Deal reached on U.N. resolution on Syria's chemical arsenal
UNITED NATIONS — The five permanent members of the deeply divided U.N. Security Council reached agreement on Thursday on a resolution to eliminate Syria's chemical weapons arsenal, British and U.S. diplomats said, and the full council was set to discuss it into Thursday night.
The agreement represents a major breakthrough in addressing the 2 1⁄2-year conflict, which has killed more than 100,000 people.
Divisions among the permanent members have paralyzed council action on Syria since the conflict began.
U.N. diplomats said this resolution would be the first legally binding one on Syria in the conflict if adopted, which appears virtually certain.
Britain's U.N. ambassador, Mark Lyall Grant, tweeted that Britain, France, the United States, Russia and China agreed on a “binding and enforceable draft ... resolution.”
He said Britain would introduce the text to the 10 other council members.
The United States and Russia had been at odds on how to enforce the resolution, but Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power confirmed that the last hurdles had been overcome.
On Twitter, Power said the draft resolution establishes that Syria's chemical arsenal “is a threat to international peace & security & creates a new norm against the use of CW.”
Secretary of State John Kerry and Lavrov met in hastily scheduled, closed-door talks in the afternoon at the United Nations, and the agreement was announced soon afterward.
On Wednesday, Russia's deputy foreign minister said negotiators overcame a major hurdle and agreed to include a reference to the U.N. Charter allowing military and nonmilitary actions to promote peace and security.
The U.S. and Russia had been at odds on how to enforce the resolution to secure and dismantle Syria's chemical weapons.
In Moscow, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov offered to provide troops to guard facilities where Syria's chemical weapons would be destroyed.
The flurry of diplomatic activity is in response to an Aug. 21 poison gas attack that killed hundreds of civilians in a Damascus suburb, and President Barack Obama's threat of U.S. strikes in retaliation.
After Kerry said Syrian President Bashar Assad could avert U.S. military action by turning over “every single bit of his chemical weapons” to international control within a week, Russia, Syria's most important ally, agreed. Kerry and Lavrov signed an agreement in Geneva on Sept. 13.
Assad's government quickly accepted the broad proposal, but there have been tough negotiations on how its stockpile will be destroyed.
Security Council action on Syria had long been stalled because of differences between Russia and China, who back Assad's government, and the U.S., Britain and France, who support the opposition. Russia and China have vetoed three Western-backed resolutions aimed at pressuring Assad to end the violence.
Work on the new resolution continues while the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the body that will be in charge of securing and destroying the stockpile, is working on its own document to set out its exact duties. The U.N. resolution will include the text of the OPCW's declaration and make it legally binding — so the OPCW must act first.
The Hague-based OPCW said Thursday it was optimistic it could quickly schedule a meeting of its 41-nation executive council to approve a roadmap for swiftly destroying Syria's chemical arsenal and production facilities.
A U.N. diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity because consultations have been private, said the executive board of the OPCW isn't likely to meet before Sunday, which means that Security Council adoption of the resolution likely won't take place until next week.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Russia’s military touts partial victory in Syria
- Afghan charity hospital bombed; Defense Secretary Carter vows full investigation
- Portuguese austerity measures unlikely to hurt continued dominance of moderates in vote
- 9 die after international charity’s Afghanistan clinic bombed
- Landslide wreckage yields more bodies in Guatemala
- French warplanes target ISIS training camp in Syria
- Violence rocks Central African Republic
- Why Russia’s Syria war is bad news for the United States (and why it isn’t)
- Book spurs feud with Nobel prizes committee
- 10 aboard U.S. aircraft killed in crash in Afghanistan
- France tells Russia to target Islamic State militants, not rebels in Syria