Crisis in Syria Video Video: Kerry on Syria - Responding to Kerry, Russia Urges Syria to Cede Arsenal - Russia and Syria Welcome Kerry Demand on Chemical Arms

Responding to Kerry, Russia Urges Syria to Cede Arsenal

By MICHAEL R. GORDON and STEVEN LEE MYERS 11:49 AM ET

The Russian reaction to Secretary of State John Kerry’s suggestion that Syria surrender its chemical munitions appeared to represent a possible point of agreement.

• Video: Kerry on Syria

  Crisis in Syria

  Russia and Syria Welcome Kerry Demand on Chemical Arms

  

  

  Facundo Arrizabalaga/European Pressphoto Agency

  Kerry on Syria’s Chemical Weapons: Secretary of State John Kerry suggested that Syria surrender its chemical munitions within one week.

  By MICHAEL R. GORDON and STEVEN LEE MYERS

  Published: September 9, 2013

  LONDON — Secretary of State John Kerry said on Monday that if President Bashar al-Assad wants to avert an attack on Syria he should hand over all of his chemical weapons within one week. Syria and Russia, the Syrian government’s most important backer, welcomed the idea.

  Tracking the Syrian Crisis and the International Response

  The Times will provide updates, analysis and public reaction from around the world.

  • 2:19 PM 14 More Countries Sign Statement Condemning Syria
  • 2:16 PM Kerry Suggests Assad Hand Over Chemical Arsenal
  • 1:51 PM Palestinian Official Calls Idea of Strike 'Disastrous'

  More Updates »

  Multimedia

  Interactive Feature

  Syria News Quiz

  Video

  Videos on the Syrian Conflict

  • Interactive Graphic: Where Lawmakers Stand on Military Action in Syria

  • Multimedia Feature: The Refugees

  Related

  • Assad Denies Chemical Attack in Interview for U.S. Viewers (September 9, 2013)

  • U.N. Rights Chief Urges Negotiations to Halt Syria Violence (September 10, 2013)

  • Obama Tests Limits of Power in Syrian Conflict (September 9, 2013)

