Here, however, Lavrov is rather ignoring that his boss had just written an extremely political - for American audience - oped. That oped, in addition to needling the US with many self satisfied US tenets that are blindly repeated. When watching Obama's speech, it was obvious that the use of "American exceptionalism was a needle to the Republicans. I have never been happy when Democrats claimed "me too" on that -preferring Kerry's clever comment that "America is exceptional when it does exceptional things." - a comment that is essentially a truism and true for any country -- if it does exceptional things.
But those pinpricks are not the real problem -- Putin reframes Syria and use of chemical weapons from what most international sources believe to a state of them likely not having used chemical weapons. Kerry is obviously charged with moving the discussion back to Syria likely did use chemical weapons. This is important as the situation with a country voluntarily giving up chemical weapons - as many countries have - and a country having the weapons taken away because they used them. The UN report should be out soon - and assuming that it backs what the US thinks, it is important to start the process accurately recognizing truth.
In a NYT article - the day of Kerry's comment that set all this off - Kerry speaking of trusting Assad spoke of how Assad lied to his face on Syria's transporting ScUDS to Hezzbollah. This was at a point that Obama was reaching out to Assad and trust needed to be built on both sides. It was also soon after Charlie Rose's interview with Assad - where he obviously lied.
I understand why people here desperately wanted to believe Assad. They do not want war. I don't think Obama or Kerry do either, but they both think there is a need to have some response to the use of chemical weapons. I do get people who say that others did bad things and we did not act - but to me, that is like a kid who broke a rule in class yelled that previously other kids broke rules and it is unfair. However, looked at objectively - control was needed.
I really do not think Kerry did not think before he spoke in London, There was no better way to answer the questions. All other responses are either dreadfully weak or real gaffes. Saying "I don't know, only Obama could answer that, or refusing the question all would be unseemly for a man who was charged with diplomacy and bringing in EU - it was an obvious question the people he was meeting with could ask and they deserved a real answer in the private meetings. To say "nothing" meant they were no giving diplomacy a chance - something against Kerry's entire foreign policy vision; to say "Assad could step down" would be a real gaffe - as that was specifically not the goal. As to his pessimistic view that it likely could not, would not happen - that seems to reflect the true situation at that point in time - it was only within the week before that this was even getting any traction.
If you think of it, this is jostling for position in the negotiations. Russia wants to be seen as the serious good guy working for the overall good of the world, the US wants to be seen as an advocate of an "international norm" and Assad in his comments wants to be seen as a good guy voluntarily giving up his weapons. All are not 100% true. The US and Russia both have not been innocent with regards to the mess in Syria. (I am really disturbed that we raised the expectations of the rebels and supported them in some way for at least 4 years or so. I not like this when Carter supported the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan or Reagan supported the Contras. )
This will affect how strong we will be in the negotiations. Note that BOTH Lavrov and Kerry have suggested that the chemical weapon issue resolution be followed by the Geneva 2 negotiations that Kerry and Lavrov called for reviving earlier this year. Listen to the last question on this goodle hang out - http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/09/announcing-a-live-google-hangout-with-john-kerry/?_r=1 (If limited for time start at 30 minutes in when the second to last question is asked because it to some degree informs the last question. ) These are high stakes.
If you watch the google hangout - Kerry does unambiguously say that this is a better solution than a strike. Here, I suspect that he is doing just what he says - working to insure that this does not become a game that extends for months into years -- and in the end - Syria could still have chemical weapons.
= new reply since forum marked as read