Breakthrough in New York: The five veto powers in the UN Security Council have agreed on a draft Syria resolution. A compromise, which largely takes into account Russia’s wishes.

Tweet This announcement was America’s new ambassador to the UN in New York, Samantha Power the world know that now there is a genuine UN draft resolution on the Syrian destruction of chemical weapons. After weeks of back and forth

“Agreement reached with Russia,” Power wrote. An agreement that international law obliges Syria to deliver its chemical weapons. Powers and Susan Rice predecessor – now the national security adviser to Barack Obama – clarified a bit later, also via Twitter, Let there be a “strong, binding and Coercive” resolution.

Syria Civil War:Vote may have on Friday night

Under international law, mandatory, strongly enforcing – it sounds as if the draft resolution, have now agreed on the five veto powers, international sanctions enshrined in the event that the dictator Assad is not cooperating.

But this is not so.

Obviously, Russia has prevailed in this matter against the U.S.. The text was a “compromise,” said British UN Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant.

To diplomats and media reports can be found in the draft resolution, which would eventually be formally decided already on Friday of the 15 members of the Security Council in New York, not automatic for sanctions or international military mission, as the U.S. had initially demanded. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov pointed out as well that the resolution not under Chapter Seven of the UN Charter. Chapter seven – this is the code for sanctions to military strikes if world peace is threatened.

Instead, to have been fixed in the current draft resolution now that the Security Council would cause in the event of failure to observe at a later time measures under Chapter seven. May sound similar, but is a huge difference – because there is no automatism. The committee would meet again to advise. Thus, Russia has always the possibility to veto.

Coincidence has led the negotiations to good results

Nevertheless, the agreement of Thursday is a breakthrough and offers reason for hope. Finally, the Security Council in the case of Syria was completely blocked since the fighting began two years ago. America’s UN ambassador Power had recently found with the body was no longer to be expected on this issue.

It moved only slightly when Obama was preparing a military strike against Assad. That he might not get the desired authorization for the U.S. Congress, ultimately did not matter, after Russian President Vladimir Putin took the diplomatic offensive, and had revived the old Russian-American idea of the poison gas disarmament Syria.

So Obama’s approach has a way more out of chance to a good result. For the U.S. president, it would eventually have turned out quite differently: duped by a negative vote of Congress, embroiled in a renewed military conflict in the Middle East.

In contrast, the draft resolution on Thursday is a success – though tended to Russian conditions. In addition: Iran will have very closely how Obama acted against Syria. In the case of a U.S. attack on the dictator in Damascus which is now emerging relaxation with the mullah regime in Tehran would be unthinkable.

US President Obama’s signal has arrived in Moscow

Russia, in turn, has initially achieved with the resolution its main objective: to prevent an intervention in Syria necessarily America. Not because Assad would be so incredibly important for Moscow, but because the Russians wanted to prevent the Western intervention in Libya another precedent.

Putin is in terms of Syria not the Prince of Peace, but cold power politics. As a U.S. military strike seemed were imminent, he straightened up in an article for the “New York Times” even directly to the U.S. citizens and criticized rather from the top down America’s alleged penchant for interventionism and Obama’s notion that his country was “exceptionally “.

The anger still echoed by Washington in the speech delivered by Obama on Tuesday before the UN General Assembly. It was also a response to Putin as he explained, the greater risk for the world is not a commitment but an abstention America: “chaos and lawlessness” would be the consequences. Obama also called for a “strong” resolution against Syria, said he believes that there must be “consequences” if Assad did not meet the requirements.

But even a concrete military threat, he did not speak from there. This signal may have arrived in Moscow.

[adrotate banner=”46″]