|
No Surprise That No One Wants Syria’s Chemical Weapon Stuff
The U.S. is trying to find some country, any other than itself, to take and destroy the precursor materials from Syria's chemical weapon program. It first asked, for mysterious reasons, Norway. There was nothing that would qualify Norway. It never had chemical weapons and has no capacity to handle and destroy the materials in question. It also has no storage facility for the hazardous material that would result from the precursor destruction. Norway rejected the U.S. request.
The next country the U.S. asked was Albania. It probably thought that such a poor and small country could be easily pressed into taking the nasty stuff. But anyone who had some idea of Albania's recent history with chemical weapon destruction, especially U.S. officials, should have known that any such request to Albania would most certainly rejected. It is therefore a bit curious to see the rejection described as a surprise:
The mission to destroy Syria’s poison gas stockpile was dealt a serious blow Friday when Albania refused to host the destruction, but the global chemical weapons watchdog said it is still confident it can eradicate the arsenal outside Syria by the middle of next year.
The surprise refusal by the small and impoverished Balkan country left open the question of where the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons would send Syria’s estimated 1,300-ton arsenal, which includes mustard gas and sarin.
The rejection by Albania and others is not surprising at all. When the U.S. is asking other countries to help with nonproliferation issues it tends to leave them a mess. Albania had a few tons of chemical weapons left over from the cold war. The U.S. offered to pay for their destruction and later hired some private company which destroyed the weapon capability of the chemicals but otherwise left a horrendous mess:
The hazardous waste sat in containers on the concrete pad. The containers started to leak. In late 2007-early 2008, the US hired an environmental remediation firm, Savant Environmental, “who determined the problem was worse than originally thought. Many of the containers were leaking salts of heavy metals, primarily arsenic, lead and mercury. In addition, the conexes were not waterproof, and since contaminated components had not been properly cleaned before being put into the conexes, condensation and water leakage were dissolving some of the contaminants and causing them to leak out onto the ground.”
Savant Environmental repackaged the waste and placed it in 20 shipping containers. There it sits, visible from space. Good for twenty years. Well, fifteen now. Ish.
Those containers are still sitting on the concrete pad, out in the open.
The United States and Russia have both the specialized incineration capabilities to destroy chemical weapons, their precursors and the hazardous waste their neutralization creates. But Albania was left with the mess after it was pressed to destroy the weaponized stuff where a repackaging of the original weaponized chemicals would likely have been a much safer and longer term solution. Albania would have been crazy to accept more dangerous stuff as it is already left with mess the pressed for demilitarization of its own chemical weapons caused.
There are other examples where cooperation in U.S. non-proliferation initiatives leaves countries hung out to dry. Cyprus stored 98 containers of ammunition after the U.S. in 2009 pressed it to stop and confiscated the military load of a ship going from Iran to Syria. Two years later the containers exploded and destroyed a navy base. Several people were killed and half of Cyprus' power supply capacity was taken off the grid.
That no country is willing to take the 1,300 tons of Syrian chemical weapon precursors may turn out to be good for Syria. After those chemicals would be gone there would be a higher chance that the Syrian government, which is winning the war, would be attacked by the U.S. and its allies. As long as those chemicals are still around, watched over by the international inspectors, any attack could result in a reconstitution of Syria's chemical weapons. When the current war on Syria is over the destruction of the precursors could be done in place and in an organized and well planned matter that would leave only a minimal risk of doing more harm than good.
@ Posted by: neretva’43 | Nov 17, 2013 9:50:08 AM | 18
Lets go through this nonsense paragraph by paragraph shall we?
I dare to say that no country institutionalized violence more than the U.S. It is a slavery by other means. The Law, legal system and the correctional institutions are used by ruling oligarchy in political purposed, not in social, justice or correctional ones. Somebody noticed that U.S. prison population is larger than the Soviet from the Gulag times, and yes they work for 25 cents and hour.
Not very good attempt at distraction. The topic at hand is the corruption of Albanian officials for monetary gain.
Albania is usually country that is to be in “transition”. It has had misfortune that went from one totalitarian regime into another – neo-liberal/neofascists one. Albania, along with whole the Balkan is perfect example/replica of neo-liberal experiment in real time from early days of the Washington Consensus.
And this means that I have to accept shakedowns by thugs in uniform? No.
Funny thing is a “corruption” is inevitable followers of capitalism – socialism too bu in far less measure. So if Siemens bribed Greek Gov. what is it, or Boeing or the British weapon concern etc? If the IMF extort money for a states what is it, “Structural reforms”? Political violence which lead to physical. As the state is poorer the worse it gets.
Funny thing nobody’s demanded bribes from me or threatened me with violence in any of the countries normally described under the heading “Wesern capitalist”. Again you’re tying to divert attention from dishonest and thuggish behaviour in Albania by Albanians which is the topic at hand. If somebody tries to steal from me or from their own people the fact that there are other people who are also dishonest maybe even more dishonest does not as you seem to think excuse their dishonesty.
As I said Albania is “backward” society, measure by the Western standards. It is very patriarchal (this is gender related distraction word from the Western lexicon) too, if you will. It is tribal and clannish society. During Hoxha’s regime “Vendetta in Blood” almost disappeared by force, nowadays it has resurged again. That’s one of those things that “money can not buy”. Albanians has long-memory, and I mean very, very long one, they do not forget. Do not mess with them!
