UK: Syria weapons deal must identify, secure all arms

LONDON Thu Sep 12, 2013 7:20am EDT

British Foreign Secretary William Hague addresses a media conference in Cape Town, September 10, 2013. REUTERS/Mike Hutchings

British Foreign Secretary William Hague addresses a media conference in Cape Town, September 10, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Mike Hutchings

Related Topics

LONDON (Reuters) - British Foreign Secretary William Hague said on Thursday any deal to place Syria's chemical weapons under international control had to be enforceable and ensure the arsenal did not fall into the wrong hands.

"The United Kingdom will make every effort to negotiate an enforceable agreement that credibly, reliably and promptly places the regime's chemical weapons stock under international control for destruction," Hague told parliament.

"We will need to have confidence that all chemical weapons have been identified and secured and that they would not fall into the wrong hands," he added.

Hague was speaking as U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry flew into Geneva to hear Russia's plan to place Syria's chemical weapons under international control, an initiative that has transformed diplomacy over a two-and-a-half year old civil war.

Hague said Britain supported the idea in principle, but warned there would be "immense practical difficulties" in properly implementing such an initiative.

The United States' decision to consider military action against Syria and growing evidence that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was behind a chemical weapons attack helped persuade Russia to change its stance towards its ally in the Middle East, Hague added.

(Reporting by Peter Griffiths; Editing by Andrew Osborn)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see
Comments (6)
Ydnar325 wrote:
That would be ironic, if true. The best way to prevent war ended up being to threaten it? Something tells me this isn’t going to work itself out so neatly though…

Sep 12, 2013 7:34am EDT  --  Report as abuse
digressor wrote:
Didn’t the UK say they wouldn’t invade or attack? So, if Syria doesn’t give up it’s weapons England won’t do anything? What kind of stupid threat is that? Who appointed the UK and the US to decide what a sovereign nation can and cannot do within its own borders, anyway?

Sep 12, 2013 7:52am EDT  --  Report as abuse
victorshultz wrote:
Bush should be taking notes, this is how you handle a murdering dictator. Obama is doing what Bush did minus the 1000′s of us troop deaths, the trillions of dollars added to our debt, and the complete loss of respect from the world.


Sep 12, 2013 8:48am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.