Statement by First Deputy Permanent Representative Dmitry Polyanskiy at UNSC briefing on the progress of resolution 2118 (Syria CW)
We thank Ms.Nakamitsu for the report.
We hoped we would have OPCW Director-General Fernando Arias as briefer today. It has been 8 months since he last addressed the Council, during which time he was re-elected for a second term. We would want for him to share how he plans to improve the outrageous situation at the OPCW that was caused by politicizing of the work of the Organization. We extended an invitation to DG Arias to participate in this meeting, but he rejected it citing his very busy schedule. We deeply regret that OPCW Director-General was not able to carve out some time to speak to the Security Council of the United Nations. This is already a second time that such thing happens.
We had a similar situation in May last year. Most surprisingly, when it comes to other platforms, DG Arias makes the time to attend. For example, on 22 February he took part in a workshop of the Washington Arms Control Association, where he again afforded making manifestly politicized assessments. But what regards the detailed questions that we asked, he preferred to not respond to them.
DG Arias also opened a meeting of Open-Ended Working Group on issues of chemical terrorism that was held on 22 February and dedicated to the 99th session of the OPCW Executive Council. We noticed that the Note by Director-General “Status of the OPCW's Contribution to Global Anti-Terrorism Efforts” for some reason again did dot mention that ISIL had a full-fledged military-chemical program – the conclusion that was made in the 7th report of the United Nations Investigative Team to Promote Accountability for Crimes Committed by Da’esh/ISIL (UNITAD).
To us it is hard to understand why the OPCW again leaves behind such an important aspect.
The OPCW Technical Secretariat has had relevant data on that matter since September 2021, however neither the mentioned Note by the Director-General, nor sessions of OPCW governing bodies brought this to the notice of states-parties.
In the meantime, threat of possible use of chemical weapons by terrorists is still there, to our deepest regret. As lately as 26 February 2022, Russian Ministry of Defense reported that militants from “Jabhat al-Nusra” delivered tanks with poisoning agents, presumably chlorine, to Syrian Idlib. One of the cylinders was mishandled and seriously damaged in transit, which resulted in approximately ten terrorists sustaining skin and airway burns by the chemical agent.
Unfortunately, there is but little chance that we can rely on the Technical Secretariat. Suffice it to recall the notorious report (on the 2018 Douma incident) of the Fact-Finding Mission in Syria. Its final version was largely doctored as compared to the initial one to make the report more anti-Syrian, which was done under pressure exerted by some organizations. There are numerous sources that confirm this, including former OPCW experts who were directly involved in the investigation. Simply stated, the report was forged. But apparently, leadership of the Technical Secretariat is not going to rectify its mistakes, despite the calls of UN member states and broader international community.
The activity of the Illegitimate Investigation and Identification Team runs in the same vein, whereas the IIT itself was created once a corresponding decision was pushed through the OPCW Executive Council in violation of the principle of consensus and Article XV of the CWC. The IIT final products do not stand up to criticism due to their technical ignorance, to say nothing of factual falsity and political bias.
Speaking about the methods, IIT, as well as the FFM, violates the Chemical Weapons Convention as far as its principles of investigations, first of all those applying to collection and secure preservation of evidence. “Backdated investigations” cannot be accurate, because it is extremely hard to restore the chain of events many years after they happened. By far, it cannot be done remotely, on the basis of evidence from some odd sources.
We believe that the IIT pursues a goal, which is not to establish true course of events, but to make the content fit the conclusion about the guilt of Damascus, i.e. fulfil a political order. That is why we reject the conclusions of the existing IIT reports, and we will also reject any products the IIT might come up with in the future.
Biased conclusions of the IIT became the basis for the punitive decision to incapacitate Syria at the OPCW on a far-fetched pretext. It was the first time such a step was taken with regard to a sovereign state which complied with the CWC faithfully. Western delegations pushed this decision through the Conference of States-parties to the CWC in violation of the norms of the Convention and the principle of consensus.
Nevertheless, the government of Syria does not refuse to have dialogue with OPCW. But here again, the Technical Secretariat applies double standards when it comes to closing the outstanding issues under Syria’s initial declaration. Damascus fulfilled faithfully all its obligations, even though Syria had joined the CWC amidst very complicated circumstances of military and political instability and a terrorist threat that was fueled from the outside. And still, Damascus is confronted with unreasonably tough requirements, while the commotion around this episode is maintained artificially.
What other explanation can we find as to why another report by the OPCW Director-General on implementation of UNSC resolution 2118 keeps repeating the elements that we have seen before and that cannot withstand even a moment’s scrutiny? Perhaps DG Arias could reassure us, but alas, he would rather not turn up at the Security Council, even though it risks to undermine his reputation and the authority of the OPCW, one of the major pillars of WMD non-proliferation regime.
In conclusion, let me stress that we need to cut the number of Security Council meetings on Syria. Hopefully, we will soon get back to this issue.
Thank you.
