Concession on Syrian Chemical Weapons

by Dr. Abdul-Sattar Kassem

Translator’s note: the Arabic source file extracted from the original Word document is heavily corrupted at the character level throughout this particular article (a common artifact of old .doc files). The translation below reconstructs the author’s evident meaning from context and the well-documented September 2013 events it discusses; readers seeking the exact original wording should consult the linked Word document.

Syria and its allies offered a concession to the United States by putting forward a proposal to place Syria’s chemical weapons under international oversight. Moscow announced the proposal, Syria welcomed it, and Tehran agreed with reservations.

So far we cannot judge the gravity or the scope of this concession, because the details are not available. For this reason we cannot describe it as a concession of the chemical weapon, but rather a concession regarding the chemical weapon. Until matters become clearer, there are many questions on the table, among them:

What does placing the weapons under international oversight actually mean? Does it mean total destruction? Or installing cameras at the weapons depots and manufacturing sites? Or transferring them to another country? Or having international inspectors visit them? Or simply monitoring them and monitoring the materials used to manufacture them?

Disposing of the Weapons

Will Syria link the removal of this weapon to the removal of weapons of mass destruction across the Arab-Islamic region as a whole?

[…] a way out for him to cancel the strike once and for all?

Or is this a trap that drags the matter into becoming bogged down in discussion over the initiative, so that Syria gains more time?

Deliberateness in weighing this concession is essential, and the worst thing we could see would be a repeat of the spectacle of chemical weapons being burned in Iraq. Such a spectacle would constitute yet another crushing defeat for the Arabs.

The Value of the Chemical Weapon

A weapon of mass destruction is a deterrent weapon more than a fighting weapon. It is not a battlefield weapon, but a weapon of despair, and perhaps of suicide — which is why states develop it for the moment when they can say, “me and my enemies together.” There are those who have used weapons of mass destruction outside this logic, specifically the United States, which struck Japan with a nuclear weapon, and Saddam Hussein, who struck the Kurds and the Iranians with chemical weapons.

Weapons of mass destruction matter for the Arabs and for some Muslims, and it is essential to work toward developing them, because Israel possesses nuclear weapons, and it must be confronted with an equivalent deterrent if possible — with chemical weapons, if developing nuclear capabilities is not possible.

Syria will not use chemical weapons in any confrontation with Israel, because it is not expected that any coming war would reach the point of the abyss, where one side decides to use its weapons to kill the other side while committing suicide itself. But the existence of a strategic force capable of deterring Israel remains vital to Arab national security.

Obama Stands to Gain

Obama found himself in an awkward position, and this is precisely what drove him to take shelter behind the US Congress. It has already been explained [in an earlier piece] how the balance of power has shifted, and the various circumstances surrounding Syria’s situation — all of which make a military strike on Syria an ill-considered military gamble. It is therefore likely that Russia is trying to hand Obama a good pretext to postpone or cancel the strike; great powers sometimes do this, because embarrassing a rival can lead to military disasters that harm everyone.

And if Obama benefits from American public opinion, he will have secured two justifications for not wading into a global military and economic quagmire. He may also free himself from being held hostage by his own Secretary of State, Kerry, who insists on attacking Syria.

Russia Stands to Gain Too

Russia stands to gain if the war is halted, because it will emerge as the hero of peace, and it is possible that Lavrov could win the Nobel Peace Prize as a result, just as Obama once did. This would also cement Russia’s global standing as a state gradually returning to the ranks of the great powers.

Syria and Iran, too, stand to gain at least a chance to catch their breath, and to devote more effort to preparation and readiness.

The Angry Ones

The angry ones are all those who cheer on their American patron to deliver a military strike against Syria, because their real aim is to smash the Syrian army, not merely to eliminate its chemical weapons. The Gulf states, Jordan, the Kingdom of Morocco, Turkey, the March 14 forces, and a number of Islamist factions are all deeply irritated by America’s hesitation, and by the West’s willingness to even discuss the Syrian initiative.

The Arab states’ core problem, if America does not go to war, comes down to how to spend the money the Gulf states have already earmarked for financing the war. And I do not think that problem is a complicated one to solve.

Answering the Western States’ Demands Is Lethal

[…] inspecting the presidential palace and government headquarters, and so on — and they will work to kill [Syria’s] leaders regardless. If Syria complies, our situation will be no different from Iraq’s, and Syrian territory will become an open stage for Israel and America.

Source: Translated from the original Arabic, “التنازل في الألاح الكيميائي السوري” by Dr. Abdul-Sattar Kassem.