I don’t give a damn what their social structure is or how long their memory is stealing is stealing stealing accompanied by threats is robbery with menaces actually carrying out those threats in Aggravated assault all of them are criminal behaviour. That fact that somewhere is ‘backward’ to use your expression isnt an excuse for blatantly criminal behaviour.
I read your comments/posts before as a now. At times I visited you site too. I’ve noticed, you are very sectarian, as British I am not surprised.
When I disagree with Rowan Berkeley which I have on occasion I’ve attacked his arguments not his person. Attacking him because he’s British is what’s called an ad hominem. It’s not an argument it’s a fallacy engaged in by people who are incapable of rebutting their opponents’ points in any other way. That’s equally true of all the red herrings you’ve tried to introduce as a distraction during this exchange.
Dubhaltach
Posted by: Dubhaltach | Nov 17 2013 17:29 utc | 22
Jesus. Birds of a feather.
…
Here comes a shitload of speculation and quite a lot of optimism and I don’t usually do optimism. But here goes:
The leaks are what they are. Whatever speculation we can make about how or why they have come about – obviously a huge part in how anyone understands them – the exposure has been made and the effects will do what they will to public opinion, on legislation, to international relationships, etc. I don’t personally see how something like that could be a “limited hangout” because it’s not very … well, limited. These revelations are explosive and could lead anywhere – despite those who will tell you they are “too slow and not enough” or “we already knew it all” (a line of attack that is so consistently debunked – and yet so consistent – that you have to wonder if it is honest).
It will be interesting to find out more about Snowden. Whatever his motives (and they are less worth speculating on than considering the real effects of the leaks), he chose to deliver the documents to Greenwald and he has not expressed any disappointment with the way the information is being distributed. It is interesting to consider what the choices mean, if anything – why he didn’t choose Wikileaks (though they seem to work closely together), why he hasn’t been more vocal, where he plans to go next, who will do what in support of him, etc etc. There is much that it is worthwhile to speculate about. The last chapter in Snowden’s story obviously hasn’t been written yet. The answer to who Snowden is and what his motives are will have to be surmised form his future actions and his relationship with Greenwald going forward.
Greenwald’s future, though, will likely be more far-reaching because of the professional opportunities stemming from his involvement with the leaks. He seems to have already eclipsed Snowden, for better or worse, as the face of the leaks and he has benefited hugely in prestige from the revelations – and I don’t say this in a negative or positive way, it is what it is. There is no way that he could have avoided becoming the focus of attention – but this wasn’t his decision – it was Snowden’s.
Greenwald has certainly gained a huge amount of prestige and can potentially become a hugely powerful personality in politics and journalism. It will be interesting and revealing to watch for what kind of push back he faces. Will the US establishment go after him full force, or will he “earn” (either by virtue of being too strong to disregard, or being brow-beaten into submission) the trust of part or all of it? Will he sell out or will he maintain his credibility and fight authoritarianism and US power till the end – perhaps being destroyed in the process or instead having huge success and helping to lead a new movement towards a more civilized US and a less intrusive government at home and around the world? He could either become a sort of I.F. Stone or a carbon copy of Bob Woodward, or anything in between or something else entirely. All would be mere predictions at this point.
He does seems to have weathered the storm of potential arrest and conviction and still maintains his freedom of movement – something Snowden does not have. Greenwald could, with this new found prestige, have made any professional move he liked probably (outside of the United States, of course). The one he has made seems to give him the maximum chance for freedom and the chance to build something form the ground up. I could be wrong but I don’t think simple co-option by this Pierre Omidyar will be his fate. I think there no doubt his move of going into business with a billionaire (the guy – though clearly smart enough to know that Greenwald is a force – doesn’t seem a particularly a “deep thinker”) will put a lot of resources at his command and my guess is that Greenwald will essentially have a free reign within organization, whatever form it takes. It seems that this will be his “baby” though, and from there the problems could stem. He may face the limitations of becoming too big and becoming, in effect, the face of an institution. We won’t see him being co-opted, but give it a decade, perhaps we will see him co-opting. It really isn’t worth speculating on. How he handles this power though, will ultimately reveal the most about him and make the difference between success and failure.
Ultimately I think he should be judged by the intensity with which he goes after authoritarianism (government AND private) and militarism where it matters most – in the United States, Israel, NATO, and the corporate structure. And there is some reason to hope he will stand up to US power in ways far more radical than today’s mainstream media organizations (not that that would be hard). Though the right wingers here will not be heartened by this, Greenwald is clearly associating himself – and building allies with – the sort of “mainstream” US Left (that sort of scattered constellation that sort of orbits around all things DemocracyNow, Occupy and Chomsky). Scahill comes straight out of the center of the that. Greenwald and Scahill have both appeared with Chomsky and both frequent DemocracyNOW. But, more interestingly, there is this alliance with the more technology oriented groups like Wikileaks, the Pirate Parties, and the EFF. There seems to be a powerful coalition building with both some serious claims to respectability and radicalism. If this group can stick together it could be in the best tradition of the sixties movements – civil rights and peace – but with massive resources. Will a truly radical vision finally gain a mainstream audience for its views? And will the US power structure will come to terms with it, continually try to sideline it… or ultimately be changed by it?
As someone says here (Zico?) “Interesting times…”. Like the leaks, whatever this organization does will be judged on the effects of its stories. And, if for a few years at least it can break more stories with the impact of the NSA leaks – that will be a pretty fucking big deal.
…
Oh yeah, and I don’t want to let my only fan down: NAZIS.
Posted by: guest77 | Nov 22 2013 2:35 utc | 88
|
