Statement by Ambassador Vassily A. Nebenzia, Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations, at the Security Council meeting on the chemical demilitarization of Syria
We thank Ms. Izumi Nakamitsu for her briefing.
The tenor of the discussion in the Security Council on the topic of the chemical demilitarization of Syria does not align with the actual state of affairs and derives from the persistent anti-Damascus attitudes of Western members of the Council.
The Syrian military chemical potential was destroyed some time ago under the monitoring of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). The organization in The Hague also confirmed the destruction of the last declared production facilities, in accordance with the Convention on the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction (CWC).
We agree with the Secretary-General that that was an important step towards the implementation of resolution 2118 (2013). Gaps and inconsistencies in the Syrian declaration are attributable to the fact that it was submitted under the pressure of time constraints, against the backdrop of an acute armed conflict. Subsequently, clarifications were made in full compliance with CWC rules.
Some issues can no longer be clarified, given the number of years that have elapsed and must be put to rest. With regard to other issues, the Government of Syria has provided the OPCW in good faith with available information, and such interaction is the only way to resolve remaining misunderstandings. There is no foundation to allegations that Damascus allegedly retained elements from stocks of toxic substances. That is pure propaganda. Suffice it to recall that OPCW experts have inspected the research centre in Barzah very thoroughly on two occasions and found no trace of toxic substances.
In April, that facility was destroyed by missile strikes by the United States, the United Kingdom and France under the pretext that it was allegedly producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, but no chemical traces were emitted during the attack. That clearly indicates a large-scale international deception on the part of the participants in the aggression, of a kind with the shameful adventure concerning Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. By the way, for some reason OPCW officials are embarrassed to mention the fact that the centre’s destruction was caused by the bombing. A characteristic feature of the conflict in Syria has been the provocation of militants from illegal armed entities through their use of toxic chemicals.
For five years, the same primitive machinations have been used by international elements to discredit the authorities in Damascus and justify subsequent acts of aggression against Syria. Assistance in staging events to provoke an appropriate response is provided by the supposed rescuers, the White Helmets, who are living off Western money. They even use children in staging such events. Following the incident in Douma, this scheme was revealed when we managed to track down participants filming events, and they recounted everything at The Hague.
At present, a new wave of severe threats is being unleashed against Syria. The alleged intention of the Syrian Government to use chemical weapons in Idlib has been presented as fact. Agatha Christie’s novel A Murder is Announced, in which the crime to be committed — including its time and place — is reported in the newspaper, comes to mind. The expectations of those who are curious and visit the address published by the newspaer are not disappointed.
Contemporary prophets do not bother explaining why Damascus needs to poison its civilian population with gas in an environment in which Syria has already been bombed twice, and new acts of aggression are being hatched. Do others really believe that Damascus has called on them to do that? Do they really think that the whole world blindly believes those stories? Damascus has no chemical weapons and no plans to use them. We consider such warnings to be invitations to terrorists to stage a new chemical attack and accuse the Syrian authorities of it. The Syrian authorities do not need to do that, but it is key for terrorists, since it is a sure way to provoke an act of aggression against Damascus.
We know for certain, and we have provided the relevant information to the OPCW, that toxic chemicals and equipment for provocation were brought via complicated routes into the territory not controlled by the Syrian authorities; that militants were specially trained by Western special services; that the White Helmets and their allies are already present in Idlib; and that dozens of children in the province have been kidnapped. At the same time, the military presence of key Western countries is demonstratively growing near Syria, and their officials are making aggressive statements.
We spoke about that at a meeting of the Security Council on 28 August (see S/PV.8332). In that regard, we have a concrete proposal for our American colleagues, namely, that they should provide the list of targets that the Pentagon has reportedly identified for possible strikes of the troika. If the United States believes that they are related to the stockpiling and use of chemical weapons, then it must demonstrate its respect for the Charter of the United Nations and international law and inform the OPCW so that it can conduct chemical inspections pursuant to the Chemical Weapons Convention. Since the United States unreservedly believes in the authority and impartiality of the OPCW Fact-finding Mission, its expertise should allay any suspicions. I would like to say a few words about the OPCW. We expect that the new Director-General of the OPCW, Mr. Arias González, will be able to restore the work of the organization to its normal pathway.
After numerous remote investigations, its authority has suffered a serious blow. The OPCW was further undermined by the decision that a division of the Technical Secretariat would identify those responsible for the use of chemical weapons, which was pushed through by a minority of member States. That was not legitimate because it is not in line with the goals of the Chemical Weapons Convention, and Russia does not recognize it. The sole purpose of that initiative is the purely political aim of undermining Syria and Russia internationally. That was made clear in the parliamentary statement delivered on 5 September by British Prime Minister Theresa May on the Salisbury-Amesbury incident. Let us remember that pursuing such provoscation will lead only to a new exacerbation of tension in the Near East, which has already been heightened due to the policy carried out be Western countries, resulting in disunity. It is not just a matter of instability, but also of serious military conflicts that claim many innocent victims.
It is hardly likely that the West’s regional allies will benefit from that. There was a point in time when questionable geopolitical games led to the proliferation of terrorism. Today, as a result of similar ventures, we are witnessing a surge in chemical terrorism. It is worth noting that the role of those countries in achieving a political settlement in Syria, about which they speak so fervently, is not very high-profile. We highly recommend that they cease hostilities and join in the efforts for peace.
