Syria's Deputy Foreign Minister Asks for International Aid In Weapons Dectruction

Syrian deputy foreign minister, Faisal Mekdad, spoke with BBC’s Anna Holligan about the removal of chemical weapons and agents from Syria. In the interview Mekdad tells the BBC that the Syrian government requires international aid in acquiring HGVs (heavy goods vehicle) and reinforced vehicles to move the chemicals safely from Damascus, through the turbulent city of Homs, and out to the port of Lattakia where the primary phase of cargo transportation is set to take place. Mekdad makes the case that ordinary vehicles would give those he describes as terrorists, the opportunity to attack and destroy the convoys. Many people may rightfully be wary of giving the Syrian government further means of armament and mobility; when asked if any of the equipment was actually dual-purpose Faisal described that idea as "nonsense" claiming that Syria has no ulterior motives apart from delivering their weapons stockpile in a timely fashion. It helps to see a person’s demeanor and conduct in a visual manner, rather than a strictly auditory account since body language can be a very helpful tool in determining one’s truthfulness. Although many politicians and government officials can be cunning and sly, from what I can tell the request seems to be based upon a legitimate concern for the safety of the civilian populous and those delivering the weapons.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25191673

Iran's support in the Chemical Weapons Treaty

The Foreign Minister of Syria is now on board with joining and forming the Chemical Weapons Convention and Tehran and Iran's leader was a large influence in that decision. Faisal al-Meqdad said "the assistance and consultation were constructive and helpful." After reading this article and many others about the disposal of the chemical weapons it was interesting to see the UN and the OPCW quickly putting deadlines and organizations intact to prevent these weapons from being used, created, distributed, destructed and stockpiled. These weapons are considered capable of mass destruction and so implementing global laws are very wise. I also see these laws being somewhat concerning because we the rest of the population have to trust that these offshore facilities and laws are all being followed up with and are actually safe. The guidelines of disposal seem to be revolving around keeping people of the countries safe but there are far more issues environmentally that we have to factor in because now or later they will absolutely effect us. The convention has approved and accepted the help from the United States, we are very quick to want to support the destruction and disposal and funding for Syria to give up these weapons but there seems to be an unseen fire behind our fuel to help and Syria's to give them up. These are the factors of this issue that I would want to read articles on but they are not covered or possibly shared in bias ways. This also sheds light on the tricky topic of who started the chemical weapon creation and use other than the extremists on either sides of the parties.

www.tasnimnews.com/English/Home/Single/210969

Syria chemical weapons: Equipment needed says Mekdad

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25191673

This article briefly highlights a short interview that Syria’s deputy foreign minister Mr. Mekdad gave to BBC’s Anna Holligan regarding the disposal of Syria’s chemical weapons. Mr. Mekdad claims that Syria needs equipment, like lorries and armored vehicles, to move the chemicals to be destroyed. He argues that normal vehicles could be targeted by terrorists, and dismissed the notion that the equipment would be used for any other purpose besides taking the chemical weapons out of Syria.

Drawing conclusions from the previous article I posted, I believe Syria will receive the necessary equipment from the United States. The article I posted earlier stated that the United States will help with the destruction of the chemical weapons and it seems that Syria does need assistance to do so. And although Mr. Mekdad said that the equipment would not be used for other purposes, I believe that the United States or any other country that provides this equipment should closely monitor what the equipment is being used for. 

In the plan to destroy Syria's chemical weapons, Albania says they will not aid in the destruction of these weapons.  Albania's prime minister says it is impossible for them to get involved in this operation. They "lack the necessary capacities." By the end of December, 1,300 metric tons of toxic munitions are to be transported out of the country. This made efforts harder for the United States to find a country that would destroy the chemicals on their own land. Albania says they can not destroy these chemicals on their own land because it will create substantial amounts of toxic waste. Norway also decline this request saying they did not have the equipment or expertise to destroy these toxins. I do not blame either of these countries for not wanting to destroy these chemicals on their own land. These chemicals could cause serious harm if they are not destroyed in the right way and both countries said they did not have the equipment or the people for this project. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/16/world/middleeast/syria.html?_r=0

Syria’s ability to launch chemical attack said to be limited after key equipment destroyed.

Inspectors have destroyed nearly all of Syria's chemical weapons within four weeks.( This article was published October 28th.) This reduced the country's  ability to have wage another chemical attack like that in August. These teams have visited all but 2 of the 23 chemical weapon sites. The other two chemical sites are said to be storage facilities, but it is unknown what kind of production they make. Obama's officials are optimistic saying that they could have all weapons destroyed by early summer. They developed a plan with Russia for the destruction of chemical weapons that was supposed to be completed by November 1st. A researcher for the European Union Institute for Security Studies, said in a report that Syria’s ability to make more chemical weapons “is fairly reduced, if not entirely destroyed.” This means that the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons, has deducted the chance of Syria every attacking with chemical warfare again. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/syrias-ability-to-launch-chemical-attack-said-to-be-limited-after-key-equipment-destroyed/2013/10/28/71c4a5dc-401d-11e3-a624-41d661b0bb78_story.html

US to play role in offshore destruction of Syria's chemical weapon

http://www.voanews.com/content/us-offers-to-destroy-syrian-chemical-weapons/1800880.html

This article centers around a statement the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical weapons (OPCW) made on Saturday, November 30^th. The OPCW said that the United States government would help to destroy Syria’s Chemical weapons by providing “destruction technology, full operational support and financing”. This article then goes on to describe the OPCW and the destruction process, noting that the chemical weapons will not be destroyed in Syrian waters.

I think that this article is interesting for two reasons. First, it shows how committed the United States is to destroying chemical weapons by offering the technology, operational support, and funding to get rid of them. Second, I found it interesting that the weapons would be destroyed off-shore, and specifically, not in Syrian waters. Is this for the safety of the Syrian people or is it because the OPCW does not want Syria to recover the chemical weapons? Can anyone shed some light on this subject? 

Syria Chemical Weapons Destroyed

This article discusses how Syria, with the help of the OPCW, has officially destroyed all of its chemical weapons in the proper amount of time allotted from the negotiation between the U.S, Russia, and the OPCW. This announcement has come just in time for the Algerian United Nations advisor to meet and discuss peace talks with Assad. Assad refuses to engage in peace talks and feels it is the Syrian people alone who will decide what happens to Syria in the future. This has caused much uproar considering a main point of the National Coalitions peace talks deals with the resignation of Assad. Russia is a huge backer of the Assad regime and feels that it is in the best interest to not let the peace talk initiative “fizzle out” and to do everything they can in order to make the talks a success, while the French Prime Minister, as well as, other nations agree and feel the talks should focus on transitioning governments and end the killing that is going on in Syria.

After reading this article I am happy to see that the OPCW was able to work with Syria to destroy all chemical weapons. Before reading this article I felt that it was a task that would most likely never be complete, and I never thought Russia would be the ones taking the initiative to push for the destruction of the weapons. I feel that the UN should do everything it can to make the peace talks occur and to work towards an end of this Civil War and the many deaths that have been a result. The UN must not backdown now because Assad is in opposition of the talks, especially since they have already made strides now that they have gotten rid of the chemical weapons. In previously posted articles from September and earlier October the belief that the chemical weapons would be destroyed were slim to none and now that they have overcome that obstacle there is no reason they can’t find a way to negotiate with Assad and other National representatives to find peace.

http://www.arabnews.com/news/470241