http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24963241
I chose this article because I really liked another BBC article that was posted on this blog. This article, from November 15, talks about where Syria's weapons can be destroyed. Albania was a proposed venue, but the government stated that they would not participate. I never even thought about this problem. Obviously the weapons need to be destroyed, but where? Other possible locations are France and Belgium. Norway has elected to provide cargo ships to transport the 1,000 tonnes of chemical weapons but has not agreed to let them be destroyed on Norwegian soil because they do not have the skills needed. There are many countries involved in this decision. It's interesting to see the interactions between them. It has been agreed that the weapons should be destroyed outside the country, but it is not certain where.
Good article, I feel for the citizens of Albania, I know that if I was living there I would not any involvement with chemical weapons being placed in my country. It's an important issue to raise the awareness of citizens in countries where these weapons are being placed.
ReplyDeleteI do not blame Albania to not want to destroy these toxic chemicals on their land. I found an article that is pretty similar to yours. It stated that Albania did not have the correct equipment or expertise's. With this in mind These chemicals could cause serious problems for the Albanian people.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/16/world/middleeast/syria.html?_r=1&