Breaking Headline

What can we expect from an OPCW investigation in Syria?

Published April 12th, 2018 - 12:40 GMT
A Syrian man and girl flee following a reported government air strike on the rebel-controlled town of Hamouria. (AFP/ File Photo)
A Syrian man and girl flee following a reported government air strike on the rebel-controlled town of Hamouria. (AFP/ File Photo)

Eleanor Beevor

Saturday’s
dual strikes on Douma in Eastern Ghouta has seen at least forty-two people killed and five hundred admitted to hospital with symptoms consistent with “exposure to toxic chemicals” according to the World Health Organization.

It has also brought the world to the cliff-edge of intervention in Syria - indeed the closest it has been since the devastating Sarin attacks of August 2013, attributed to the Syrian government, which killed several hundred people.

President Trump is overtly planning a military response against Bashar al-Assad, alongside French President Emmanuel Macron. UK Prime Minister Theresa May is also reportedly seeking approval from an emergency “War Cabinet” meeting with senior ministers to strike Syrian chemical weapons infrastructure, and British submarines may even be approaching to within striking distance of Syria.

However, many politicians are still wary of striking Syrian targets. In the UK, opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn has said that parliament must be given a vote prior to any military strike, and that any action must wait for the results of an inquiry “into the source and usage of chemical weapons”.

In this sentiment he is joined by a number of MPs on both sides of the aisle. Similar uncertainty is also present among some French and American politicians, with memories of Iraq still fresh.

That is, despite the determined signals from Trump, and his support from Macron and May, there is still pressure to wait for the results of new investigations by the United Nations and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

Even if initial strikes go ahead before the results are out, the depth and longer-term strategy of intervention may be affected by these findings. So what can we expect from this investigation?

© ANP/AFP/File / by Jan HENNOP | Western powers are demanding that Russia make a "full and complete" disclosure of its Novichok programme at the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in The Hague


Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons: 'Fact-Finding' in Douma

The OPCW is an independent organisation that has worked in partnership with the UN to investigate chemical weapons attacks, and to destroy stockpiles of such weapons. But it is now facing a serious challenge. Russia and Syria
offered on Sunday to take OPCW inspectors to Ghouta. It appears that rung alarm bells among western allies on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).

The UNSC tabled a resolution on Tuesday night to establish an independent body to investigate responsibility for the Douma attack, which would have guaranteed access to the areas of Douma where the attack occurred.

Russia used its veto power to block the motion. In the meantime, the OPCW announced that it would be undertaking a fact-finding mission to Douma, and that it has asked Syria to “make the arrangements”. It is unclear whether this is a formal acceptance of the offer of Russian protection, or how closely it will be working alongside the Russian and Syrian governments.

Now, however, the OPCW has the exceedingly difficult task of navigating a political minefield in which accusations of falsity abound. And it is unlikely that they will be able to operate free from Russian and Syrian influence whilst on the ground in Douma. Dr Samir Puri, a lecturer in war studies at King’s College London, told Al Bawaba:

“The OPCW is, like any international verification body, constrained by the permissibility of the environment.  And when that environment is an intense, bitter and confusing civil war, one can only imagine how hard it is to organise a verification mission.  Wartime verification, of whatever kind, will always be reliant on the dominant conflict parties, not least to invite the inspectors in and to safeguard them. 

The OPCW is an independent body that reports to the UN. As such, it should have the benefit of a degree of distance from politics. But regarding Syria, a conflict over which the pride of the great powers is now very much at stake, the impartiality of the OPCW is about to be stretched to its limits. In short, it will maybe be able to provide factual and dry evidence as to the substance used, but it will not assign guilt.”


Russia & Nerve Gas Production in Syria

Russia’s current show of cooperation with the OPCW investigation is sharply contradicting its stance from a few months ago. The OPCW’s investigating arm in Syria, the Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM), had an extension to its mandate blocked by Russia in November 2017. This was just after the JIM produced its report concluding that the Syrian government was behind the Khan Sheikhoun attack in April 2017.

Meanwhile, a number of other chemical attacks have been ongoing – two more were reported in Ghouta in March.

A further risk lies in a potential crisis of faith about international efforts to prevent chemical weapons. After the horrific Sarin gas attack in 2013, Syria acceded to the Chemical Weapons Convention and declared a number of stocks to the OPCW, who then went in to extract and destroy those stocks. The OPCW was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for this work. But given recent events, faith in the OPCW’s capacity to eliminate these stocks may be shaken.

 

In 2013 the head of the OPCW, Director General Ahmet Uzumcu (above) accepted the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo. 


However, Alicia Sanders-Zakre of the Arms Control Association in Washington D.C. insists that this should not be taken to mean that the OPCW is ineffective. Speaking to Al Bawaba, she said:

“As a result of the 2013 agreement, roughly 1,300 tons of chemical weapons were removed from Syria, a remarkable accomplishment. The 2013-2014 OPCW-UN removal operation was a resounding success"

It is the Russian government and the Syrian government which have failed to live up to their obligations under the CWC.

Ongoing chemical weapons attacks in Syria, four of which the UN-OPCW joint investigative team attributed to the Assad government, indicate that Syria likely did not declare its entire stockpile to the OPCW in 2013, or has retained a small nerve gas production capacity, and has reverted to using chlorine, which is a dual use chemical, as a weapon. It is critical that the international community pursue diplomatic efforts to investigate those responsible for chemical weapons use in Syria and hold them accountable for these illegal and egregious actions.”

 

But Ms. Sanders-Zakre fears that ongoing Russian vetoes against attempts to establish responsibility for chemical attacks will ultimately erode the international community’s ability to prevent them. She continued:

“On April 10th, Russia vetoed yet another UN Security Council resolution that would have created a UN Independent Mechanism of Investigation with a one-year mandate to identify perpetrators of chemical weapons attacks in Syria.

This is the sixth resolution that Russia has vetoed that specifically sought to restore accountability to chemical weapons users in Syria. Russia’s actions present a threat to the legitimacy of international efforts to prevent the use of chemical weapons and they must stop. Russia, along with the international community must respect the autonomy of the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission investigation as well as its conclusions, and seek to reinstate investigations to determine the responsible actor for chemical weapons attacks in Syria.”

Still, a combination of fears for the OPCW’s capacity, and an unwillingness to wait for it to release its findings appears to be taking hold in Washington. Heather Nauert, a State Department spokeswoman announced on April 10th that the U.S. has its “own intelligence’ and “knows chemical weapons were used”.

She did not question the impartiality of OPCW, but indicated that was ready to use its own intelligence gathering mechanisms. (There are reports of attempts, possibly by U.S. forces, to smuggle out the corpses of people killed in the attack in order to ascertain evidence.)

For now, it appears that political faith in the OPCW’s investigation is limited. The findings should still be taken seriously. But at the moment, perhaps calls to wait for the results of their fact-finding mission tell us as much about the political appetite for intervention as they do about confidence in the OPCW’s findings.

You may also like

Subscribe

Sign up to our newsletter for exclusive updates and enhanced content