After three days of negotiations in Geneva that began last Thursday, John Kerry, the US secretary of state, and Sergei Lavrov, his Russian counterpart, announced what is officially called the “Framework for the Elimination of Syrian Chemical Weapons” that would pave the way, hopefully, to the removal and destruction of Syrian chemical weapons by mid-2014 and the mandatory presence of international inspectors on the ground in Syria by November. Prior to the announcement of this American-Russian accord, the Syrian government had expressed its willingness to sign the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1997, thus acknowledging for the first time that it has chemical weapons. Secretary Kerry said: “If fully implemented… this framework can provide greater protection and security to the world.” I fully subscribe to what the US secretary of state said, provided that all countries in the Middle East, including Israel, forswear the manufacturing, storing and the use of all weapons of mass destruction. The Geneva accord is a welcome development in the Syrian crisis, and many hope that it will be instrumental in convening the Geneva II peace conference in the foreseeable future to herald the democratic transition in Syria. The international reaction to this accord was overwhelming, save the reaction of the Syrian opposition that adopted, unsurprisingly, a highly negative attitude by refusing to respect it. The Geneva accord came as a respite to talk of military strikes against Syria by the United States and its international and regional allies, to “deter and degrade” the capacity of the Syrian army to use chemical weapons at its disposal against the rebel forces or the civilian population after the chemical attack of 21 August 2013 that the US government has attributed to the Syrian government even before the UN report on the attack is out, after UN inspectors had gone to Syria to gather the necessary information. If things go according to plan, both the Americans and the Russians intend to seize the Security Council to adopt a resolution that would commit, not only the Syrian government, but also the international community to the Geneva Framework. The Russians have made it clear that they would oppose any attempt to adopt such a resolution in the context of Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter that would allow the use of force to enforce its provisions in case the Syrian government would renege on its commitments according to the accord reached last Saturday in Geneva. The US administration has stressed that the threat of the use of force would remain valid until the complete implementation of the Geneva Framework. But no one knows for certain who would, from the American standpoint, certify that Syria has successfully honoured all its commitments as stipulated in the framework. Is it the UN, for instance, or the United States government? For all practical purposes, I believe the United Nations, once the Security Council adopts the resolution referred to above, must be the sole arbiter as to whether Syria has fulfilled its responsibilities and has dismantled its chemical arsenal. Speaking of the use of force, the United States and its allies have affirmed that their threat to resort to force in response to the August attack has yielded the consent of the Syrian government to get rid of its stockpiles of chemical weapons. Therefore, they believe that the framework does not mean that they will not order military strikes against selected targets within Syria if Damascus tries to circumvent the Geneva Framework. The central question now is how to link the framework to the convening of the Geneva II conference? So far, the Syrian insurgents have refused to go to Geneva unless they achieve what they have called military parity with the Syrian army. Of course, to reach this parity their international and regional backers should arm them with sophisticated weapon systems to enable them to neutralise the military superiority enjoyed by government troops. Something that will turn Syria into a true war theatre and will raise the point of what incentive the armed opposition will demand to accept to sit down with the Syrian government once a certain military balance is obtained on the ground. In this respect, I believe the best option would be for the Security Council to include a paragraph concerning this conference in the draft resolution that is expected to be circulated shortly on Syria and its chemical weapons. Similarly, both the Arab League and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation should call on the Syrian government and insurgents to abide by the abovementioned Security Council resolution. It would truly be a waste if both sides of the war raging uselessly in Syria would fail to seize on the peace chance provided by the Geneva Framework. I hope they will oblige for the sake of the Syrian people. And maybe Egyptian diplomacy could play a role in this respect.
The writer is former assistant to the foreign minister.
