I have carefully parsed UNSC Res 2118 and while I did not find any great surprises in its contents, I would qualify it as a half-full glass, meaning that while this resolution does not fix any of the issues which I had identified in the Kerry-Lavrov agreements (see here, here, here and here), it at least does not exacerbate them either and that, in itself, is definitely a plus.
Why?
Because my main concern was the the US would “creatively reinterpret” (i.e. grossly distort) the meaning of the Kerry-Lavrov Agreement. Since this has not happened in this Resolution, this now makes is harder or even less likely that the US could do so. And if it did, it would do so at a higher political costs, with its hypocrisy even more obvious to all.
One big risk of the Kerry Lavrov Agreement remains.
Here is what Kerry said in his explanation of vote:
The Council had endorsed the Geneva Communiqué, and it had adopted a legally binding resolution that spelled out in detail what Syria must do to comply with it. It could not accept or reject the inspectors, but must give unfettered access at all sites. “We are here because actions have consequences,” he said.
Russia’s position was expressed by Lavrov:
Noting that Damascus had shown its readiness for cooperation by joining the Chemical Weapons Convention, he said that was a precondition for success. It also had provided a list of its chemical weapons arsenal. Damascus would continue to cooperate with international inspectors. The responsibility for implementing the resolution did not lay only with Syria.
Interestingly, the semi-official official preamble of the UN Department of Public Information wrote this:
Syria should comply with all aspects of the OPCW decision, notably by accepting personnel designated by OPCW or the United Nations and providing them with immediate and unfettered access to — and the right to inspect — any and all chemical weapons sites.
Now what did the Resolution 2118 itself actually say?
Alas, it said this:
Decides that the Syrian Arab Republic shall cooperate fully with the OPCW and the United Nations, including by complying with their relevant recommendations, by accepting personnel designated by the OPCW or the United Nations, by providing for and ensuring the security of activities undertaken by these personnel, by providing these personnel with immediate and unfettered access to and the right to inspect, in discharging their functions, any and all sites, and by allowing immediate and unfettered access to individuals that the OPCW has grounds to believe to be of importance for the purpose of its mandate, and decides that all parties in Syria shall cooperate fully in this regard;
I hate to be the one making it rain on your parade, but this is not good at all. The Americans got it right: this Resolution does not, repeat not, limit access to only chemical sites. Not only does it require immediate access to any and all sites, it also demands immediate and unfettered access to individuals (and we know how the UN special tribunal investigating the Hariri murder in Lebanon abused that right, especially towards Syrian nationals).
So we should not kid ourselves, all the US needs to do is find the Syria in material breach of Resolution 2118 and, voila, we will almost be back to square one. I say ‘almost’, because the trap set by the Russians for the USA has also worked: by voting ‘yes’ on UNSC Res 2118 the USA has thereby also committed itself to go back to the UNSC should it find Syria in non-compliance with UNSC Res 2118. What the US cannot do is simply decide to attack. The political price for that have now skyrocketed with the US signing on to this Resolution, and that is, of course, very good news – kudos to the Russian diplomats here.
Clearly, as long as Putin is alive and in the Kremlin, the US will not get a UNSC Resolution to attack Syria. I think that nobody, short of pathological Russia-haters, will deny that. The Americans understand that too. So they also understand that if they find Syria in material breach of UNSC Res 2118 they will have to go to the UNSC where the best they can hope for is a Russian and Chinese agreement to Chapter VII measures which fall short of the use of military force, and even that is most unlikely as Lavrov has clearly said that any accusation would have to be proven 100% (a level of proof which is practically impossible to meet anyway). So short of Assad throwing a chemical hand grenade from his balcony on CNN live – the UNSC will not endorse an attack on Syria.
Still, the Americans are so used to threaten and bully that it has really become a second nature to them. And the dumber and more ignorant a US politician is, the more bullying and threatening he usually does precisely to conceal is boneheaded ignorance and cluelessness. They all seem to be totally unaware of the fact that under international law the threat of attack is already considered as an aggressive and illegal action.
The other headache for the US will be that it has now committed to bring the insurgents to the negotiating table, something which the insurgents have so far categorically rejected. Even better, did you notice that the American insistence that Assad first leave even before negotiations begin have now vanished from both the Kerry-Lavrov Agreement and UNSC Res 2118? Another small, but very substantial victory for the Kremlin.
