Rules of American “time out”: analysis by Shahan Gandaharian

YEREVAN, SEPTEMBER 11, ARMENPRESS: Russian initiative which is aimed to settlement Syrian problem or suspending start of military actions managed to change the situation. There was a widespread impression and convince that immediately after voting of American Congress even after voting of Senate military actions would begin against Syrian targets.

With an interesting coincidence the start of military actions although non-official was planned on September 11 which would symbolize a day of struggle against international terrorism in American logic.

Of course Russian initiation on sense of time of introducing was not accidental too Very soon it became known that the initiative was agreed with United States. The announcement of the statement was followed the second agreed step. United States announced “time out”. And there Damascus welcoming was immediately necessary and it was done in time and in place.

The explanation of American “time out” gave President Obama. It was explanation full of positive stressing the main idea of which was that diplomatic solution is preferable for United States, USA should not interfere in inter-Syrian conflict, the aim of all these is liquidation of chemical weapons and its exclusion of their using. It is right that as a result of Russian agreed imitative military actions are suspended. But several points should not be missed in order to sum up all the vents concerning American “time out: and statements followed by it.

Russian call to Damascus to give the places of keeping chemical weapons to international community itself speaks about existence of such weapons at Syrian authorities. It is the conformation of such existence. Russian conformation was made just on the eve of declaration of results of UN experts. It was enough to speak about existence of chemical weapons.

Damascus welcomed Russian initiation directly-indirectly self-confessing the existence of such weapons. Of course there is some logic that existence of such weapons does not imply its certain using. But let us remain in frames of logics of superpowers’ announcements. When the blames over used chemical weapons were bilateral it was at least expected to suggest the opposite side to give control over chemical weapons to international community. The call was directed to the sides to give the weapons, especially when the same international community did not yet conclude on responsibility issue. Russian agreed initiation prepared ground for international expert conclusion.

The experts could announce without having direct facts that government forces are the owners of chemical weapons.

Shahan Gandaharian

Editor in chief of “Azdag” newspaper