The fact that the five veto-wielding members of the U.N. Security Council have agreed to destroy Syria’s chemical weapons, even if it did happen later than originally intended, represents a small step forward — but not much more than that.
That’s because Moscow, the reliable patron of Syria’s dictator Bashar al-Assad, is still preventing the “enemy of humanity” (U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon) and a “war criminal” (Obama) from taking action. Because of this, there has been little reference to the fault of the Syrian regime for the latest gas attack and no automatic responses that would give clout to the resolution being sought by Washington, all of which is quite humiliating for the Americans. How we move forward now is unclear. Hope dies slowly, particularly in diplomacy. Even if Assad does not comply with the timetable for handing over the chemical weapons, or only hands them over partially, the Kremlin can continue to fend off penalties with a “nyet.”
In the U.S., other issues have gained the upper hand; Obama’s moral imperative that the use of weapons of mass destruction must have serious consequences seems to have been forgotten by most, and even by him.
The time factor and the different interests of the great powers have always been the most valuable weapon of “rogue states.” Why should it be any different now?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.