Syria Moves Closer to Destroying Chemical Weapons Stockpile

Monday, October 28, 2013

A woman flashes the V for 'victory' sign in protest against the Syrian regime. (YASSER AL-ZAYYAT/Getty)

Three days ahead of its deadline, the Syrian regime submitted a formal declaration of its chemical weapons arsenal and its plans for destroying that stockpile. Now the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the international watchdog tasked with destroying Syria's stockpile, will review the regime's submission and plan for complete destruction by mid-November.

Is this a sign that change is possible in Syria?

While that remains unclear, it is certainly a positive sign for the White House, which decided to stand down on military attacks in exchange for a guarantee of the destruction of chemical weapons.

Joining us to discuss the road ahead for Syria is Robin Wright, a joint fellow at the U.S. Institute of Peace and the Woodrow Wilson International Center. She's the author of "Rock the Casbah: Rage and Rebellion Across the Islamic World."


Robin Wright

Produced by:

Mythili Rao


T.J. Raphael

Comments [1]

Scott in Seattle from Seattle

While I generally enjoy the show I had to make a comment after hearing Robin Wright's segment. I'm pretty sure Syria has never admitted to actually using chemical weapons against its people yet Robin Wright said [the agreement] "... assures that Syria won't use chemical weapons again." 'Again'?

What Syria agreed to is that they HAVE chemical weapons. There is a quite a bit of difference. You might say it is implied they used them since they admit to having them but that really isn't accurate. But they had to admit they had them.

John Kerry made many statements and claims along with typical US egocentric rhetoric yet provide NO evidence. It was the old 'trust me' without verification. Remember, Kerry claims that the US has data that proves the weapons were launched from government sites yet won't prove all of this by showing the data? Where's the transparency? And that is ONLY one example. Who stands to gain? How would the Syrian government gain from using and getting caught for chemical weapons? Why would they just kill innocent civilians? What about the rebels? What if they launched the strike to bring the heat on the Syrian regime to get those weapons removed? Is that possible? Absolutely. The US and Israel don't want those weapons hitting them in the future or those weapons being transferred out of the country when they invade.

I'm sure Ms. Wright, with her years of experience and connections, could actually write a real story about what is going on there, perhaps even tearing it wide open, but all I hear is more of the 'official' storyline and 'official' supplied rhetoric.

Perhaps I'm making too much of 'just a word' ("again") but words matter. The more people in the mainstream press/TV say 'again'... as in 'they won't use them again' the more that is accepted as the story, that they, in fact, did use them. But it was never proved, especially not transparent and verifiable way.

Oct. 28 2013 01:38 PM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.