Resolution on Syria: Russia rejects the use of military force against Damascus.
The U.S. administration in Washington and the Russian administration in Moscow have still opinions that differ from each other in regards of the Syrian conflict, the released UN report about the analysis of the samples from the suburbs of Damascus, and also about the planned resolution of the UNSC (UN Security Council) on Syria. However, these differences about the truth on Syria and the use of military force against the Syrian government in Damascus is no surprise at all.
While the U.S. administration simply has to maintain its propaganda against Syria and to underline the unconfirmed accusations against the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad about the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian Army against civilians in suburbs of Damascus, Washington is also still interested to have a resolution on Syria that includes the possibility to use military force against the Arab country in case if the Syrian government e.g. does not comply the steps of the plan to put its chemical weapons under an international supervision of the United Nations (UN) and to join the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).
The United States and Russia thus have still a different opinion on Syria and the methods to solve the Syrian conflict as well as the turmoil in and around the Arab country. Russia wants a resolution by the UN Security Council (UNSC) which does not include any reference to the Chapter 7 of the UN Charta and thus, such a resolution by the UNSC would not allow the use of military force against Syria to “restore peace”. Washington wants a resolution that includes a reference to the Chapter 7 of the UN Charter and thus, the U.S. administration wants to have the option to use its military force against Damascus.
However, the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and his counterpart from France, Laurent Fabius, have allegedly agreed to not include any reference to the Chapter 7 of the UN Charter in a meeting yesterday. At least, Sergey Lavrov has stated in the joint press conference after the meeting with his counterpart from France that the upcoming resolution by the UN Security Council will not include a reference to the Chapter 7 of the UN Charter and thus, it won`t allow the use of military force against Damascus.
The potential use of military force against Syria remains a contentious point between Washington and Moscow, and the same applies for the different interpretation of the released UN report on the investigation of samples from suburbs of the Syrian capital Damascus in regards of the use of chemical weapons in Syria. However, the interpretation by the Russian administration seems more logical under consideration of the given information by the UN report as the interpretation by Washington. Washington still tries to maintain its propaganda against Syria.
Probably due to the pressure by the Israel Lobby, the regime in Tel Aviv, and Saudi Arabia. These sides want to draw the United States into another war in the Middle East and to let U.S. soldiers fight for their aims. While some might say to let U.S. soldiers fight and die for their aims, it seems already a fact that a US-led military strike on Syria would on the one hand have dire consequences for the Syrian people and even for the entire region of the Middle East, and on the other hand, it would even mean that U.S. soldiers fight alongside Al-Qaeda in order to topple the mainly secular government of President al-Assad in Damascus. But under the consideration that the Israeli regime in Tel Aviv prefers Al-Qaeda over Syria’s al-Assad and already supports the armed jihadist forces on Syria soil, this is almost no surprise anymore.
U.S. State Department Spokeswoman, Jen Psaki, said in her statements yesterday that there has to be a resolution that includes the possibility to use military force against Syria if the Syrian government of al-Assad fails to comply with the needed steps to put its chemical weapons under an international control. The statement by the US State Department Spokeswoman Jen Psaki came just hours after the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that the use of military force will not be included in the upcoming resolution of the UN Security Council (UNSC) on Syria. Thus, both sides still argue and it seems that nothing has really changed, despite the US-Russia deal on the chemical weapons from Syria.
U.S. State Department Spokeswoman, Jen Psaki, added in her statements from yesterday that the United States want “the strongest possible obligations and enforcement mechanisms” and confirmed that the U.S. administration and especially US Secretary of State John Kerry try everything possible to get a resolution based on the Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, which will then allow the use of force in order “to ensure peace” in Syria. The spokesperson of the US State Department said that Washington is “working toward” such a resolution that refers to the Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. However, this is certainly also no surprise.
Previously, the Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov has explained in a joint press conference with the Foreign Minister from France, Laurent Fabius, that the upcoming resolution on Syria will not be based on the statute of the Chapter 7 from the UN Charta and thus, the resolution won`t authorize the use of military force in order to “restore international peace and security.”
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who has recently lied towards congressmen in the United States, and the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov have met in Geneva in order to discuss the plan to put Syria’s chemical weapons arsenals under an international supervision for the planned destruction of these weapons and to sign off the so-called US-Russia deal on Syria some days ago. However, they probably should have also discussed the upcoming resolution and the different views on the inclusion of a reference to Chapter 7 of the UN Charter.
According to the statements by the U.S. spokeswoman Psaki, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (UNSC) will discuss the draft resolution, which has been prepared by the United States, Britain and France. However, it remains to be seen whether the final resolution on Syria will include a reference to the Chapter 7 of the UN Charta or not.
It is clear that Moscow will not support a resolution on Syria that includes any reference to the dangerous Chapter 7 of the UN Charter and the Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov has underlined this fact again in his statements from yesterday. Sergey Lavrov said that Russia will in no case support “a Chapter 7 resolution” and in the case that the Syrian government in Damascus will not comply its commitments in regards of the chemical weapons stockpiles and the joining of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), then the UN Security Council has to ““examine such a situation to most urgently establish the truth.”
Russia Foreign Minister also repeated in his statements from yesterday that the Russian government is still not convinced that the Syrian government would be responsible for the use of chemical weapons in suburbs of Damascus and that the UN report also includes no evidence for the responsibility of the Syrian government for these attacks with chemical warfare agents near Damascus.
Of course, Washington has already a backup plan if Russia will not sign off a resolution on Syria that includes the possibility of the use of military force against Damascus under the reference to the Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. According to the information by the director of the Transnational Law Institute at Washington and Lee University in Virginia, Mark Drumbl, it is certainly possible that the United States will then try to get a resolution based on Chapter 6 of the UN Charter. The Chapter 6 of the UN Charter calls for the peaceful settlement of disputes through negotiations and if these negotiations will fail in the views of Washington, then the military options are again on the table.
However, this remains to be seen and it also remains to be seen if Syria complies its new duties and if the Russian-American deal will work, despite the ongoing differences in the intentions and ways to resolve the Syrian conflict or to overthrow the Syrian government. It is sometimes not clear what is more important for Washington – to resolve the conflict in Syria or to overthrow the mainly secular government of the Arab country.