The best thing which the Kerry-Lavrov Agreement and UNSC Res 2118 provide is, of course, a quasi-total elimination for any momentum for a US attack on Syria, and that is truly a fantastic success for Lavrov and his diplomats. Even a “material breach” argument will not be “sexy” enough for Obama to justify a US attack on Syria. The only way to achieve that is, what else, yet another false flag attack, either on Israel or even on the USA. So that will be the main danger from now on: a US/Israeli false flag attack with a lot of innocent civilians killed, enough to outrage the US public opinion into yet another murderous frenzy. Short of that, it appears that the danger of a direct US military intervention in the short and mid term have receded, at least for the time being.
The glass is definitely half full. Let’s hope we can fill it further up now.
The Saker
Hi Saker – Nothing specific to comment however I do grow more convinced that Russia is leading a group of concerned nations to make the world more humane. The effort seems to be free from ideology and bias of all sorts (be it religious, cultural or modes of economic activity).
Its single most powerful weapon is transparency. Transparency in this context is simply lifting the veil of ignorance created by Western media, “historians” whose careers are built on constructing a foundation for official myths, and psychological factors that make self-serving ignorance more comfortable than reality.
Back to Russia, their disclosure of US attempts to blackmail, openly discussing US/Western attempts to use staged tragedies (e.g. poison gas attacks), etc. are new and exciting (at least to me). There is more going on in Russia than simply an effort to keep the Empire at bay. I like to think that it is an effort to open the eyes of the world – not to “end history” but rather to allow humanity its first real chance to develop with clarity and purpose.
None of this would be possible IMHO if Russia were not strong economically, militarily and most importantly spiritually. The trends are all in the right direction but certainly the Empire has a lot of resources to fight for its existence.
Although the preceding may be counter to your views regarding that Russia simply wants to be a “normal country” (hopefully I am not misrepresenting your views), I believe that there is more to their motives than just that. Simply put, its hard to be normal in an insane asylum.
Thank you Saker for helping to shine the light.
Anonymous 1147 said “it’s hard to be normal in an insane asylum.”
How true. In an interview awhile back, Putin was asked something like “What’s the most fun part of your day?” He replied “I don’t work in a circus.” What a great response.
Maybe not a circus, but definitely an insane asylum. If the insanity wasn’t so lethal and destructive, it might be like circus entertainment.
I read somewhere recently (can’t recall where) that part of the US gov’t’s abrupt stumble into at least the semblance of diplomacy might have been prompted by a quiet and pointed economic threat by Russia – along the lines of Russia crashing the dollar by dumping dollars and bonds as a potential response to that planned attack on Syria.
Do you think this might be true? It makes a lot of sense to me. I’ve said for a long time now that the most effective weapon Russia has against the Empire is monetary. Of course, I think the criminal banking system ought to be crashed anyway, not just to save Syria and Iran, but to save us all.
It seems to me that at least part of the insane war drive is the banking system’s need for more blood. If so, and if this rumor I heard is true, then Washington just saved the banking system by backing down from a war the banking system somehow needs. Are the psychos cornered now?
@Anonymous:Although the preceding may be counter to your views regarding that Russia simply wants to be a “normal country” (hopefully I am not misrepresenting your views), I believe that there is more to their motives than just that. Simply put, its hard to be normal in an insane asylum.
True. And you are not misrepresenting my views at all. Furthermore, there is still a pretty substantial constituency in Russia which believes that Russia as a unique “mission” in history and that somehow Russia will offer something unique a valuable to the world. I am personally rather dubious but, most importantly, I believe that regardless of such tendencies the best Russia can realistically achieve is to be a normal country. I don’t mean ‘normal’ in the sense of ‘mediocre’, but in the sense of renouncing exceptionalism. Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote about “repentance and self-limitation” as important moral categories which Russia needed to re-discover and I personally very much agree with that. I see nothing wrong with modesty, meekness and humility and I think that any nation which renounces its exceptionalism will reap immense spiritual and moral benefits from such a inward-gazing focus. But that is a personal bias, I admit
@Sky:Russia crashing the dollar by dumping dollars and bonds
The Russian economy is just not big enough to represent a threat to the USA. Yes, the Russians could shake the dollar, but not bury it, at least not alone. The Chinese could. But neither country has an interest in doing so brutally, and both want to gradually built up an alternative to the dollar without really rocking the boat so much as to sink it.
Are the psychos cornered now?
