THE world can now breathe a sigh of relief as the Syrian chemicals weapons issue appears to be headed for a peaceful resolution with the proposed military strike advanced by the U.S. and its western allies being averted, thereby preventing another military adventure and tragedy.

Thanks to a proposal by Russia to have chemical weapons possessed by the Syrian government brought under international control, all parties involved in the resolution of the problem have now agreed to negotiate a peaceful solution.
However, an interesting development in the current scenario has arisen. That is, Syria has provided material evidence to Russia that rebels carried out a chemical attack on August 21. This is according to Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister, Sergei Ryabkov, on a visit to Syria.

Russia will show the U.N. Security Council evidence it has received from Syria’s government pointing to the use of chemical weapons by rebels in the Damascus suburbs, Russian news agencies quoted Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov as saying on Wednesday.
Lavrov, who has said a report by U.N. investigators did not dispel Russia’s suspicions that rebels were behind an August 21 poison gas attack, spoke after one of his deputies was given unspecified evidence by the government while visiting Syria.
“We will present all this in the U.N. Security Council, of course,” Interfax quoted Lavrov as saying.
This revelation is not surprising, because this was one of the possibilities as it was suspected all along that the rebels, who were losing ground, could have used chemical weapons in order to provoke a US military strike.
And maybe the U.S. knew this and that is why it insisted on a military strike even though the UN inspectors did not complete their job.
However, those who advocated that any decision on a military strike should await the findings of the UN inspectors have been vindicated.
What is very important is that the Syrian government has agreed to have its chemical weapons brought under international control. This was a crucial factor in bringing about a peaceful settlement to the issue.
But from the tones emanating from the United States, it does not seem happy that the military strike option is now forced to the back burner because earlier it seemed determined to go ahead with its strikes, offering that it had evidence that the Syrian government used chemical weapons.
One US diplomat here told this newspaper that the U.S. has “reams of evidence” which it provided to the international community. However, so far none of this evidence has been made public and therefore doubts linger as to whether this was not a trumped-up case that was made to justify a military strike.
What is clear from the Syrian crisis is that peaceful resolution of conflicts should be fully exhausted before any thought of military options is contemplated, because in reality, such a course in many cases only aggravates and increases the complexities of the existing problems, and, of course, military action results in destruction of lives, property and immeasurable and untold suffering and agony.