[Western
diplomats said the resolution would be legally binding and would stipulate that
if Syria failed to abide by the terms, the Security Council would take measures
underChapter VII of
the United Nations Charter, the strongest form of a Council
resolution. Such measures could include economic sanctions or even military
action. But before any action could be taken, the issue would have to go back
for further deliberations by the Security Council, on which Russia, like the
other permanent members, holds a veto.]
By Michael R. Gordon
 |
Jason Decrow/Associated Press
Secretary of State John Kerry, left, Iran's foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif,
and Catherine Ashton, Europe's chief foreign policy official, during a
meeting Thursday.
|
The agreement, hammered out after days of back-room
negotiations, is a compromise among the United States, its allies and Russia
about how to enforce the resolution, which would eliminate Syria’s chemical
arms program.
But the deal, when approved by the 15 members of the
Security Council, would amount to the most significant international diplomatic
initiative of the Syrian civil war. It would also be a remarkable turn for President
Obama, who had been pushing for a military strike on Syria just a few weeks ago
before accepting a Russian proposal to have Syria give up its chemical arsenal.
Western diplomats said the resolution would be legally
binding and would stipulate that if Syria failed to abide by the terms, the
Security Council would take measures underChapter VII of
the United Nations Charter, the strongest form of a Council
resolution. Such measures could include economic sanctions or even military
action. But before any action could be taken, the issue would have to go back
for further deliberations by the Security Council, on which Russia, like the
other permanent members, holds a veto.
“This resolution makes clear there will be consequences for
noncompliance,” Samantha Power, the United States ambassador to the United
Nations, said Thursday night.
In an earlier Twitter message, Ms. Power said the
resolution established a “new norm” against the use of chemical weapons. Mark
Lyall Grant, Britain’s ambassador to the United Nations, said in another post
that the resolution agreed to by the United States, Russia, China, Britain and
France would be “binding and enforceable.”
The diplomatic breakthrough on Syria came as Iran’s foreign
minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, said progress had been made toward a
resolution of the nuclear dispute between his country and the West, suggesting
it could happen in a year.
Mr. Zarif spoke optimistically after emerging from what he
called a “very substantive, businesslike” meeting at the United Nations with
representatives of the big powers. He also met face to face with Secretary of
State John Kerry in one of the highest-level discussions between the estranged
countries in years.
The entire 15-member Security Council began to discuss the
Syria resolution agreed to by the United States, Russia, Britain, France and
China — the permanent members of the Security Council — on Thursday evening.
A vote on the resolution could come as early as Friday, the
French foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, told reporters here Thursday night, as
long as the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, based in The
Hague, votes on its own Syria measure early Friday. A formal vote on the measure
will not take place until the international organization that monitors
compliance with the international treaty banning chemical weapons drafts
procedures for inspecting and eliminating Syria’s vast arsenal of poison gas.
The Syria resolution was a major milestone for the United
Nations after years of largely unproductive discussions in the Security Council
over the civil war in Syria, which has killed more than 100,000.
Just three weeks ago, the Obama administration grew openly
frustrated at the inability to win Russian support for military action against
the government of President Bashar al-Assad after a chemical weapons attack on
Aug. 21 that killed more than 1,400 people. Ms. Power complained then that
“there is no viable path forward in this Security Council.”
Now, the Council has agreed to a provision in the
resolution stating that “the use of chemical weapons anywhere constitutes a
threat to international peace and security.”
Syria, the resolution states, “shall not use, develop,
produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile or retain chemical weapons, or transfer,
directly or indirectly, chemical weapons to other states or nonstate actors.”
The measure notes that “in the event of noncompliance with
this resolution, including unauthorized transfer of chemical weapons, or any
use of chemical weapons by anyone in the Syrian Arab Republic,” the Security
Council can decide to “impose measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations
Charter.”
While Western diplomats were praising the new resolution,
much will depend on how it is ultimately put into effect in a nation that is
caught in a bloody civil war.
According to the resolution, the director general of the
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the watchdog organization
that polices the international treaty banning chemical weapons, or the
secretary general of the United Nations would report any violations to the
Security Council.
The Council would then discuss what measures to impose for
Syria’s noncompliance.
American officials have said they were pleasantly surprised
by the completeness of the Syrian government’s declaration of its chemical
weapons program, which was presented on Friday.
But far more formidable challenges lie ahead.
By November, international monitors are to inspect all of
Syria’s declared sites, and equipment to produce and mix chemical weapons is to
be destroyed, according to a so-called framework agreement that was negotiated
by the United States and Russia this month and that is to be enforced by the
new Security Council resolution.
Syria’s entire arsenal is to be eliminated by the middle of
2014, according to that accord, a process that Mr. Assad has said could take a
year.
Skeptics worry that the process may become drawn out as it
was during the 1990s when the United Nations sought to inspect Saddam Hussein’s
arsenal in Iraq. Syrian compliance, they fear, may be only partial, and the
Russians, they worry, may use their veto power in the Security Council to buy
the Assad government more time.
Proponents of the measure say Russia may be cooperative
because it shares the West’s concern about maintaining zero tolerance for
chemical weapons use.
The diplomatic maneuvering over Syria came amid another
drama at the United Nations
Mr. Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister, emerged smiling from a
meeting with six world powers late Thursday afternoon as American and European
officials announced that negotiations on “details” would be worked out in
Geneva next month.
The meeting, led by the European Union’s foreign policy
chief, Catherine Ashton, took place with the five permanent members of the
Security Council, along with Germany. Mr. Kerry’s separate meeting with Mr.
Zarif lasted 30 minutes.
Ms. Ashton said she envisioned an “ambitious timetable” of
next steps that would be discussed when the group meets in Geneva next month.
The details, she said, would address what Iran needs to do, how soon, and how
the international community can verify whether Iran is keeping its word.
“Twelve months is a good time frame to think about implementation on the
ground,” she said.
“It was a substantial meeting,” she told reporters here, “a
good atmosphere, energetic.”
Her attempts in the past to negotiate a settlement with
Iran, including a European proposal for a nuclear deal, had not been fruitful.
She said Thursday that Iran could choose to respond to her last proposal or
submit a new one.
“The purpose of today was to set the tone and the
framework,” she said.
Mr. Zarif said Iran hoped to reach a détente “in a timely
fashion” that would preserve its right to enrich uranium and persuade the world
community that it is for civilian use. “Now we see if we can match our positive
words with serious deeds,” he said.
He said the “endgame” would be the lifting of all sanctions
“within a short period of time.”
Somini Sengupta and Rick Gladstone
contributed reporting.
