The Military Lever

178

September 20, 2013

Published in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
(Germany) on 17 September 2013
by Günther Nonnenmacher (link to original link to original)

Translated from by Sandra Alexander. Edited by Keith Armstrong.

Because United Nations inspectors are only supposed to determine whether chemical weapons were deployed in Syria and not who deployed them, it was clear from the start that the argument would continue between Russia on one side and Washington, London and Paris on the other.

Of course, it is not irrelevant whether the Assad regime or rebels committed this taboo breach. The wording of the U.N. resolution is crucial to the progress of the Russian-American plan for the destruction of the chemical weapons.

Will it refer to Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter and thus sanctions in the event of noncompliance — military, in the most extreme case — or will Moscow only allow a nonbinding provision in order to protect Assad?

The answer to this question is the first crucial test of the value of the deal. France appears to have taken a harder position that America. That is a good thing. To be sure, President Hollande does not have the military lever in his hands. Obama does.

Wird die UN-Resolution zur Vernichtung der chemischen Waffen Syriens auch auf mögliche militärische Sanktionen hinweisen? Oder wird Moskau nur Unverbindliches zulassen, um Assad zu schützen? An der Antwort darauf misst sich der Wert des russisch-amerikanischen Abkommens.

Weil die UN-Inspekteure nur feststellen sollten, ob in Syrien chemische Kampfstoffe eingesetzt wurden, nicht aber, wer sie eingesetzt hat, war von vornherein klar, dass der Streit in diesem Punkt zwischen Moskau auf der einen, Washington, London und Paris auf der anderen Seite weitergehen würde.

Es ist selbstverständlich nicht irrelevant, ob das Assad-Regime diesen Tabubruch begangen hat oder die Rebellen. Für den Fortgang des russisch-amerikanischen Plans zur Vernichtung der chemischen Waffen Syriens wichtiger ist jedoch, wie die UN-Resolution lauten wird, die für diesen Prozess notwendig ist.

Wird sie auf Kapitel VII der UN-Charta hinweisen, also auf Sanktionen, im äußersten Fall militärische, im Fall der Nichteinhaltung? Oder wird Moskau nur Unverbindliches zulassen, um Assad zu schützen?

Die Antwort auf diese Frage ist der erste wesentliche Test darauf, was das ganze Abkommen wert ist. Frankreich scheint dabei eine härtere Position einzunehmen als Amerika. Das ist gut so. Allerdings hat nicht Präsident Hollande den militärischen Hebel in der Hand, sondern Obama.

This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Tags:
Germany

Hot this week

Block title

Mexico: The United States: Arms Supplier to Drug Traffickers

February 17, 2026. Published in La Jornada

[T]he U.S. government itself is a major supplier to the cartels that the White House claims to be pursuing with all its might.

India: Will Trump Stick to India-US Trade Deal?

February 24, 2026. Published in Navbharat

Trump claims that it was due to America's generosity and protection that other countries benefited and raised their living standards, while the United States itself gained nothing.

India: What’s behind the Layoffs at The Washington Post?

February 17, 2026. Published in Amar Ujala

The Washington Post Guild, the staff union, questioned Bezos' commitment, saying that if he is no longer willing to invest in its mission, the institution needs a steward who understands it.

Germany: Trump and Clinton Have the Same Interest*

February 22, 2026. Published in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung

[E]very lie is allowed, nothing has any consequences.

Germany: Rubio’s Charm Offensive Changes Nothing*

February 20, 2026. Published in Der Tagesspiegel

Rubio's speech assuredly did not signal that American foreign policy had shifted one inch away from its Euroskeptic, nearly anti-European, stance.

Topics

India: Will Trump Stick to India-US Trade Deal?

February 24, 2026. Published in Navbharat

Trump claims that it was due to America's generosity and protection that other countries benefited and raised their living standards, while the United States itself gained nothing.