Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov developed a joint strategy to remove Syria's chemical weapons arsenal by "the first half of 2014." The agreement was reached on September 14, 2013, during the third day of their meeting in Geneva.
The following discussion questions, essay questions, in-class activities, homework assignments, and supplementary resources are designed to help educators use the "China's Maritime Disputes" InfoGuide in the classroom.
In a section of this week's "Saturday Essay" in the Wall Street Journal, Steven Cook says that Turkey will continue its current course of action relating to Syria: "supporting factions within the Syrian opposition, providing refugee relief and advocating for international intervention to bring the conflict to an end."
In a section of this week's "Saturday Essay" in the Wall Street Journal, Elizabeth Economy says that China has been critical of the United States' Syria policy, hoping to highlight U.S. weakness and signal the onset of a power transition in the international system. However, she argues, China's observations about U.S. indecisiveness and Russian leadership only serve to emphasize China's inability to find its own diplomatic legs.
Russia is more concerned with guarding its strategic interests in Syria than sustaining the rule of Assad, who eventually may overburden the Kremlin, says expert Michael Young.
The story of the tragic and often tormented relationship between the United States and Pakistan, and a call to prepare for the worst, aim for the best, and avoid past mistakes.
Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov met in Geneva on September 12, 2013, to discuss the possibility of Syria handing over its chemical weapons to the international community. This approach was proposed as an alternative to a military strike as a response to the August 21 chemical weapons attack in Damascus.
Sarin, one of the world's most lethal chemical weapons, has long been stockpiled but is rarely used by states or terrorists. Allegations of attacks on civilians in Syria, if substantiated, would represent a departure from longstanding international practice, this Backgrounder explains.
In his testimony before the House Committee on Homeland Security, Stephen Biddle acknowledges that neither the case for nor against using force in Syria is without serious costs and risks. He evaluates the five main goals an attack might be designed to achieve: deterring further CW use and upholding norms against the employment of such weapons; preserving U.S. credibility; enabling a negotiated settlement to the war; toppling Assad and his government; and ending the humanitarian crisis by saving civilian lives.
President Obama spoke to the American public on September 10, 2013, about the U.S. government's response to the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons. He requested Congress to delay its vote on the proposed military strike, in order to address Russia's proposal of Syria handing over chemical weapons to the international community.
Jonathan Tepperman examines six of the last major U.S. military operations—the Gulf War, Haiti, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, and "highlights a few basic principles that should give the Obama administration confidence to forge ahead on Syria today."
Asked by Josh Wartel, from Lake Braddock Secondary School
There is almost never a time when people do not worry about war between major powers. The history here is not a happy one. But there are good reasons to expect a better outcome in the 21st century—as long as both sides are alert and careful.
On the margins of the G20 meeting in St. Petersburg, September 5-6, 2013, leaders from Australia, Canada, France, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States of America released a joint statement condemning the use of chemical weapons in Syria.
President Obama spoke at a Press Conference during the G20 Summit in St. Petersburg on September 6, 2013. He discussed the state of the global economy and international response to Syria.
The United States should cripple the Syrian government's ability to kill masses of its own people and openly intensify its support to opposition forces, says expert Frederic C. Hof.
On September 4, 2013, the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations debated the resolution: "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against the Government of Syria to Respond to Use of Chemical Weapons."
Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, Secretary of State John Kerry, and General Martin Dempsey testified before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on September 3, 2013, regarding options for U.S. military operations in Syria.
The Council on Foreign Relations' David Rockefeller Studies Program—CFR's "think tank"—is home to more than seventy full-time, adjunct, and visiting scholars and practitioners (called "fellows"). Their expertise covers the world's major regions as well as the critical issues shaping today's global agenda. Download the printable CFR Experts Guide.
Special operations play a critical role in how the United States confronts irregular threats, but to have long-term strategic impact, the author argues, numerous shortfalls must be addressed.
The author analyzes the potentially serious consequences, both at home and abroad, of a lightly overseen drone program and makes recommendations for improving its governance.
An authoritative and accessible look at what countries must do to build durable and prosperous democracies—and what the United States and others can do to help. More
Through an in-depth analysis of modern Mexico, Shannon O'Neil provides a roadmap for the United States' greatest overlooked foreign policy challenge of our time—relations with its southern neighbor. More