| المستخلص: |
In the aftermath of the chemical shelling of Ghouta in East Damascus on August 21, 2013, the US threatened to launch a military attack on Syria. However, Russia came up with an initiative to destroy Syria’s chemical weapons, which the Syrian regime approved at once. Upon Russian-US understandings, talks took place in the UN Security Council and ended in Resolution 2118 on September 27, 2013. There was an unprecedented international consensus on the crisis since the armed conflict began in March 2011. The resolution made general, short references to an overall political settlement - without a definite schedule - based on Geneva Convention 1, which stipulates the persistence of the regime or parts of it within a partnership with the opposition. But, more importantly, it focused on the destruction of Syrian chemical weaponry within a time framework before the end of June 2014, which almost coincides with the end of Bashar Al- Assad’s term in July. The proposal represented a great chance for all relevant parties to gain further time looking for suitable political ways out of the status quo with maximum advantages. It also had other impacts detailed by the report. The implementation of the resolution is likely to face several obstacles. In political terms, the intentions of different parties - especially those of the regime and Washington - play a significant role in this matter. Furthermore, others in the region and in the opposition are unenthusiastic about the content of the initiative and the resolution. Other aspects have to do with the security of the international teams; the degree of cooperation on the part of Damascus and the armed groups with regard to the inspectors’ efforts’ requirement; availability of financial resources as well as technical and structural conditions for destruction; and the treatment of possible environmental effects of chemical substances. There are three scenarios for the future of the Russian project and the UN resolution. First, the execution may fail, assuming that most relevant parties have given an initial approval to gain time and avoid undesirable repercussions. If they are not carried out due to the challenges or the attempts to hamper them, a military strike - or the threat to launch one - might be back. Second, they may take place by means of an international accord if all the parties find it a middle way to maintain their interests. Third, the same circumstances may continue for a while if the difficulties keep going, allowing the disputants more time to re-evaluate their stands and take other options. On the ground, the civil war is still taking the lives of Syrians, making them homeless and destroying their country before and after the initiative. The reason is that it concentrated on the chemical weapons. However, if the US-Russian understandings depart from Geneva 1 to the political side, it is hoped that a comprehensive settlement would be reached. In relevant, broader terms, Moscow has raised a number of regional and international questions which, according to the Arab Crisis Team, need specialists’ deep answers leading to accurate outcomes. Some of them are on US-Russian relations, shifts in Moscow’s international status and US-Iranian ties. Any developments on Tehran’s nuclear issue would have certain impacts, such as increasing its regional influence and, perhaps, forming a new scene affecting all the neighbours countries, including the Arab states, Turkey and Israel.
|
