specifically to end/stop the use of chemical weapons, bloody wars, etc... However, it's actual track record shows that it is a GIGANTIC FAILURE. If anything it has coddled and enabled the worst tin horn dictators you can imagine. Apart from some minor humanitarian work it is almost completely worthless.

  • Roland K. Sep 10, 2013

    now with Syria agreeing to sign the Chemical Weapons ban treaty, we try to get Israel and Egypt to do the same thing.

    Of course, we'll see if Syria actually does it.

  • WralCensorsAreBias Sep 10, 2013

    kicking the can down the road.

    to save Obama's face.

    sooooooo predictable isn't it.