Weapons plan 'would halt US strike'

A possible diplomatic solution to avoid a US military strike has opened up as Syria swiftly welcomed a suggestion to turn over all of its chemical weapons for destruction under international control.

US president Barack Obama said the proposal could be “potentially a significant breakthrough”, but he remained sceptical that Syria would follow through.

The White House pressed ahead with efforts to persuade the US Congress to approve a military strike and Mr Obama said the developments were doubtless due in part to the “credible possibility” of that action. US officials insisted that Syrian president Bashar Assad’s government must be held accountable for using chemical weapons regardless of what happened to its stocks.

But the diplomatic opening could provide Mr Obama with a way out of a messy political and foreign policy situation. It followed a remarkable chain of events that started with a suggestion from secretary of state John Kerry, followed by a proposal from Russia and immediate endorsement by the United Nations secretary general.

Mr Obama told NBC News in an interview that he was taking a statement from Damascus welcoming the idea “with a grain of salt initially”, but said he would “absolutely” halt a US military strike if Syria’s stockpiles were successfully secured.

“My objective here has always been to deal with a very specific problem,” Mr Obama told ABC News. “If we can do that without a military strike, that is overwhelmingly my preference.”

The suggestion to secure the chemical weapons “could potentially be a significant breakthrough,” the president told NBC News in another interview. “But we have to be sceptical because this is not how we’ve seen them operate over the last couple of years.”

Mr Kerry told reporters in London yesterday that Assad could resolve the crisis surrounding the use of chemical weapons by surrendering control of “every single bit” of his arsenal to the international community by the end of the week.

Hours later, Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov promised to push its ally Syria to place its chemical weapons under international control and then dismantle them quickly to avert US strikes. Syrian foreign minister Walid al-Moallem immediately embraced the proposal.

Then in quick succession, UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon urged acceptance, British prime minister David Cameron said the idea was worth exploring and French foreign minister Laurent Fabius said it “deserves close examination”. Former US secretary of state Hillary Clinton said any move by Syria to surrender its chemical weapons would be an “important step”.

That seemed to raise prospects for avoiding an expansion of the Syrian civil war and spokesmen said the Obama administration would take a “hard look” at the proposal.

But Mr Obama cast Russia’s proposal as a direct result of the pressure being felt by Syria because of the threat of a US strike and warned that he would not allow the idea to be used as a stalling tactic.

“I don’t think that we would have gotten to this point unless we had maintained a credible possibility of a military strike, and I don’t think now is the time for us to let up on that,” he said.

White House spokesman Jay Carney sidestepped questions on whether the US and Russia had co-ordinated the proposal, saying only: “There are ongoing conversations on this matter at the highest level.”

Mr Obama said he spoke to Russian president Vladimir Putin last week about a potential plan for Syria to turn over its chemical weapons to international control and that it was a continuation of previous conversations he had with Mr Putin on the subject.

Mr Kerry spoke by phone with Mr Lavrov shortly after making his comments in London and officials familiar with the call said Mr Lavrov had told Mr Kerry that he had seen the remarks and would be issuing a public statement.

Mr Kerry made clear that his comments were rhetorical and were not meant to be a proposal, according to the officials. They added that Mr Kerry told Mr Lavrov that the US was not going to “play games”, but would be willing to review a serious proposal. They stressed that he made clear that Mr Lavrov could not present the idea as a joint US-Russian proposal.

State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said the US had “serious scepticism” about Syria’s statement because it might be merely a stalling tactic. She said Syria had consistently refused to destroy its chemical weapons in the past.

In fact, she said the developments made it even more important for congress to authorise the use of force against Syria as a means for pushing Assad to actually get rid of chemical weapons stocks.

Mr Obama, who will address the nation tonight, faces a decidedly uphill fight to win congressional backing – and serious doubts by the American public.

A new Associated Press poll shows a majority of Americans oppose a US strike on Syria. Most of those surveyed said they believe even limited strikes would lead to a long-term military commitment. The poll was conducted between September 6 and 8.

The US accuses Assad’s government of being behind an attack using sarin gas in a Damascus suburb on August 21, killing 1,429 people. Some other estimates of the deaths are lower, but there is wide agreement that chemical weapons were used.

In an interview broadcast yesterday on CBS This Morning, Assad denied responsibility, accused the Obama administration of spreading lies without providing a “single shred of evidence”, and warned that air strikes against his nation could bring retaliation. Pressed on what that might include, Assad responded: “I’m not fortune teller.”

Later, Syria’s foreign minister, meeting his Russian counterpart in Moscow, addressed the idea of getting rid of any chemical weapons.

“Syria welcomes the Russian proposal out of concern for the lives of the Syrian people, the security of our country and because it believes in the wisdom of the Russian leadership that seeks to avert American aggression against our people,” said Mr al-Moallem.