After several tense weeks of speculation, it appears that a solution to Syria’s chemical weapons crisis has surfaced at last. However, to understand the solution, we must first understand the problem. Here is everything you need to know about the Syrian crisis and how it will be solved:
What is the problem? On August 21st, tensions in Syria came to a head when the Assad regime allegedly* used chemical weapons (specifically, sarin gas) against its people, sparking an international outcry. Chemical weapons are regarded by the international community as intolerable, inhumane torture devices. They are used more to induce terror by killing civilians than to fight the opposition, which separates them from conventional guns and bombs. They were outlawed by the Geneva Convention in 1925. This is why the U.S. feels obligated to punish Assad for breaking the rules– so that no one else does. In addition, last year, President Obama drew a “red line” on Syria, telling Assad that the U.S. would act accordingly should he use chemical weapons. So, the U.S. feels compelled to act for multiple reasons.
Where did it come from? The crisis rose out of a civil war dividing Syria into those who support their leader, Bashar al-Assad, and those against him. These uprisings are a continuation of the Arab Spring, a series of protests by Middle Eastern peoples against their corrupt governments.
When civilian protests first began two years ago, the Assad regime responded by killing and torturing activists and their families. In their outrage, civilians’ peaceful protests grew violent. Armed rebel groups formed and used the threat of force to make civilians swear their allegiance to the rebel cause. Since the conflict began, over 100,000 Syrians have been killed, and millions have been forced to flee to neighboring countries.
What were the proposed responses? Several options were on the table as to how the U.S. might respond to the Syrian government’s actions. These included exacting an air strike on Syria (taking out all of its chemical weapons), invading Syria, peacefully negotiating with Syria, or doing nothing at all. On August 30th, Secretary of State John Kerry condemned the last option, insisting that the U.S. must act. The next day, President Obama stated that he would seek approval for military action against Syria from Congress, explicitly saying that there would be no boots-on-the-ground invasion. However, it is unlikely that Congress would agree to military action, which the British parliament voted down on August 29th. Congress was relieved to hear that the vote was postponed from September 11 because of a proposal made by Vladimir Putin, president of Russia.
Russia, Syria’s greatest ally, presented a peaceful resolution to the crisis: Syria would readily give up its chemical weapons to the U.S. to be destroyed. The U.S. accepted this proposal, which at first seemed too good to be true. Syria then confirmed that it would relinquish its chemical weapons stockpile to the U.S. Assad said in a recent interview with the U.K.’s Sky News that Syria “joined the international agreement against the acquisition and use of chemical weapons.” The U.N. security council unanimously approved the compromise. It now seems that things are looking up, but what will happen next?
What will happen next? John Kerry has said that Syria’s chemical weapons will begin being destroyed in November and will be finished by 2014. Additionally, there will be a UN peace conference in Geneva in mid-November where Syria’s political transition will be discussed.
*U.N. inspectors made two trips to Syria and examined the evidence of the use of chemical weapons in Damascus. They concluded that sarin gas was indeed used by the Syrian government against its people.