This writer has long been under the impression that the chemical weapons in the hands of the Syrian government have been supplied from outside...from Russia, over the years. Now the President of that country has told the world, at least to this writer's great surprise, that Syria herself has been manufacturing them, for a long time. But has the declaration answered all the questions?
Such as ; how is it that Syria got all the know-how to manufacture them; and to store them: what use, if any, has Syria put those dreadful weapons to: and above all what was Russia's role in arming Syria with them: suppose Syria could have manufactured 'the poor man's nuclear weapons' herself, what about the delivery systems:in other words are Syria's weapons fit only to be carried on the back of the soldiers? and suppose Russia helped Syria to have the necessary delivery systems, what was her purpose? it seems the Council Resolution included the destruction of the weapons and not the delivery systems:no such things existing in Syria?
On the eve of an impending-so it seemed at one time-US attack on Syria, Russia seemed to score a diplomatic victory by producing the chemical weapons on the negotiating table. But it was because they had known it, and by doing so they thought they could defend the government in Syria, or the person of the President. A Cold War tactics.
While there is nothing so far in the policies of the three Western powers encouraging to the cause of peace in the region, except the dramatic 'No' vote in the House of Commons, so were the Russian policies, too. How about China's?
The silver lining was the US-Iran dialogue held for the first time after the Iranian revolution. Its further progress would immensely enhance the cause of peace in the region. It is hoped that Israel's blockade would be wisely bypassed.
Such as ; how is it that Syria got all the know-how to manufacture them; and to store them: what use, if any, has Syria put those dreadful weapons to: and above all what was Russia's role in arming Syria with them: suppose Syria could have manufactured 'the poor man's nuclear weapons' herself, what about the delivery systems:in other words are Syria's weapons fit only to be carried on the back of the soldiers? and suppose Russia helped Syria to have the necessary delivery systems, what was her purpose? it seems the Council Resolution included the destruction of the weapons and not the delivery systems:no such things existing in Syria?
On the eve of an impending-so it seemed at one time-US attack on Syria, Russia seemed to score a diplomatic victory by producing the chemical weapons on the negotiating table. But it was because they had known it, and by doing so they thought they could defend the government in Syria, or the person of the President. A Cold War tactics.
While there is nothing so far in the policies of the three Western powers encouraging to the cause of peace in the region, except the dramatic 'No' vote in the House of Commons, so were the Russian policies, too. How about China's?
The silver lining was the US-Iran dialogue held for the first time after the Iranian revolution. Its further progress would immensely enhance the cause of peace in the region. It is hoped that Israel's blockade would be wisely bypassed.
No comments:
Post a Comment