Syria Chemical Weapons Destruction Begins

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24423660

According to BBC, on the date October 6^th 2013 Syria chemical weapons destruction began. They have said that Syria has met their first requirement to supply their numbers in supplies and locations of chemical weapons. Even though they have cohered about their deadlines, there is worry about false information. This video expresses the thoughts that the weapons and sites of the weapons were incorrect and the government could be misusing the destruction process by transferring weapons in to Lebanon. Overall Syria has agreed to the destructions of its arsenal but there are international concerns about Syria completely following through with agreement.  I would be interested into how they found this information and why there is skeptical feelings about this subject. In further research most findings are also skeptical of this subject.

Private Industry may help get rid of Syria's chemical weapons

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/22/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html?iref=allsearch

This article touches base on a few factors that I was trying to research. One, who is doing the chemical bombing. Two, is the U.S. the only major government and administration trying to destroy, dispose of the chemicals and weapons. and Three, how will intervening either provoke other countries such as Russia and possibly the Free Syrian Army to then form a conflict with the U.S.

After reading a few other articles about disposing the chemicals that are in their substance form or still in a weapon I learned the Obama administration had been looking into disposing them by sea instead of land. This opens a large can of worms into environmental issues, ownership and responsibility issues and the lack of long- term effects that have yet to be researched. So reading an article that has shared private industries are now trying to find ways to dispose of the chemicals so that they pose minimal threats to our environment and people is a slight relief. The article also mentions the lack of response the Syrian government and President had been given in the beginning of the bombings. Ownership and responsibility was never claimed and maybe therefore the U.N. could not find any one person or party accountable. In my personal view the many different parts of the "rebels" could not have the ability to means to make such weapons without government help or funding. Therefore, I believe the government is responsible for the attacks on its own people. As Russia has funded weapons to Syria in the past why is now the time for conflict of support? Regardless that Russia is not being attacked by the Syrians other than those angry with the military and weapon support, Russia now would like to help diffuse the war and potential issues that come from chemical weapons.

Destroying Syria's chemical weapons on ship

Because of the disposal of chemical weapons on land or sea could have everlasting implication if not done properly the U.S. officials say, the government is aiming to dispose of Syrian weapons on a government-owned ship in international waters. The article states that "Under a plan yet to be approved, the chemicals would be transported to the MV Cape Ray in the Mediterranean Sea. The nearly 700-foot-long ship would be outfitted with a special system to neutralize the chemical material. U.S. warships would provide an escort and security." I feel that this plan for disposal is still not ideal. Though no country has really committed to disposal on their soil as the article says this option could be more suitable, but environmental effects could still pose a problem out on sea. To consider discharging poison gases into seas will affect the ocean but will eventually reach land. The fact that it has never been done on a ship poses great concern and risks that this could be done properly. In the accompanying vide oQueen's Univ. professor Stan Brown gives convincing difficulties in regards to disposing chemical weapons at sea

Article: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/u-s-considers-destroying-syria-chemical-weapons-ship-article-1.1532489

Read more here: http://www.theolympian.com/2013/11/29/2857050/sea-disposal-of-poisons-is-not.html#storylink=cpy

Video: http://video.theloop.ca/home/watch/weapons-disposal-at-sea-safe/2876550202001?sort=date&page=1&lineupid=1995280562001#.UpmTR8RDuSp

Power in Syria

This article spoke about Assad in Syria staying in power. The article did have some mental maps but overall the Middle East's people are seen sympathized, the article even compares Saddam Hussein with Assad, and that "it is like getting a fine for murder" paraphrased. The author of this article being American even knows the oil industry is a big part in American and Middle Eastern conflicts.  





http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/03/21290348-analysis-did-syrias-assad-get-away-with-chemical-weapons-attack

Connecting Syria's allies and enemies

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2013/08/201383111193558894.html

     This post gives you a chance to have an interactive look at the political and military positions for Syria’s allies and enemies. These positions include being for or against a military intervention in Syria. This interactive post was last updated on August 31^st 2013. It shows that there is two major divisions of countries opinions wither being for or against military intervention but is further broken down into other categories. The countries included that support military intervention include Israel, United States, United Kingdom, France, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey. The Countries that opposes military intervention are China, Russia, Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq.  The circle size of each country is represented of their military capabilities base on the GFP power index. The larger the circle the more power that military has. The colors of the circle give each country a broad characteristic of why they are on whichever side. The underlining circles connect a few countries that have similar qualities regarding being members or the UN Security Council or being a supported to the rebel groups.  By clicking on each country there is a more detail description on the reasons why they stand for what they believe.

     When exploring through this interactive website I began to question why certain countries were located next to other countries; for example why Egypt and Israel were located in far left or right filed and not connected to other countries yet they do have some similar qualities. Another characteristic that was not written but given from this website was how the countries closer to the separation line seemed to be the key members in the outcome. The size of US, UK, France, China and Russia in fact represent their military power but this image suggests military power in fact the overall power to the outcome on involvement.

BBC News- Albania shuns Syria chemical weapons destruction

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.

Syria’s chemical weapons: Can it be done?

This article from the Economist dated Oct 5, 2013 touches upon the potential of Syria's use of chemical weapons. The article talks about how the OPCW teams "are expected, “using every means possible”, to have overseen the scrapping of the Syrian regime’s ability to manufacture such weapons." They could possibly destroy, dismantle and safe keep all of Syria’s 1,000 tonnes or so of chemical-weapons agents and precursors. With that how strong can Syria continue it's production? The article says that "unless temporary truces on the ground can be arranged between government and rebel forces, it may be unacceptably dangerous to reach those in contested areas, particularly given concerns over the agenda of some jihadist militias such as Jabhat al-Nusra, which has links to al-Qaeda." It also claims that 7 of the 19 declared stockpiles and facilities are in combat zones so there are still facilities that are active. OPCW’s spokesman, Michael Luhan reckons that the pitfalls are underestimated but the security counsel and all parties of interest need to use force in seeing the job done. The article closes that stripping Syria of chemical weapons is worth doing but it will not stop the regime "meting out death and destruction to civilians by conventional means."

http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21587239-destroying-chemical-arsenal-midst-civil-war-unprecedented-can-it