The title of a recently released Al Jazeera article is “Syria ACCEPTS (?) Russian chemical weapons plan” (Web-site/URL: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/09/20139109613395758.html).
“Decision aimed at “REMOVING GROUNDS for US AGGRESSION” as support grows for putting arms under international scrutiny”. We obviously must focus on “removing grounds for US aggression”. Again, the US IS NOT popular in the Middle East for precisely this reason: TOO MUCH “aggression”. “aggression” is also the latest/yet another example of the “force and pain technique” (Web-site/URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgnAY_eXYbI).
“Interfax quoted Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem as telling the speaker of Russia’s lower house parliament house in Moscow on Tuesday(September 10, 2013)” ”We held A VERY FRUITFUL (?) round of talks with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov yesterday (September 9 2013) and he proposed an initiative relating to chemical weapons. And in the evening (September 9, 2013), we AGREED to the Russian initiative“. Were these talks “very fruitful?” Again this is open to INTERPRETATIONS (Web-site/URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgnAY_eXYbI).
“He (al-Muallem( said Syria had agreed because this would “REMOVE THE GROUNDS for American AGGRESSION,” the report said”. There’s the repetition of the “American aggression” point.
“Russia said earlier it was working on an ”EFFECTIVE (?), concrete” plan for putting Syria’s chemical weapons under international control, whileFrance said it planned to float a UN Security Council resolution aimed at FORCING Damascus to make its weapons program public and then dismantle it”. There are TWO things to note here. First, what is “effective?” Again, this is open to INTERPRETATIONS. On top of this, we have yet another/the latest example of the “force and pain technique” (Web-site/URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgnAY_eXYbI).
“The diplomatic push over Syria’s chemical weapons GATHERED MOMENTUM on Tuesday (September 10, 2013), a day after the Russian foreign minister suggested the measure for averting US plans for a military strike against Syria”.
“France on Tuesday (September 10, 2013) said it would start the process for a new UN Security Council resolution, under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, which is MILITARILY ENFORCEABLE“, another example of the “force and pain technique” (Web-site/URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgnAY_eXYbI) .
“Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said the resolution would propose putting any Syrian chemical weapons under international control before moving to dismantle it”.
“Fabius said the resolution, based around five points, would demand that Syria “BRING FULLY TO LIGHT” its chemical weapons program. The measure would also set up international inspections and controls of the dismantling process, and would carry “VERY SERIOUS consequences” if the commitment were violated”. This “commitment”, in all likelihood, WILL BE “violated”, so what are these “consequences?”
“Syria has welcomed the Russian proposal and US President Barack Obama said he saw a possible breakthrough in the crisis, but REMAINED SKEPTICAL“, again AS EXPECTED (Web-site/URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgnAY_eXYbI).
“Obama had argued that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad must be punished MILITARILY for what Washington says was a poison gas attack that killed hundreds in the Damascus suburbs on August 21 (2013)”. “punished militarily” again suggests that the “force and pain technique” will be used (Web-site/URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgnAY_eXYbI) and on top of this this will be NASTY
“Obama described the Russian plan as “positive“, saying he would consider it and that military strikes would “absolutely” be put on hold IF that were to happen“. That’s a VERY BIG “if”.
“The Syrian National Council (SNC), meanwhile, in a statement released on Tuesday (September 10, 2013), called on the international community and the UN to hold Assad’s regime accountable, and ACCUSED the Russians of trying to PLAY FOR TIME“. This is the latest example of BLAMING & CRITICIZING (Web-site/URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-AJviZ8Itk).
“IRAN and CHINA welcomed the Russian proposal on Tuesday (September 10, 2013)” again because Iran and China areAUTOCRATIC/UNDEMOCRATIC societies.
According to Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei, “As long as it is a proposal that helps ameliorate (relieve) the current tense situation in Syria, is beneficial to maintaining PEACE and STABILITY in Syria (?) and the region (the Middle East) and is beneficial to A POLITICAL RESOLUTION (?), the international community ought to give it positive CONSIDERATION“, but this is “consideration” only. Also, “peace and stability in SYRIA” and “a political resolution” in SYRIA seem to be a LONG way off.
“The Arab League chief added his voice on Tuesday (September 10, 2013) and also expressed support for the proposal”.
“Nabil Elaraby told reporters that the Arab League has always been in favor of a “POLITICAL solution“. Again THIS MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE.
“Israel, however, voiced skepticism about the plan with President Shimon Peres warning on Monday (September 9, 2013) that negotiations would be “TOUGH” and that Syria is “NOT TRUSTWORTHY“, which is a damning criticism, BUT TRUE.
Finally, “Avigdor Lieberman, who chairs the parliament’s foreign affairs and defense committee, told Israel Radio on Tuesday that Syria could use the idea to stall military action. “Assad is WINNING TIME and LOTS OF IT“. There are TWO INTERPRETATIONS of this (Web-site/URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgnAY_eXYbI). A dictator in power for 13 years (since July 17, 2000) is certainly bad, but IF he is toppled, an ISLAMIST-led government may well take over and as we’ve seen, that could be AN EVEN DICIER proposition.
So, could the US and RUSSIA work together to solve the Syrian crisis?