Lauren Mishan- Blog 3

Syria and weapons of mass destruction

Lauren Mishan

            While there are many issues going on around the world, a very prevalent and hot topic is Syria and weapons of mass destruction. It has been confirmed that Syria’s stockpile of chemical weapons is estimated to be about 50 percent larger than it was in 2003. Apparently, Syria intends to use these weapons for an external attack, rather than “inside” Syria. But, soon after statements similar to this one were released, allegations of the use of chemical weapons in Syria came about.

            Syria’s state news agency reported, “terrorists had fired a rocket containing chemical materials, killing 16 people” (BBC). It has been written in numerous articles that President Bashar al-Assad is using chemical weapons against civilians.

What implications does this have for the international community? With the death tolls in Syria rising as well as the number of terrorist attacks, the drawbacks to Syria having weapons of mass destruction is devastating. A country that does not have stable governance cannot contain these weapons to be used for external and military use, but rather face having them fall into the “wrong” hands.

            International organizations like the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) was in charge of overseeing the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons, under an agreement between the United States and Russia. The Syrian government agreed to surrender its chemical arsenal last fall when “President Obama threatened to launch missile strikes in retaliation for deadly chemical attacks on rebel-held suburbs of the Syrian Capital, Damascus.” While the chemical weapons were removed from Syria and destroyed, Secretary of State John F. Kerry said, “it’s very important, however, even as we mark this moment of removing 100 percent of the declared weapons, that we understand that our work is not finished” (Washingtonpost).

            From lecture, I learned that it is possible to force another country to undertake an action through coercion. An example that the professor used in class was Compellence can be shown through sanctions, or dismantling of nukes, or in this case the dismantling of weapons of mass destruction. Compellence is situations in which an actor ceases or reverses actions because the costs imposed by other actors will be soon outweigh the gains of those actions. In the case of Syria, the US and Russia agreed to dismantle Syria’s chemical weapons and if they did not cooperate, Syria would have to face the consequences. “Never before has an entire arsenal of a category of weapons of mass destruction been removed from a country experiencing a state of internal armed conflict” and it was accomplished in a demanding and strict time frame (Washingtonpost).

            Syria is an interesting case to look at when talking about weapons of mass destruction because of the implications it could have on the international community and the drawbacks it could have with a threat of terrorists. 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-22557347

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/agency-last-of-syrias-chemical-weapons-handed-over-for-destruction/2014/06/23/4eb9a138-fad9-11e3-8176-f2c941cf35f1_story.html