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.
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.
"The Obama administration is once again demonstrating its contempt for our fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms," Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement.
"The administration is wasting precious time trying to sign away our laws to the global community and unelected U.N. bureaucrats," [Sen. Jim Inhofe, R- Okla.] wrote.
Many violence-wracked countries, including Congo and South Sudan, are also expected to sign. The coalition said their signature -- and ratification -- will make it more difficult for illicit arms to cross borders.
The U.N. treaty will take effect after 50 countries ratify it,
The treaty covers battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, large-caliber artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and missile launchers, and small arms and light weapons.
It prohibits states that ratify it from transferring conventional weapons if they violate arms embargoes or if they promote acts of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. The treaty also prohibits the export of conventional arms if they could be used in attacks on civilians or civilian buildings such as schools and hospitals.
In addition, the treaty requires countries to take measures to prevent the diversion of conventional weapons to the illicit market. This is among the provisions that gun-rights supporters in Congress are concerned about.
Mission accomplished for the shadowy/showy arms trafficking/"rebel" training, Saudi Prince "Bandar Bush" Al Qaeda troupes in Syria?
Even if a rogue Senate ratifies a treaty that violates the Constitution, it would still be Constitutionally invalid and the NRA is enabling the power-game illusions to undermine the Constitution by not addressing the fact that it would be invalid.