The US and Russia have hammered out an agreement that may defuse the threat of an American attack on Syria. Here is a link to the signed agreement (I will not ask any quiz questions on the formal agreement–it is too technical). The agreement only relates to chemical weapons, and not at all to the humanitarian crisis in Syria, but it is nonetheless an important breakthrough. There are three conditions that we know about (there are always additional details to every agreement that are not public). First, Syria must declare to the UN all its chemical weapons caches within a week. Second, Syria must allow inspectors free and unlimited access to its territory within thirty days. Finally, by early 2014 all these weapons must be handed over and destroyed by an international team.
The agreement is significant, but fragile. In return for Russian support, the US agreed to have Syrian compliance monitored under Chapter 6 of the UN Charter, not Chapter 7. Only Chapter 7 authorizes the UN Security Council to use force, Chapter 6 only authorizes sanctions. So, theoretically, if Syria fails to comply with the agreement, the US would not have UN authority to renew its threat of an armed attack. The global experience with sanctions as a technique to enforce arms limitations is not encouraging. Such sanctions did not work with Iraq after 1991, nor did they prevent North Korea from developing nuclear weapons. The current negotiations with Iran over nuclear weapons have also been very difficult.
This agreement will be a case study in international relations in the future. The question is whether the US threat of force brought about the agreement, and whether the absence of the use of force may scuttle the agreement. Here are some interesting insights: Foreign Policy; The Atlantic; The Spectator.
World Politics News 
Initial thoughts: isn’t it already too late, too long after the attack, too much back and forth, to much of broadcasting intentions and confusion, to think there is any chance of finding any chemical weapons still in Syria? Or if Assad turns over chemical weapons is there any way to be sure it’ll be all of it, or that he won’t have more made? I suspect no. Also, isn’t is likely that instead of a peaceful solution with peace in Syria that this ends badly? I suspect yes.
I’ve heard Putin and Nobel Peace Prize speculation around all this. That sounds so strange.
LikeLike
Launching an attack would be much, much more difficult, but, in many respects, more important than it was before. Launching an attack after the use of chemical weapons was highly problematic. But launching an attack if Syria tries to brazenly undermine the agreement may, in fact, be easier. Much depends on how easily the agreement is implemented.
As far as the Nobel Peace Prize is concerned, Putin does in fact deserve credit. But we can’t forget that the real tragedy (100,000 dead) is still ongoing. Progress on the civil war is the highest priority.
LikeLike
I’m trying to balance my compassion and the tears I cried seeing those awful videos and reading the count of the dead rise each day with my desire to learn about the intricacies, history and important facts of what is happening so I can make informed conclusions and then make statements on why I think what I do without resorting to just “I feel”…I’ll never have a future in the political sphere if I can’t get beyond my feelings, or at least state them with logical well informed backing.
I agree progress towards peace and an end to civil war is paramount.
Would launching an attack if Syria undermined the agreement be easier given that the agreement is not under chapter 7?
LikeLike
The US cannot legally launch an attack under Chapter 6. Whether it’s willing to do so on its own really depends on the manner in which the agreement is broken or if chemical weapons are used again. I seriously doubt that the US will do so, or that Syria and Russia will give the US an opportunity to do so.
LikeLike