SYRIA CHEM-WEAPONS:
NO NEED FOR ANY
SECURITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION:
The disposal of Syria's stockpile of chemical weapons does not need any Security Council resolution as the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
(OPCW) the implementation body for the Convention can carry out the necessary actions under its own mandate, reasons Dr David Morrison, Queens University Belfast, Northern Ireland, in a commentary on the current situation:
"Syria is about to become the 190th state party to the
Chemical Weapons Convention(CWC) [1]. The Convention, which came into
force on 29 April 1997, bans the acquisition and use of chemical weapons and
requires state parties to destroy existing stocks and production facilities upon
joining (Article I).
The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
(OPCW) is the implementation body for the Convention. As its website says: “The
OPCW is given the mandate to achieve the object and purpose of the Convention,
to ensure the implementation of its provisions – including those for international
verification of compliance with it.” [2]
The OPCW is the appropriate international
body to supervise the elimination of Syria’s chemical weapons. No Security
Council resolution, Chapter VII or otherwise, is necessary. In extremis, the
OPCW can refer incidents of non-compliance to the UN – Article VIII (36) of the
Convention says that the OPCW may “in cases of particular gravity and urgency”
bring the issue “directly to the attention of the United Nations General Assembly
and the United Nations Security Council”.
The Convention is clear: it is up
to the OPCW to determine if Security Council intervention is necessary to deal
with non-compliance issues during the process of eliminating Syria’s chemical
weapons.
How to become a party to the
Convention
For a state to become a party after
29 April 1997, when the Convention itself came into force, a state must deposit
an “instrument of accession” with the UN Secretary General (Articles XX and
XXIII). However, 30 days have to elapse before the process is complete and the
Convention “enters into force” for that state (Article XXI(2)). Syria deposited
an “instrument of accession” with the UN Secretary General on 14 September 2013
[3] and therefore cannot become a party to the Convention until 14 October.
However, Syria has asked the OPCW for “provisional application of the Convention
to Syria prior to its formal entry into force” and for “technical assistance”
with regard to disarmament [4].
However, states joining after 2007 must destroy their weapons “as soon as possible” according to procedures laid down by the OPCW Executive Council (Article IV (8)). The destruction of Syrian weapons will take place under this provision.
“And we also agreed that any violations of
procedures that would be approved by the Executive Committee of the OPCW
concerning the arsenal of chemical weapons, as well as any facts of applying these
chemical weapons, would be looked at in the Security Council. And if they are
approved, the Security Council will take the measures – required measures,
concrete measures – and we have agreed on that. …
“Of course, it does not mean that
every violation that will be reported to the Security Council will be taken by
word [sic]. Of course, we will investigate every case, because there are [sic]
a lot of false information, pieces of information in the world, and we should
be very cautious about every fact. And when we are sure, 100 percent, then we
in the Russian Federation will be ready to adopt a new resolution of the
Security Council to embed the measures to punish the perpetrators of this
violation, and it’s nonsense to continue the speculations on the matter today.”
We are extremely grateful to Dr David Morrison, QUB Belfast, for the submission of this valuable information.
On becoming a party to the Convention, a state also becomes
a member of the OPCW(Article VIII(2)). A state party is required to submit a declaration
about its chemical weapons to the OPCW within 30 days of the Convention coming
into force for that party (Article III), which means by 13 November in the case
of Syria. The declaration must provide a detailed inventory of the chemical
weapons the state possesses and their locations and the locations of any
chemical weapons production facilities.
The “framework” document agreed by
John Kerry and Sergei Lavrov in Geneva on 14 September (see below) demanded
that Syria submit a declaration within 7 days, that is, more than 50 days
earlier than required by the Convention. At the time of writing, Syria appears
to have done just that. As of 21 September, the OPCW website [5] confirmed
that it has received the Syrian declaration.
Immediately after submitting the
declaration, OPCW inspectors must be granted access to the weapons and weapons
production sites “for the purpose of systematic verification of the declaration
through on-site inspection” (Article IV(4)).
On destroying chemical weapons
The Convention requires state
parties to destroy their own weapons upon joining. Most likely given the
ongoing warfare in Syria, as far as practicable, its weapons will be taken
outside the country for destruction. States that joined prior to the Convention
coming into force were allowed 10 years to complete the destruction of their
weapons, though a 5 year extension could be applied for (Article IV(6)). Both
the US and Russia were given a 5-year extension until 29 April 2012.
However, states joining after 2007 must destroy their weapons “as soon as possible” according to procedures laid down by the OPCW Executive Council (Article IV (8)). The destruction of Syrian weapons will take place under this provision.
No Security Council resolution
required:
The OPCW is mandated by the
Convention to oversee the elimination of Syria’s chemical weapons and has the
technical capability of doing so. It will interact with the Syrian government
to that end. There is no need whatsoever for a Security Council resolution,
with or without sanctions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, to get the job
done. Indeed, there is no need for Security Council involvement at all, unless
the OPCW decides to refer Syrian non-compliance of some description to the Security
Council under Article VIII (36) of the Convention.
Non-compliance by Syria is very
unlikely. It is in Russia’s interest that Syria cooperate fully, and be seen to
co-operate fully, with the OPCW, so that Syria’s chemical weapons are eliminated
as quickly as possible. Russia achieved a major diplomatic coup and sidelined
the US (and Britain and France) by proposing that Syria get rid of its chemical
weapons. It would be less than pleased if Syria obstructed the process of putting its
proposal into practice and took the shine of this achievement. Syria is very
unlikely to do that since it would damage its relations with Russia, its main
political backer.
