Argument: Inspectors don’t solve the real problem

The biggest difficulty with the weapons inspectors being in Syria is that they are a sideshow to the real problem. Yes chemical weapons use is horrific but their use in Syria has caused far fewer casualties than conventional weapons. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights put the total death toll at 115,000 at the end of September 2013 [1] by comparison the chemical weapons attack that triggered the threat of intervention and therefore the inspections caused somewhere between 136 and 1300 deaths. [2] Syria’s having joined the chemical weapons convention and allowed in inspectors may prevent more deaths as a result of chemical weapons but it has not stopped the conflict. Many thousands more will die as a result of the conflict while the international community looks on patting itself on the back that it has somehow managed to find a solution.

[1] Stampler, Laura, ‘Group Says Syria Death Toll at 115,000’, Time, 1 October 2013, http://world.time.com/2013/10/01/group-says-syria-death-toll-at-115000/

[2] Mroue, Bassem, ‘The United Nations is seeking clarity over the alleged chemical attack in Syria’, USA Today, 22 August 2013, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/08/22/syria-attack/2683855/

Candidate 1: "Inspectors are ending a chemical weapons threat

Unless you are a warmonger, or you have a particular hatred of the United Nations, then there is no reason to throw the weapons inspectors out. They do no harm in their mission in Syria and have the potential to do a lot of good by destroying one of the world’s biggest stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. 189 countries representing 98% of the world’s population have signed up to the chemical weapons convention, which means getting rid of these horrifying weapons. [1] Clearly the world is in agreement that they must go and this is what the inspectors are endeavouring to do. Getting rid of the inspectors simply halts this vital work to no end.

[1] United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs, ‘Chemical Weapons’, un.org, https://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Chemical/"
Candidate 2: "A point on the path to peace

Sometimes peace comes from one big agreement. But most of the time there are lots of small steps on the path to peace. This involves finding areas where deals can be made to help build trust that the negotiating regimes will carry out their promises. A cease fire is worthless if neither side believes the other will stick to it as it becomes a race to break it first. But the progress of weapons inspectors shows Syria can be trusted to fulfil its commitments. Peace talks have followed the agreement on chemical weapons. There have been conferences at Montreaux/Geneva, they have not brought breakthroughs, but neither have they broken down so progress on other issues such as prisoner exchanges, humanitarian access, or safe passage deals, are likely at some point. [1]

[1] Williams, Michael C., ‘Negotiating a path to peace: from Geneva to Aleppo, via Moscow’, New Statesman, 13 February 2014, http://www.newstatesman.com/2014/02/negotiating-syrian-peace-moscow-geneva"
Candidate 3: "Withdrawing the inspectors is hardly going to make Syria live up to its commitments. Instead more pressure is needed on Syria when it does drag its feet."
Candidate 4: "Biological weapons are indiscriminate. This is why they are so horrific, but also why they are not a concern in this instance. Any use of biological weapons in Syria would likely affect not only rebels but also government supporters. The Syrian government can’t afford to use such a weapon if it wants to ever have a chance of regaining control of the country."
Candidate 5: "That progress is difficult and slow is not a good reason to leave the country entirely and instead make no progress."
Candidate 6: "Inspectors were the only way to avoid international conflict

Before the deal on allowing in weapons inspectors the course was set for an international conflict in Syria; the United States and allies, such as France, would have bombed Syria. The only way to prevent such a conflict becoming a reality is to keep weapons inspectors on the ground. Syria crossed President Obama’s ‘red line’ when chemical weapons were used and despite initial reluctance on the part of the Obama administration this was always likely to lead to some form of military response. Syria's Foreign Minister when accepting the Russian suggestion to disarm its chemical weapons suggested this was why it accepted as Walid al-Moallem said they accepted to "thwart U.S. aggression". [1] If the weapons inspectors leave the United States is once more left with the question of how to get rid of the chemical weapons, the weapons inspections are the only non-military option.

[1] AP, 'Syria Accepts Russian Proposal To Surrender Chemical Weapons, Foreign Minister says', Huffington Post, 10 September 2013, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/10/syria-accepts-proposal-to-surrender-chemical-weapons_n_3898941.html"
Candidate 7: "There is a limit to what can be done in internal conflicts such as the Syrian civil war. There is a chemical weapons convention that almost every nation has signed so there is an international norm against their use and agreement on their disarmament. This is not the case with conventional internal conflict. The Syrian regime will agree to disarm its chemical weapons to prevent bombing by NATO but removing conventional weapons or ending the conflict would be completely different; a much bigger operation which the Syrian regime could not agree too as it would mean signing their death warrant."
Candidate 8: "Nobody can afford to have the weapons inspectors leave

There were three main actors in the deal that allowed the chemical weapons inspectors into Syria; The United States, Russia, and the Syrian government, none of whom have any reason to want to see the inspectors leave. Russia took the initiative to create the deal having leapt upon Secretary of State John Kerry’s remarks and so has a lot of international prestige tied up in making the deal work, it also shows that Russia can be constructive as well as simply a spoiler in the international arena.

If the deal collapsed then the United States would almost certainly be back to where it was when there was agreement on sending the weapons inspectors in; days or weeks away from military action. Such military action would be costly and unlikely to work; attacking chemical weapons from the air would be difficult and would risk chemical releases. [1]

Because of the risk of attack it would clearly be in Syria’s interest to stick with the current situation. So far it has given no indication that it will hinder the weapons inspectors in any way. This has been confirmed by Sigrid Kaag, the Special Coordinator of the Joint OPCW-UN Mission, who in late October stated “To date, the Government of Syria has fully cooperated in supporting the work of the advance team and the OPCW-UN Joint Mission.” [2]

[1] Hambling, David, ‘How the US may try to destroy Syria's chemical weapons’, New Scientist, 3 September 2013, http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24142-how-the-us-may-try-to-destroy-syrias-chemical-weapons.html#.Umadffmkr_D

[2] Kaag, Sigrid, ‘Statement of Sigrid Kaag, Special Coordinator of the Joint OPCW-UN Mission’, un.org, 22 October 2013, http://www.un.org/sg/offthecuff/index.asp?nid=3144"

There is a limit to what can be done in internal conflicts such as the Syrian civil war. There is a chemical weapons convention that almost every nation has signed so there is an international norm against their use and agreement on their disarmament. This is not the case with conventional internal conflict. The Syrian regime will agree to disarm its chemical weapons to prevent bombing by NATO but removing conventional weapons or ending the conflict would be completely different; a much bigger operation which the Syrian regime could not agree too as it would mean signing their death warrant.