  While there is no indication that Mr. Kerry was searching for a political settlement to the Syrian crisis, the reactions appeared to represent the first possible point of agreement over how to address the chemical weapons issue that has grown out of the Syrian conflict, now well into its third year.
  Asked if there were steps the Syrian president could take to avert an American-led attack, Mr. Kerry said, “Sure, he could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week — turn it over, all of it, without delay and allow the full and total accounting.”
  In a joint news conference with William Hague, Britain’s foreign secretary, Mr. Kerry also sought to downplay the magnitude of any American military strike directed at the forces of President Assad.
  “We will be able to hold Bashar al-Assad accountable without engaging in troops on the ground or any other prolonged kind of effort in a very limited, very targeted, very short-term effort that degrades his capacity to deliver chemical weapons without assuming responsibility for Syria’s civil war,” Mr. Kerry said “That is exactly what we are talking about doing — unbelievably small, limited kind of effort.”
  In Moscow, Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, who was meeting with Syria’s foreign minister, Walid al-Moallem, said in response to Mr. Kerry’s remarks that Russia would join any effort to put Syria’s stockpile of chemical weapons under international control and ultimately destroy them.
  Mr. Lavrov appeared at a previously unscheduled briefing only hours after Mr. Kerry made his statement in London. Although Mr. Kerry appeared to treat the idea that Syria would give up its stockpile as improbable, Mr. Lavrov seized on it as a possible compromise that Russia was prepared to propose to the Syrians.
  “We don’t know whether Syria will agree with this, but if the establishment of international control over chemical weapons in the country will prevent attacks, then we will immediately begin work with Damascus,” Mr. Lavrov said at the Foreign Ministry. “And we call on the Syrian leadership to not only agree to setting the chemical weapons storage sites under international control, but also to their subsequent destruction.”
  Earlier, before Mr. Kerry had spoken in London, and during a joint appearance at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, both Mr. Lavrov and Mr. Moallem excoriated the United States for rushing to launch military strikes.
  But the shift in tone between Mr. Lavrov’s two appearances was striking. Mr. Lavrov said he made the proposal to put Syria’s weapons under international control directly to Mr. Moallem, who remained in Moscow.
  Mr. Moallem said later in a statement that his government welcomed the Russian proposal, Russia’s Interfax News Agency reported, in what appeared to be the first acknowledgment by the Syrian government that it even possesses chemical weapons. The Syrian government historically has neither confirmed nor denied possessing such weapons.
  Mr. Lavrov went into more detail than Mr. Kerry’s suggestion — which Mr. Kerry’s own spokeswoman described as a rhetorical exercise rather than a proposal.
  Mr. Lavrov said Russia was proposing that Syria join the international Convention on Chemical Weapons, which bars the manufacture, stockpiling and use of poison gas.
  Syria is one of seven nations that have not signed the treaty, the others being Angola, Egypt, Israel, Myanmar, North Korea and South Sudan. “We are counting on a quick, and I hope, positive answer,” Mr. Lavrov said Monday evening as Mr. Kerry flew back to Washington to attend briefings on Capitol Hill intended to build support for a military response to Syria’s use of the weapon.
  Mr. Kerry said his suggestion was more of a debating point than a serious ultimatum. He added that he did not believe Mr. Assad would take such action, and expressed doubt about whether it was even feasible as a civil war rages in Syria. “But he isn’t about to do it, and it can’t be done,” Mr. Kerry said.
  “Secretary Kerry was making a rhetorical argument about the impossibility and unlikelihood of Assad turning over chemical weapons he has denied he used,” Jen Psaki, the State Department spokeswoman, said in an e-mail to reporters after Mr. Kerry’s comments. “His point was that this brutal dictator with a history of playing fast and loose with the facts cannot be trusted to turn over chemical weapons, otherwise he would have done so long ago. That’s why the world faces this moment.”
  Obama administration officials have discussed the idea of presenting Mr. Assad with an ultimatum. But officials are wary of giving the Syrian leader an opportunity to play for time, and carrying out inspections to make sure the Syrian government has not retained hidden stocks of poison gas as fighting rages appeared to be a near impossibility.
  For Mr. Hague, whose government has already ruled out participation in a military strike on Syria in deference to Parliamentary opposition, the meeting with Mr. Kerry was nonetheless an opportunity to affirm British support for the United States, is most important ally.
  “Our government supports the objective of ensuring that there can be no impunity for the first use of chemical warfare in the 21st century,” Mr. Hague said in his joint appearance with Mr. Kerry. “As an international community we must deter further attacks and hold those responsible for them accountable..”
  Mr. Hague also said: “We admire the leadership of President Obama and Secretary Kerry himself, in making this case so powerfully to the world.”
  Mr. Kerry said that Mr. Assad’s claims that he was not responsible for the chemical attack on Aug. 21 that provoked an international crisis over whether to launch punitive military strikes were not credible because Syria’s arsenal of poison gas is tightly controlled.
  Mr. Kerry said that three senior officials in the Syrian government have held control over the nation’s chemical weapons stocks and their use: Mr. Assad, his brother Maher and a senior general.
  Mr. Kerry said that “high level” members of the government gave the instructions to use chemical weapons in the Aug. 21 attack near Damascus “with the results going directly to President Assad.”
  When asked if the White House would consider making public additional intelligence to counter Mr. Assad’s claims that he had nothing to do with the attack, like physical samples that documented the use of sarin gas produced by the Syrian government, Mr. Kerry said that he did not know what President Obama would decide.
  But he asserted that the Obama administration had already made available copious amounts of intelligence, and that the case against Mr. Assad was airtight.
  In a discussion on Sunday with Charlie Rose, an American television interviewer, Mr. Assad asserted that Mr. Kerry had lied about the intelligence, drawing an analogy to the presentation that Colin Powell made to the United Nations about Iraq in 2003. Mr. Kerry appeared unruffled by that allegation and recalled that his own experience in dealing with Mr. Assad as a senator had convinced him that the Syrian leader could not be trusted.
  In early 2009, Mr. Kerry met with Mr. Assad in Damascus to explore the possibility of improving relations between the United States and Syria. Mr. Kerry said that he confronted Mr. Assad about intelligence confirming that Syria had transferred Scud missiles to Hezbollah.
  Mr. Kerry said that Mr. Assad had “denied it to my face,” adding, “This is a man without credibility.”
  Repeating a point he has stressed throughout his four days of discussions with European allies, Mr. Kerry said that if an attack was carried out, it would be limited in scope and duration, would not involve ground troops, and would not drag the United States and its allies into a prolonged conflict. He emphasized that it would be nothing like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the NATO bombing of Kosovo or the intervention in Libya.
  Mr. Kerry’s meeting with Mr. Hague came less than two weeks after the British Parliament rejected a role for British forces in any American-led attack.
  That decision has allowed France to displace Britain as the United States’ principal ally if a military strike is carried out, and has prompted commentators to question the durability of the “special relationship” between London and Washington.
  Mr. Kerry and Mr. Hague sought to counter the notion that the parliamentary vote, which stunned Obama administration officials and was quickly followed by Mr. Obama’s decision to delay a potential strike against the Syrian government and seek Congressional approval, had dealt a serious blow to American-British relations.
  Citing common views on trade and climate change, Mr. Kerry stressed that American and British relations were about “values.” At one point, Mr. Kerry referred to the number of Americans who worked for British companies as a sign that ties between the two countries were durable — a point that an American official would not have needed to make just a few weeks ago.
  Mr. Hague made similar comments about the deep bonds between the two countries.
  One purpose of Mr. Kerry’s trip has been to solicit foreign support for an American-led attack, which might be used to try to sway Congress. Mr. Kerry’s London visit was his last stop, and he is flying back to Washington, where he will immediately head to Capitol Hill to assist the administration’s push for Congressional backing.
  Mr. Kerry is scheduled to join other senior administration officials at a Monday briefing for lawmakers.
  Having been rebuffed by his own Parliament, however, Mr. Hague was not able to provide much more than moral support.
  Asked what steps Britain might take on Syria now that Parliament has blocked military action, Mr. Hague suggested that the British government might increase the amount of nonlethal assistance it provides to the Syrian opposition, like protective equipment against chemical weapons attacks. He also said that Britain would be active diplomatically and would press to see that humanitarian aid got through to the Syrians who needed it.
  
  Michael R. Gordon reported from London, and Steven Lee Myers from Moscow. Rick Gladstone contributed reporting from New York. copy http://global.nytimes.com/