.
By Dr Andrestinos N. Papadopoulos, Ambassador a.h.
We certainly refer to Resolution 2118(2013) of the U.N. Security Council concerning the use of chemical weapons in Syria, adopted on September 27. After 17 months of inaction, due to three vetoes of China and Russia to draft resolutions submitted by France and its partners (4 October 2011, 4 February 2012 and 19 July 2012), the Security Council condemned in the strongest terms any use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic, in particular the attack on 21 August 2013, in violation of international law.
The Resolution determines that the use of chemical weapons anywhere constitutes a threat to international peace and security, endorses the decision of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) which contains special procedures for the expeditious destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons programme and stringent verification thereof and calls for its full implementation in the most expedient and safest manner.
In order to secure its effective implementation, the Resolution contains, inter alia, special provisions, such as the prohibition of transfer, directly or indirectly, of chemical weapons to other states or non-state actors and the obligation that Syria shall cooperate fully with the OPCW and the United Nations by providing their personnel with immediate and unfettered access to and the right to inspect any and all sites and by arranging for the security of the monitoring and destruction mission. Moreover, the strong conviction is expressed that those individuals responsible for the use of chemical weapons in Syria should be held accountable.
On the other hand, the Resolution unreservedly supports a political solution by fully endorsing the Geneva Communiqué of 30 June 2013, which sets out a number of key steps beginning with the establishment of a transitional governing body exercising full executive powers, while calling for the convening of an international conference on Syria to implement the Geneva Communiqué with a view to achieving stability and reconciliation. Finally, in the event of non-compliance with its Resolution, the Security Council decided to impose measures under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter which provides sanctions and the use of force.
France, being sensitive to the massacre of innocent people caused by the use of chemical weapons in Syria, did not remain inactive. It exercised whatever pressure it could to change the stand of the different actors, especially that of the intransigent Syrian President who finally accepted international control of his chemical arsenal. In this respect, the Security Council Resolution satisfied France, since it contains conditions put forward by President Hollande, when the U.N. General Assembly started its work. Namely, the qualification of the use of chemical weapons as a threat to international peace and security, the conviction that those individuals responsible should be held accountable and the possibility to impose measures under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter. As stated by the French Foreign Minister, Laurent Fabius, the Resolution is a first step towards a political procedure to be launched at the Geneva-2 meeting, through proper preparation.
The role of France as a protagonist in the Syrian crisis and its interest in creating the necessary conditions conducive to an end to the crisis, on the basis of the principles agreed in Geneva on 30 June 2013, is better understood, if we take into account that Lebanon and Syria were under French mandate after the First World War, and that the region of the Eastern Mediterranean, because of its rich energy resources, has gained accrued geostrategic importance. This has pushed France to seek an upgraded influence in this region as well.
