IT remains to be seen whether the agreement on Syria’s chemical weapons will pave the way for an end to the 30 months of civil war in that country. As always, the UN acted only after America and Russia had clinched a deal. Passed on Friday by the Security Council, the binding resolution calling for the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons doesn’t provide for punitive action if the Damascus government fails to cooperate. But it has two legally binding clauses that require the Bashar al-Assad government to abandon its chemical weapons and give UN experts unfettered access to its WMDs. The UN motion followed a resolution by The Hague-based Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which called for “an accelerated programme” for destroying Syria’s chemical arms by the middle of next year, with inspections to begin this month. Syria will obviously oblige because Russia — its major supporter — said the success of the resolution depended on the Baathist government’s cooperation. But Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov also asked Syrian rebels to cooperate. Meanwhile, the OPCW executive committee will meet in November to lay down a timetable for the weapons’ destruction so that the matter is not left open-ended and decisive action is taken, regardless of which party is using these deadly arms.

The Syrian deal must also be seen in the context of what countries can pull off if they work together on a problem — despite their differing views on how to achieve a durable solution. Before the UN Security Council adopted the unanimous resolution on Syria’s chemical weapons, the threat of war had loomed large. While it has not entirely vanished even now, conflict in the immediate future has been averted. Can the consensus achieved by the international powers be taken further to persuade Syria’s warring sides to lay down their arms and approach the negotiating table? For the sake of ending the miseries of the Syrian people and avoiding a larger conflagration in the region, this is the best option.