Tags
As the debate of whether to use force in Syria continues, Russia proposed a nonviolent yet effective way to prevent Syria from further using chemical weapons. While some are dubious that such a plan could work, the White House and Senate are seriously looking into their proposed course of action as a way to bypass a limited military strike. This plan is to place all of the chemical weapons of mass destruction currently in Syria’s possession in the hands of international monitors in order to destroy the entire collection of chemical weapons. While implementing this plan has many possible flaws that need to be settled before an agreement is reached, Russia’s plan is detailed enough to provide a feasible and non-violent course of action. While this plan does not stop the violence in Syria, and would be hard to implement, it is an option that Americans can support. It would derail the Syrian stockpile and prevent them from accumulating more chemical weapons. However, Russia disagrees with France in that the implementing of this plan should be backed by military force should the Syrian government refuse to comply. This makes the plan less likely to succeed since there may be no real consequence should Syria refuse to comply, or even only partially comply. The Russian foreign minister Mr. Lavrov proposed this plan on Monday after frequently discussing with Secretary of State John Kerry about the crisis in Syria. It is impressive that the Russians proposed such a detailed plan in order to help their Syrian ally while still providing solutions to dominant powers in the world such as the US, France, and Great Britain. This shows that diplomatic options are always available so long as all options are thought out, negotiable claims that address the main concerns both parties have. In this case, The UN, France, Great Britain, and the US desire Syria to stop the use of chemical weapons and destroy their stockpile while both Syria and Russia wish to avoid the possible use of force in Syria that could diminish Assad’s power. While this plan has yet to receive the support of Congress or the White House, it can be a step of progress towards aiding citizens in Syria and depleting their collection of chemical weapons.
BYU Kennedy Center Live 
It is nice that we can avoid military action. The only thing I find disturbing is that the call for a diplomatic solution didn’t come from the US or any of the western nations.
That may be because most of the western nations, including the US, were set on military action. Russia, on the other hand, does not want one of their close allies to be threatened in such a way. Due to this, many people believed that the plan was simply a stall tactic to give Syria more time. However, it is interesting to see that Syria may be more willing to cooperate due to the gravity of their situation and the possibility of being attacked by multiple nations. This may have even been the goal of some: to show that America means to prevent the use of chemical weapons even if it means violence.
Naturally, with the international community in outrage and the U.S. threatening military intervention, Russia had to present an alternative plan that addressed chemical weapons use. However, the fact that Russia refuses to enforce consequences for Syria if they refuse shows that Russia has little interest in changing the status quo in Syria. Russia is more interested in weapon sales and border security than they are in prosecuting crimes against humanity or preventing a protracted civil war.
Although I think this new plan is better than Americas plan of action I honestly don’t see it actually working out the way Russia is hoping it will. I think if Obama and his Administration has anything to do with it, Russia’s plans will soon be nothing but another notche in the timeline of the Syrian conflict.
The NY Times article mentions an important point here–that identifying, collecting, and confiscating (or destroying) all of Syria’s chemical weapons is virtually impossible in the middle of a civil war. And with all due respect to the ideals of the United Nations, I doubt that a UN-led initiative to confiscate those weapons stockpiles is going to succeed. Even if the plan were successful, who is to say that a victorious Assad regime wouldn’t just rebuild its chemical weapons program after retaking all of the war-torn country? The purpose of the Russian proposal seems obvious enough: Russia wants to preserve its Syrian ally and Assad wants to disrupt American plans for intervention.