Kerry outlined several points of the plan, which would see the “rapid assumption of control by the international community” of Syria’s chemical weapons. He further stressed US-Russia commitment to the complete destruction of not only of Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal, but also its production and refinement capabilities.
Syria will also become a party to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which outlaws their production and use. On Saturday, the UN said it had received all documents necessary for Syria to join the chemical weapons convention and that Syria would come under the treaty in 30 days starting on October 14.
Damascus must submit within a week’s time – “and not 30 days” – a complete inventory of related arms, “including names, types, and quantities of its chemical weapons agents, types of munitions, and location and form of storage, production and research and development facilities."
...Syria must destroy all of its weapons. It was possible that the Syrian rebels have some chemical weapons, [Kerry] acknowledged.
The Syrian government should provide the OPCW, the UN and other supporting personnel “with the immediate and unfettered right to inspect any and all sites in Syria.” Lavrov later said that security for all international inspectors on the ground should be provided for not only by the government, but opposition forces as well.
Although President Assad immediately acquiesced to the Russian-backed plan, rebel forces have resisted efforts which have staved off Western intervention in the country.
On Saturday, the Free Syrian Army rejected a US-Russian deal as a stalling tactic and vowed to continue fighting to topple the Assad government.
The Russian-American initiative does not concern us. It only seeks to gain time," said Salim Idriss, the chief of the FSA command, said.
We completely ignore this initiative and will continue to fight to bring down the regime," he told a press conference Saturday in the Turkish city of Istanbul.
If Damascus fails to comply with the plan, a response in accordance with UN Charter Chapter 7 will follow, Kerry said, in a reference to the use of military force. The chapter provides for "action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security" in the event other measures fail.
States are typically bound by customary international law regardless of whether the states have codified these laws domestically or through treaties.
In short, there is no sovereignty of nation states at the UN. Nation states can only opt out of UN dictats at the threat of force. "Rebels" are apparently free to make war on nation states and commit war crimes against the citizenry too, as long as they act as security guards for UN inspectors. If the "FSA" can escalate enough conflict to impede Syria's ability to comply with the imposed time limits (which would likely be a strain even for countries with no internal strife), then the UN and its lackeys intend to reward them with the deployment of America's Military to assist them. Such a deal. /s
The U.N. should be dissolved like the League of Nations was.
At the least, US should stop funding it.
Yes. "Cliff Notes" on these sources: The U.N. is imposing as International Law (at the threat of force/war) whatever it claims at whim to be a "civilized custom/norm", treaty or no treaty. It insists, for example, that the defunct League of Nations' Geneva Protocols banning chemical weapons are still binding even if countries aren't signatories of it but Syria, which is a Geneva Protocol signatory, is being threatened with war and not the remaining UN member states, which have not acceded or succeeded to the Protocol.
The NRA is asking for donations to help it prevent an Anti-2A treaty being signed and ratified. Not only does it seem more concerned about money than the Unconstitutionality of that, it seems unconcerned too that it doesn't matter, according to the U.N., if there's a formal treaty or not about something that it wants enforced.
Edited to try and correct the link but still not working right. Scroll down to the Non-signatory states chart for that Geneva Protocol info at the Wikipedia site.
(R2P or RtoP) is a United Nations initiative established in 2005. It consists of an emerging intended norm, or set of principles, based on the claim that sovereignty is not a right, but a responsibility
In the international community R2P is a norm, not a law, however it is [allegedly] grounded in international law.
The authority to employ the last resort and intervene militarily rests solely with United Nations Security Council.
The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) has expressed grave concern over Israel's undeclared nuclear arsenal, saying it presents the greatest threat to the peace and security in the Middle East.
[Transcription from the video] “The Islamic Republic of Iran expresses its deep concern over the serious negative implications on security in the region as well as the reliability of the global non-proliferation regime whereby Israeli scientists are generously provided access to the nuclear facilities of a certain nuclear weapon state while nuclear scientists of NPT (the Non-Proliferation Treaty) parties are being assassinated instead,” Reza Najafi, Iranian Ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said in the Austrian capital Vienna on Friday.
Iranian scientists Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, Dariush Rezaeinejad, Professor Majid Shahriari, and Professor Masoud Ali-Mohammadi were all assassinated by Israeli agents, according to Iran.
The draft was put forward by 32 countries during the 57th annual session of the IAEA General Conference in Vienna to criticize Israel's refusal to acknowledge its possession of nuclear weapons.
The proposed resolution was defeated by a vote of 54 to 43, with 32 abstentions. The other 30 countries were absent during the vote.
On Friday September 20 2013, on the last day of the 57th General Conference held in Vienna, fifty one member states of the IAEA voted in favour of Israel keeping its nuclear weapons and against a draft resolution (GC(57) 1.3) submitted by the Arab States regarding israeli “Nuclear Capabilities”, which called on Israel to join the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). 42 countries vote in favour of the resolution and 32 abstained.
US and israeli delegates were seen during the morning wandering the conference room and systematically meeting with all country delegations, speaking to delegates representing small countries which rely on US and EU financial aid. It was clear that the US and israeli representatives to the IAEA “recommended” to these other countries to vote against the draft resolution introduced by the Arab states.
The thwarting of the draft resolution on israeli Nuclear Weapons clearly shows the double standards of the state members of the IAEA towards the major issue of the Middle East zone free of weapons of mass destruction, which threaten the security of the whole region.
The USA and Canada “justified” their rejection claiming that the draft introduced by the Arab states is backed by Iran, which “seeks a nuclear arms capability” according to their abstruse claims.
The US envoy to the IAEA, Joseph Macmanus, claimed that “targeting its close ally would only hurt broader steps aimed at banning nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction in the tinderbox region”. [???] He even regretted that the resolution was brought to a vote.
[Article Comment at the site: "Israel gets to have nuke’s and Arab nation’s are not allowed to protect themselves or their population from Israeli and U.S. attack or aggression? Makes you wonder who’s really running things behind the scene."]
Iran is seeking what the West still calls "clean energy" for us, despite Fukushima, Chernobyl, etc. dilemmas -- a "lower carbon footprint" by reducing fossil-fuel use, which the UN's "Saturday Night Live Coneheads" agenda supposedly incentivizes by way of its carbon unit taxation-penalty scheme to counter "Global Warming/Climate Change". What were the previous excuses for countries opposing a Middle East WMD-Free Zone in favor of Israel's WMD armament before Iran's recent power plant utilities project, such as other countries have without threat of punishment even though they are far more prone to war than Iran?
Cross-referencing Posts #2, #3 and #4 on Eisenhower's Atoms for Peace program at 4um Title: Nuclear Chess
Decades ago, America "help(ed) Iran set up the full nuclear fuel cycle along with atomic power plants." At the time, Washington said "nuclear power would provide for the growing needs of our economy and free our remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals."
Edited sentence one of the paragraph before the Atoms for Peace section.