The CWC aims to eliminate (click here) an entire category of weapons of mass destruction by prohibiting the development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention, transfer or use of chemical weapons by States Parties. States Parties, in turn, must take the steps necessary to enforce that prohibition in respect of persons (natural or legal) within their jurisdiction...
The Convention was developed over 20 years. It was open for SIGNATURE just before President Clinton took office January of 1993. He would see it ratified a few years later as countries signed on to it. The Convention is relatively new on the timeline of Geneva and the Geneva Conventions as well as the Nuremberg Trials. But, it is a good treaty between countries that pledged to eliminate these terrible weapons. These weapons were used in WWI. They were used without a second thought during that heinous war.
The Convention on the Prohibition (click here) of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction (otherwise known as the Chemical Weapons Convention or CWC) was opened for signature with a ceremony in Paris on 13 January 1993—130 States signed the Convention within the first two days. Four years later, in April 1997, the Convention entered into force with 87 States Parties—the ratification of the Convention by at least 65 States, achieved in November 1996, was a precondition to trigger the 180-day countdown until the Convention’s entry into force. Currently, the CWC comprises 184 States Parties, as well as a fully functioning implementing Organisation, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)...
The map above shows the nations that have agreed with the Conventions and those that do not. The darker green nations view the Conventions as a treaty and abide by it. They do that basically because they have been asked to do so and given foreign aid and/or alliance for their loyalty to the Conventions. The yellow nation is Myanmar and ratified it but is not a signator. It may be that is the status of Israel as well. If that is the case it brings an interesting dynamic to the President's decisions.
The red nations on the map are non-signators. Syria is one of them. These weapons are heinous and should be gone from the face of Earth, but, they are not and we have to accept that TODAY.
Those that are not signators were never expected to kill their own people. It was recognized these nations don't have other military options other than alliances to bring pressure to bear to honor their sovereignty.
I believe President Obama is correct in that Syria has gone over a line, no different than Saddam did awhile ago, because, they are suppose to be DEFENSIVE weapons, as Saddam's Scuds were and the USA military donned their masks when the invasion began. So, there is no doubt President Obama holds the moral high ground. However, regardless of the evidence proving Assad's military have conducted these releases and shelling which more than likely contained those chemical weapons, there is wiggle room for Assad and his military. Not much, but, some.
The wiggle room results from the fact there is a civil war, therefore, Assad is at war. The fact this is a civil war can be used to justify his actions. The 'other side' of that logic is the fact he is using those weapons to wipe out ETHNIC populous. It is the Ethnic Cleansing, not the use of chemical weapons, that actually assails international law.
Turkey was among the first nations to not simply identify the use of chemical weapons, but, to state this is ethnic cleansing. Turkey would know. Turkey has been in the Cat Bird Seat the entire time. They are well invested into their own nation's sovereignty and the safety of it's people. If Turkey is worried about ethnic cleansing it brings brevity to President Obama's actions.
The positioning of USA Assets nearby has tamed the circumstances in Syria. That is a good thing. The USA is not judge and jury here. The USA has treaties and we happen to have a very decent and moral man in the White House. President Obama has not turned from this heinous war in Syria, but, at the same time his hands are somewhat tied.
The USA has an enormous capacity, but, while that is a comfort for the citizens of the USA and the nation's sovereignty, it can cause more damage when intervening than if it left it alone.
The global community would wave a wand and have peace at every turn if they could. I am fairly confident of that. It is that will that brings every nation that values human life to the diplomatic tables. It is that will Assad lacks. He has been problematic for a very long time, ask Lebanon. Ask Israel.
The Middle East exists in an atmosphere of hate. The ethnicities hate each other, GENERALLY. There are some degrees of success in Iraq with it's provinces better defining their differences, but, cooperation between the diverse people really doesn't exist. The provinces would rather divide and become autonomous.
What has existed in the past is oppression of peoples with help from the USA. That reality existed in Egypt, Libya, Iraq and other nations including Syria. When oil was the USA's best friend it was the Sunnis in larger number and in power. It was the Sunnis the USA backed. It caused a lot of problems and we are seeing them today. I am pleased we don't lean on those nation's anymore. It is very difficult to watch them go through 'the sifting' through to freedom and democracy they claim to crave.
Does all this make the world a little more dangerous? I don't think so. The USA and it's allies know a great deal about the nation's of the Middle East and where the dangers lie. The instability in the Middle East attracts attention rather than believing all is well. The attention provides information to any covert activities that would be a sincere danger to the USA and it's allies. I am NOT terribly worried.
As to Syria. Assad is killing people. He is killing people within his own borders. He is killing them in a civil war. He has decided to use chemical weapons. He is carrying out ethnic cleansing according to a USA ally. It is reasonable for President Obama to end the missile launches that is wiping out many people of ethnic origins at a time, but, to enter Syria's civil war? That is not the place for the USA.
If one wants to apply this to a historic time? Which I think of it. The gassing of the Syrian ethnicities are dying in open air rather than chambers. They are being buried in rubble and perhaps mass graves rather than crematories.
I believe the world needs to give the people of Syria a fighting chance and the use of chemical weapons has to stop. The ability to have those weapons fall into the hands of those that could use them indiscriminately is too great and a danger to our allies. I also believe Israel and our allies in the region including Jordan has to help decide the conclusion to this reality. It is their people that could be harm's way and that cannot be dismissed for a unilateral decision. If the actions by President Obama are unilateral that is very different than knowing what our allies decide is best.
The actions of the Bush Executive Branch were very different. They unleashed the USA military with no measured results or a limited involvement. The Bush Executive Branch made their own reality and acted on it taking Great Britain and a coalition of the willing along for the ride.
This is not Iraq, but, there are parallels and there is every reason to step away from the brink.
While the USA brings pressure, real pressure not just symbolic, the United Nations needs to take its course while USA allies decide the best path for them.