The Kerry/Lavrov “plan”
But didn’t the US and Russia
produce a plan for ridding Syria of its chemical weapons at the meeting between
John Kerry and Sergei Lavrov in Geneva from 12-14 September 2013? And isn’t the
Security Council going to pass a resolution endorsing this plan and supervising
its implementation, a resolution including sanctions under Chapter VII of the
UN Charter to punish Syria if it fails to co-operate fully?
Well, that’s what the US (and
Britain and France) want the world to think – because they want to get back in
the game having been sidelined by Russia’s proposal. They want to give the
impression that, through their permanent membership of the Security Council,
they are going to be intimately involved in the implementation of Russia’s
proposal.
Russia has gone along with this and
co-operated with the production of a plan at the Geneva meeting, called Framework
for Elimination of Syrian Chemical Weapons [6]. This includes a
timetable laying down that Syria had to submit a declaration about its chemical
weapons within a week (obviously agreed with Syria in advance) and to give
inspectors immediate access to weapons sites. It also laid down that inspectors
must have completed their verification of the accuracy of Syria’s declaration
by November and all chemical weapons material and equipment must be eliminated
in the first half of 2014.
This timetable was worked out at
the Kerry/Lavrov meeting, despite the fact that the participants could not have
been aware of the full facts about Syria’s chemical weapons, which will only be
known in detail after the OPCW has verified Syria’s declarations by onsite
inspections. Nor could the participants know the resources required/available
to destroy the weapons in Syria or to remove them for destruction elsewhere,
which is essential to laying down a realistic timetable.
Nevertheless. the meeting produced
a plan and, as announced to the world by Kerry at the post-meeting press
conference [7], it seemed as if the OPCW was being by-passed and the
Security Council would supervise the implementation of the plan and apply a big
stick to Syria if, as he expected, it failed to co-operate fully.
Merely a proposal to the OPCW:
However, if you listened carefully
to Sergei Lavrov at the press conference, you got a different picture. In reality, the
Framework document is an input document for the OPCW’s Executive Council’s
consideration about how to proceed. According to a translation on the US State
Department website, Lavrov said: “And these documents … these are Russian and
American proposals, and they should be considered first and first of all in the
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. After this organization
and its executive council adopt corresponding decisions, we will tell you
exactly when the first inspection will start, and when these inspections will
end.” [7]
The Framework Document itself says:
“… the United States and the Russian Federation have committed to prepare and submit
in the next few days to the Executive Council of the OPCW a draft decision setting
down special procedures for expeditious destruction of the Syrian chemical weapons
program and stringent verification thereof.”
The OPCW Executive Council has 41
members elected on a regional basis by the state parties to the Chemical
Weapons Convention [8]. Both the US and Russia are members of the
Council and are entitled to make proposals, but any decision by the Council is
bound to take into account the advice of the OPCW’s own technical personnel,
who are going to be intimately involved in the process of eliminating Syria’s
chemical weapons. It seems unlikely that at this stage a decision will include
much detail about how the process will be carried out or anything more than an
aspiration about when it will be completed.
What about a Security Council
resolution?
On a Security Council resolution,
the Framework document states: “The United States and the Russian Federation
commit to work together towards prompt adoption of a UN Security Council
resolution that reinforces the decision of the OPCW Executive Council.”
According to this, the resolution
will merely express support for the OPCW decision (whenever it emerges) and
therefore doesn’t require the inclusion of enforcement measures under Chapter
VII of the UN Charter. However, the Framework document does allow for the
possibility of a Chapter VII Security Council resolution in the event of
non-compliance reported to the Security Council by the OPCW under Article VIII
of the Convention:
“…in the event of non-compliance,
including unauthorised transfer, or any use of chemical weapons by anyone in
Syria, the UN Security Council should impose measures under Chapter VII of the
UN Charter. The proposed joint US-Russian OPCW draft decision supports the
application of Article VIII of the Chemical Weapons Convention, which provides
for the referral of any cases of noncompliance to the United Nations General
Assembly and the United Nations Security Council.”
Here’s what Sergei Lavrov had to
say about this at the press conference:
Is disarmament a practical
proposition?
Is the elimination of Syria’s
chemical weapons a practical proposition, given the ongoing warfare there?
According to John Kerry, the answer is YES – because the Assad regime has done
a fine job of keeping control of them. Here’s what he said at the press
conference in Geneva:
“One of the reasons that we believe
this is achievable is because the Assad regime has taken extraordinary pains in
order to keep control of these weapons. And they have moved them, and we know
they’ve moved them. We’ve seen them move them. We watched this. And so we know
they’ve continued to always move them to a place of more control. “Therefore, since these weapons are
in areas under regime control predominantly, Sergei raises questions that maybe
the opposition has some here or there, and absolutely, fair is fair. Both sides
have to be responsible.”
Isn’t it fortunate that the US has failed to topple
the Assad regime, otherwise Syria’s chemical weapons might have fallen into the
hands of God knows who – and rendered their elimination impossible?
David Morrison
22 September 2013
22 September 2013
References:
We are extremely grateful to Dr David Morrison, QUB Belfast, for the submission of this valuable information.
Dr Morrison is the leading expert in Ireland on Middle Eastern affairs.
Also by David Morrison:
No comments:
Post a Comment