Disarmament is crucial to reach peace. Individuals should discuss and negotiate issues instead of using weapons to express their divergences. Nominating the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) is contentment: those types of organizations are vital to initiate dialogue instead of using chemicals weapon to defend one’s nation.
Indeed, in the case of Syria, the OPCW has put a lot of energy to destroy chemicals weapons. I believe that although they won a battle, there is still a long way to go before peace is achieved. Countries such as the United States of America and Russia have not met the deadline in destroying their chemicals. I think it is ironic that the United States Government is offering aid to destroy Syria’s’ chemicals weapons, while they are supposedly producing chemical weapons themselves. I think that instead of allowing the United States Government to destroy Syria’s chemical weapons, the OPCW should have picked another country, which has met the deadline and who is not a biased position in the case of the Syrian government, to destroy their chemical weapons.
Although the U.S. Government proposition to destroy chemical weapons might be genuine, United States’ policies in regards to chemical weapons are unpredictable and debatable. The United States Army should not intervene with Syria based on the fact that Syria is producing weaponry like the United States. The U.S. Army’s intervention should be based on other arguments. The United States Congress has never called on Israel, who has not ratified the chemical weapon convention, to disarm their armories of chemical weapons.
In that case, although the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons is pursing a great vision, the organization should try to stay impartial.