"the first acknowledgment by the Syrian government that it even possesses chemical weapons"

[ProSense]

Kerry’s Offhand Proposal on Syria Arms Welcomed

By STEVEN LEE MYERS, MICHAEL R. GORDON and RICK GLADSTONE

MOSCOW — A seemingly offhand suggestion by Secretary of State John Kerry that Syria could avert an American attack by relinquishing its chemical weapons received an almost immediate welcome from Syria, Russia, the United Nations, a key American ally and even some Republicans on Monday as a possible way to avoid a major international military showdown in the Syria crisis. A White House official said the administration was taking a “hard look” at the idea.

<...>

Mr. Lavrov appeared at a previously unscheduled briefing only hours after Mr. Kerry made his statement in London, taking Mr. Kerry’s comments as a way to suggest a possible compromise.

“We don’t know whether Syria will agree with this, but if the establishment of international control over chemical weapons in the country will prevent attacks, then we will immediately begin work with Damascus,” Mr. Lavrov said at the Foreign Ministry. “And we call on the Syrian leadership to not only agree to setting the chemical weapons storage sites under international control, but also to their subsequent destruction.”

Mr. Moallem said later in a statement that his government welcomed the Russian proposal, Russia’s Interfax News Agency reported, in what appeared to be the first acknowledgment by the Syrian government that it even possesses chemical weapons. The Syrian government historically has neither confirmed nor denied possessing such weapons.

In quick succession, the idea of sequestering Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile was also endorsed by Britain’s prime minister, David Cameron, and the United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon. Mr. Ban said he might propose a formal resolution to the Security Council, which has been paralyzed over how to deal with the Syria crisis from the beginning.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/world/middleeast/kerry-says-syria-should-hand-over-all-chemical-arms.html

It's interesting that Russia jumped on this offer so quickly. Regardless of whether or not it's a bluff, Russia and Syria have officially acknowledged Syria's chemical stockpile.

U.S. open to Russian chemical weapons proposal

By JOSH GERSTEIN

White House and State Department officials said Monday they’re open to proposals by Russia to put Syria’s stocks of chemical weapons under international control, but that such talk is no reason for the U.S. to back away from President Barack Obama’s threat of a military strike.

“We’d have to take a hard look. Any transfer of chemical weapons to international control would be a positive development,” Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes said in an interview on MSNBC. “We’ve been highly skeptical to date. They have not even declared their chemical weapons stockpiles.”

Rhodes said the U.S. would “follow up” with the Russians on the point “to discuss the seriousness of the proposal,” but he noted that Russia has a record of defending the regime in Damascus.

<...>

State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said the U.S. would welcome the Syrian regime giving up its chemical weapons. “ Clearly, we think that would be a positive step for the Syrian people, for the region, for the whole international community,” she said...the U.S. was treating the Russian suggestion skeptically because of that country’s record of siding with Assad in his harsh crackdown on opposition forces and civilians.

- more -

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/syria-us-russia-chemical-weapons-96472.html

Russia to push Syria to surrender chemical weapons
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023628880

UN Chief Urges Syria to Transfer Chemical Weapons
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023629253

[David__77]

1. No, they did not acknowledge that.

That's the interesting thing.

[ProSense]

2. You do know that Russia is pushing Syria to turn over its stockpile, and Syria has accepted

don't you?

The "interesting thing" is that you seem to be denying Syria's acceptance to comply.

[David__77]

3. There's enough weasel room in there.

That's all I'm saying. The "responded positively" to the proposition. But that would be equivalent to an accounting of weapons finding that there are none. Just saying, because Syria could also come out and deny that they have any ultimately. I find it unlikely, but it's possible.

[ProSense]

4. That makes no sense. You're saying that after acknowledging possession, Syria could turn around

and deny it.

[David__77]

5. We will see.

But I don't think they would explicitly acknowledge such weapons until a mutually agreeable resolution was passed. Russia of course representing Syria's position...

[ProSense]

7. See what: Syria obfuscating?

It's possible. Even Russia's offer might not be genuine in that it could simply be buying time.

The fact remains that Syria has acknowledged the stockpile by accepting the proposal to turn it over.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

6. it is hard work trying to deny Obama and Kerry credit

but someone's gotta try.

[ProSense]

8. No amount of armchair quarterbacking is going to change the dynamics. n/t

[ProSense]

9. Kick! n/t

[treestar]

10. The Russians had seemed like such hard asses

Maybe they really don't want their ass handed to them.

Opposing UN involvement was a new low for them.

[Warren Stupidity]

11. So do you think using security council vetoes is wrong?

[treestar]

12. Where did you get that?

Russia was wrong for blocking the UN on use of chemical weapons. Yes they used their veto wrongly this time.

[Warren Stupidity]

13. How did they "block the UN on use of chemical weapon"?

[treestar]

15. It is my understanding the UN hands are tied because the Russians are

on the security counsel and they veto'ed action on Syria's use of chemical weapons.

[Warren Stupidity]

17. so then surely you can post a link to this alleged veto on action specific to Syria's use of

chemical weapons. I tried. I cannot find such a veto.

by the way, we use our veto all the time.

[rug]

14. Will the U.S. put its own chemical weapons under international control?

[sheshe2]

16. K&R!