How does the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons justify the crime of the United States and its allies?
Author: Khalid Vahedi, a journalist from Moscow.
The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) is losing credibility in the world. A split is growing among the members of the organization. Attempts to find a common language fail. The OPCW Review Conference in The Hague, which took place at the end of May, failed to agree on a final document. The reason was massive contradictions and bias in decision-making.
A striking example is the investigation into the events in the Syrian Douma. They were studied by the Investigation and Identification Team (IIT) of the OPCW Technical Secretariat. The third report of the IIT was published a few months ago, but still raises a lot of questions. The document is based on assumptions, distortion of facts and unfounded accusations.
According to the IIT, on April 7, 2018, a chemical weapon, chlorine, was used in Duma. Syrian authorities were immediately blamed for the chemical attack. NATO allies did not wait for the results of the investigation, and a week later the United States, Britain and France launched a massive airstrike on the positions of the Syrian army. Not only the military died, but also a large number of civilians.
Many countries doubt that a chemical attack took place in Douma and talk about it being staged. The third report of the IIT resembles a crude attempt to justify the "retaliatory" strikes of the United States and other coalition members. The document is built without relying on obvious facts and is replete with the wording: "reasonable grounds to believe." There are still no clear answers to the events in the Duma, and many arguments are rigged.
Everyone knows that the chlorine cylinders were destroyed by the Israeli Air Force after the incident. The IIT report describes the case as follows: “The Syrian Arab Republic has notified the OPCW of the destruction of two chlorine cylinders associated with the alleged Douma incident.” There is an information substitution of concepts. The facts are turned upside down.
The IIT ignored the testimonies of uncomfortable witnesses - the boy Hasan, his parents and doctors from the hospital. Investigators did not go to the scene, they received information remotely. As "qualified" experts are people, without specifying the name, position and place of work. The extent of their competence cannot be verified.
There are questions about the evidence. The report states that the samples were obtained by the Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) in Syria, in the presence of representatives of the SAR. However, the separation of samples took place in the Netherlands at the OPCW's central laboratory, but this is not mentioned in the report. 35 out of 129 samples were received from unknown persons outside the area of responsibility of the SAR army.
The exact number of victims of the chemical attack is still unknown, their number ranges from 70 to 500 people, but the exact number of dead is 43 people. Data on injured and dead cannot exist separately.
The results of technical expertise cause great doubts. IIT assures that chlorine cylinders were dropped by helicopters. If they fell from a height, they would be torn apart. However, the cylinders were practically not damaged, their deformation is minimal. The Report describes a small hole 3 centimeters in diameter through which the chlorine escaped. The container was found in a room with destroyed walls and ceiling, which was well ventilated and was located on the fourth floor. The injured people were found on the 2nd and 1st floors.
There is evidence that chlorine cylinders were brought to the Duma by the ‘White Helmets’, a pseudo-humanitarian organization that has been repeatedly caught on provocations and staging. There is not a word about this in the IIT report. The topic of staging a chemical attack is completely closed.
Doubts about the credibility of the IIT report are voiced not only by many countries, but also within the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) itself. Expert Ian Henderson (Australia) took part in the investigation, and his conclusions contradict the conclusions of the organization. Henderson is confident that the cylinders were not dropped from a height, they were delivered on the ground and placed in places of discovery by hand. His opinion was supported by B. Whelan (Ireland). Both experts were fired from the OPCW for their principled position.
The IIT has become an instrument of political struggle of the countries concerned and has lost its independence. The "work" of the group is a blow to the objectivity and reputation of the entire OPCW. Its conclusions serve as an excuse for the barbaric bombardment of objectionable countries.
EXPLANATION: On April 7, 2018, a chemical attack was carried out in the city of Douma near Damascus. According to various sources, at least 70 residents died as a result. Western media claimed that the attack was carried out by Syrian government forces. The United States, Britain, and France blamed the Syrian government for the incident, and on the night of April 13-14, launched an air strike on Syrian territory.