I would say that yes, but by a very wide line – thus they cannot see it yet, even though yes, there is nowhere for them to run to. The US economy and international system WILL collapse, the question is WHEN and HOW FAST and whether there is the time and will out there to build an alternative while softening the shock of this collapse for everybody.
Does that make sense?
Cheers,
The Saker
AP Article through Faux news but… This is their Modus Operandi
UN Security Council to demand humanitarian relief corridors in Syria
foxnews.com/world/2013/09/30/un-security-council-to-demand-humanitarian-relief-corridors-in-syria/
No peace with warmongers
Hi Saker – appreciate your thoughtful response as always. Unfortunately, a “normal” country following its destiny with humility and truth is “exceptional”. Its all of the narcissistic and/or empire ass-kissing countries that are “normal” by today’s standards. Thanks.
a few weeks ago someone posted a link to this site on your blog:
http://theriseofrussia.blogspot.com/2013/09/russia-steps-into-world-leadership-role.html
check out the newest article. is there any veracity to the claims around the ‘missile tests’ and ‘plasma weapons’?
@Anonymous:is there any veracity to the claims around the ‘missile tests’ and ‘plasma weapons’?
I cannot prove a negative, but I can say that I don’t believe that story at all. YMMV of course.
cheers,
The Saker
Off topic.
“Grand Mufti of the Saudi Arabia Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah’s idea to destroy all churches in the Arabian Peninsula shows “the extreme degree of Wahabi impudence,” the expert on Islam Roman Silantyev said.
The first person of “the most peaceful trend in Islam” again urged to aggressive actions against Christians. It evidently proves that official Wahhabism-Salafism is identical to the ideology of terrorists, who are in fact destroying Christian churches and their parishioners from Pakistan to Nigeria, working especially hard in Syria,” Silantyev told Interfax-Religion.
He reminds that a Russian Orthodox church was opened in the Arabian Peninsula, in the Sharjah emirate, and appeals to destroy it are voiced alongside with declaring Russia Islam’s first enemy and beating Russian Ambassador in Wahabi Qatar.
Qatar religion is Wahabbi Islam?
“Wahabi leaders should mind that not long ago wars were declared for even more minor issues. And while we haven’t got down to it we can liquidate all centers of Saudi influence in Russia, and thanks to God, it has been intensively realized in Russia this year. And it won’t take long to ban Wahabi ideology in Russia, special thanks for it to various great muftis who are not embarrassed to speak about their true intentions,” Silantyev said.
Recently, the Saudi mufti justified his suggestion saying that Islam is the only legal religion in the region and cited Prophet Mohamed’s words that “there shouldn’t be two religions on the Arabian Peninsula.”
http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=10778
Hello Saker…
good morning…I hope you are doing fine..I have followed your well informed blog..you always write very good and well balanced reports of the middle east…I am a follower of you blog..but I have one question for you..you might have mention this or one of your also well informed readers..I read from a very reliable source that what really happened about the so called two missils that were fired for testing reasons and that were shut dowm for the same usa army. I read that this two missils were fired from a US base in Cadiz called Rota they were fired to hit Damasco and that Israel was going to take the political responsability for this attack..they were fired in the name of Israel..but this two missils were shut down for the anti-missils rusian shield..The source says also that russian general Oleg Ostapenko, Defense minister said to a libian web “that the attack allowed Rusia to show his power and radar capacity to detect and shut down of missils and allowed their enemy to get out conclusions” (Al Manar, 12/9/13)
The source alsa mentions that every body at the UN last meeting knew this.
What do you think of this? and yes we should give Putin the nobel peace prize and to Obama the NOBEL WAR PEACE just like Presiden Evo Morales said.
Warm regards
@Anonymous1253:What do you think of this?
Fist, welcome to the comments section of this blog! Now to your question:
I don’t buy it. First, as far as I know the missiles were not fired from Cadiz, which is really far away from Syria, but from a vessel in the general vicinity of Sicily. Then, I also do not by the idea of a Russian weapon shooting down a ballistic missile over the Mediterranean. It’s just too far. Even the SA-N-6 cannot reach over 100km, nevermind some plasma weapon from Russia…
I do believe that the Russians detected the launch and I do believe that they tracked it, which is already quit a feat, but shooting it down? I doubt it.
Thanks for your kind words of support, they mean a lot to me.
The Saker
PS: agreed for the Nobels: Obama get the war prize, Putin the peace prize :-)