West Asia has taken a step back from the brink. The Syrian government has reportedly assented to a Russian proposal - based on an off-the-cuff remark from US Secretary of State John Kerry - that it turn over its stock of chemical weapons to international inspectors to be destroyed. This development came even as the United States Congress was deliberating on whether to allow US President Barack Obama to strike selected military targets in Syria in response to an attack on August 21 on a Damascus suburb that was carried out using the nerve agent sarin, and killed over 1,400 people. While there is no definitive proof that it was carried out by the Syrian government under President Bashar al-Assad, the circumstantial evidence is very strong - even the rights group Human Rights Watch, after taking witness statements and examining the remains of the missiles that delivered the deadly chemicals, has said that it is overwhelmingly likely the government was responsible, and not the rebels.
While Mr Obama had insisted that a strike on Syrian weapons would not have been the prelude to a full-scale war - Mr Kerry went further, calling any response "ridiculously small" - many feared that a West Asia delicately balanced between Iran, Saudia Arabia and Israel would go up like a tinderbox if the US involved itself more than it already has. Oil markets have been volatile since the attack. Mr Obama himself has made utterances that suggested the need to intervene in Syria, even though there was no clarity on the gains from such an attack. But it is also true that the use of chemical weapons is the longest-standing taboo in international warfare; and this is the largest and most blatant use of them on a battlefield since the signing of the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1993. Syria is one of the very few countries that are yet to ratify the Convention. Others include North Korea, Israel, Angola and Egypt.
It is, thus, welcome that the Syrian government has claimed to be willing to hand over its chemical weapons stockpile, one of the five largest in the world, to United Nations (UN) inspectors who are experienced in destroying them. Several countries have done so in the past; India took 12 years to do so, declaring in May 2009 that it had destroyed all 1,044 tonnes of mustard gas in its arsenal. While the Russians, who have been cynically backing the Assad regime throughout, claim otherwise, it is clear that Syria's agreement is also a product of the strong international opinion, formed at the recent G20 Summit at St Petersburg, that a US attack against Syria would not be a universally approved wise move at this juncture, particularly when the UN fact-finding team was yet to complete its report. It is also the case that the Syrian government may think it can stall or misdirect weapons inspectors once the threat of US retaliation is off the table; it would, thus, be necessary to keep international pressure on Syria to hand over its chemical weapons stockpile to UN inspectors. Fortunately, in his speech on Syria on Tuesday, the US president seemed to understand that fact. However, it would have been even better - and more calming for the markets - if he had also welcomed the Syrian offer and shown that it is a victory to force the Assad regime to disarm. That would have taken the pressure off the US to live up to its self-imposed "red line", while also making the point that the taboo on chemical weapons remains as strong as ever.
