New Group on Investigating Chemical Attacks in Syria. What do we know about secret OPCW Unit?
Ahmed Saad
New Group on Investigating Chemical Attacks in Syria. What do we know about secret OPCW Unit?
On September 22, 2021, the Czech Republic government granted about € 40,000 to the Trusted Fund for Syrian Missions at the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). The fund is financing the work of various OPCW units, including the Declaration Assessment Team, the Fact-Finding Mission, and the Investigation and Identification Team (IIT). If the first departments operate within the legal OPCW framework, the situation with IIT is quite suspicious and unclear.
The OPCW Director-General established the unit on March 7, 2019. The IIT is responsible for identifying individuals in the use of chemical weapons in Syria by identifying or reporting on all evidence and information concerning the origin of such chemical weapons. The IIT is also carrying out this activity in cases when the OPCW’s Fact-Finding Mission determines the use or likely use of chemical weapons.
However, according to its mandate, the IIT is not a judicial body, and it is not authorized to collect evidence in the same way as the prosecutor’s offices, courts, and tribunals do. It also doesn’t have a right to establish individual criminal responsibility and draw conclusions concerning non-compliance with the Convention. The IIT mandate is limited to the formation of factual findings. The OPCW policy-making bodies and the United Nations should deal with compliance with obligations by other states.
During its existence, the Team has released two reports on chemical attacks in al-Lataminah and Saraqib. It is necessary to point out many inconsistencies and differences that raise doubts about its reliability and integrity despite the large amount and apparent scrupulousness of the documents. First, the IIT experts rushed to place responsibility for the chemical attack on Bashar Assad and his governmental forces. They are basing only on the information provided by opposition sources, including the Center for Advanced Defense Studies, Chemical Violations Documentation Center of Syria, Human Rights Watch, and the White Helmets. The last one has repeatedly been caught spreading staged videos and photos.
At the same time, the IIT specialists didn’t take into consideration information provided by the Syrian Arab Republic. They referred to the fact that they “made several good faith approaches to the Syrian authorities to present its views and requested information about the domestic investigation” but got rejected. Damascus repeatedly sent official requests to OPCW to take the available investigation information, proving the involvement of militants in the incident with the use of chemical weapons. However, it was ignored.
Notably, the IIT experts came to the same conclusions. They were alerted to allegations that certain persons and States staged incidents of chemical weapons use, and the nationals of various other states provided support to different radical groups. Unfortunately, it is unclear why has this version been denied?
Second, the IIT specialists conducted the investigation remotely and didn’t get to the scene of the incidents. They also reported that because of ongoing conflict, access to certain Syrian districts was not possible, and most of their materials and evidence were taken by other entities.
It’s worth considering that, according to Chemical Weapons Convention Part XI, describing the basis of investigating the case of chemical weapons use, the inspection team has to be dispatched within 24 hours to the place of incident. Moreover, the OPCW expert must attend while gathering evidence that is impossible when conducting a remote investigation.
It is obvious that it is easy to forge and falsify such material evidence and then make an indictment.
There is also no information about the persons involved in conducting investigations and compiling the IIT reports, which raises doubts and questions about their competence and qualification. The mythology that IIT followed while conducting the investigation is also not uncovered. Any scientific research always describes both ways and methods, considers several scenarios at once and models several strategies.
It is striking, the report’s authors often use phrases like “there is a reason to believe” and “probably” that in some way shift responsibility from IIT for the reliability of the information and leads people to believe inaccuracy of their information.
In fact, with the help of the OPCW, some Western countries have created another tool to defend their interests in the Middle East. It is artificially endowed with the status of formality and impartiality, but in fact, it is not.
Thus, the IIT, whose duty is to identify those responsible for chemical weapons use incidents, forms its conclusions based on dubious data that can be easily fabricated. Even if we do not consider the version of the Syrian side, which is interested in promoting its facts, there are at least two more working versions of events. But even they are deliberately hushed up and not investigated. They do it to get another tranche of money from their patrons to continue conducting illegal and provocative activities. Otherwise, how would the OPCW Trust Fund in Syria be refilled?