Statement by First Deputy Permanent Representative Dmitry Polyanskiy at an open VTC of UNSC members on the implementation of resolution 2118
Mr. President,
Distinguished colleagues,
First of all, let me say how disappointed we are to be having this meeting in a VTC format again. We are deeply convinced that nothing prevents us from getting back to in-person meetings. The best location for that is the Security Council chamber, which meets all social distancing requirements related to the coronavirus pandemic. This would send an important and much-anticipated signal to the global community. We kindly request the Chinese Presidency to take immediate steps so that we could resume our traditional forms and methods of work.
Colleagues,
Unfortunately, what we predicted at the previous meeting on this agenda item came true. At its 25th session that convened in April, the Conference of OPCW States Parties (CSP), adopted the decision (inspired by Western delegations) to incapacitate the Syrian Arab Republic in the Organization. To achieve this, our Western colleagues yet again violated the CWC norms and OPCW’s longstanding practice of consensus. This draft decision was presented to the Conference of the States Parties and put to vote there without prior consideration in the Executive Council as is required by the Chemical Weapons Convention. Our Western colleagues are already boasting about the statistics, as we just heard the representative of the United States do, but in fact less than a half of OPCW States Parties voted in favor of this document. Speaking about the support for Russia’s position, dear Richard [Mills, Deputy PR of the United States], I would like to underscore that only six members (all of them being Western countries) of the current composition of the Security Council voted in favor of the decision. The others either abstained or voted against. Quite a number of former members of the Council who were present at its discussions of the Syrian chemical file last year and have a good insight in the situation adhered to the same position. As the saying goes, comment is needless.
This was a totally unprecedented decision. It is the first time a sovereign state that faithfully complies with the CWC becomes incapacitated at the OPCW. The authority of the OPCW suffered yet another heavy blow, and the consequences of this reckless step are yet to be realized. Think of the instigators of the anti-Syrian campaign meant to make Syria a rogue at the OPCW. With all this happening, are they planning to conduct “business as usual” with Damascus? Now it has become even clearer what the Western sponsors of this decision are up to. No, they do not want to ensure that no one ever use chemical weapons on the Syrian soil. Their real goal is to provoke Damascus to make rash steps and thus solve their own political tasks.
We have warned that this idea was carefully premeditated. In the course of several years, the work of Technical Secretariat’s inspection teams was paving the way towards this “punitive” decision of the CSP. As we know from the witnesses – former OPCW inspectors, who spoke of that i.a. in the Security Council – the leadership of the Technical Secretariat was doing this under the pressure of Western delegations. As a result, we have got outrageous violations (repeatedly attested by the independent experts) during investigations of incidents in Khan Sheikhoun (April 2017) and Douma (April 2018), a direct falsification of the conclusions of the Fact Finding Mission (FFM) regarding this episode, as well as undisguised oppression and intimidation of the “dissidents” who refused to participate in this forgery.
These intrigues peaked when the Technical Secretariat established the illegitimate Investigation and Identification Team (IIT) thus defying the longstanding norms and practices of the OPCW, first of all the principle of consensus. Just like the FFM, the IIT disregarded principles of investigations, first of all those pertaining to the collection of evidence and secure preservation of physical evidence, and produced a factually and technically erroneous report, which accuses the Syrian authorities of using chemical weapons on two occasions. This report stands up to no criticism. Nevertheless, the leadership of the Technical Secretariat remains deaf to the opinions of renowned experts about this report (and about the one on Douma as well). And so is the document that constituted a formal reason for the decision to incapacitate Damascus at the OPCW.
Let me draw your attention to another our prediction that also came true. You might remember that since the beginning of 2021 we have been saying that by the time the April session of the CSP began, the IIT would have come up with another propaganda product so as to inflate the anti-Syrian sentiment. This is exactly what happened. Prior to the vote in the Hague, the IIT “threw in” another report – on the incident in Saraqib in February 2018. In order to get an idea of its quality, it would be enough to say that this report repeats all the mistakes that were already “well and truly beaten” in the FFM report on Douma and the first IIT report.
I will give you concrete examples.
Firstly, it ensues from the report that the IIT never visited the scene of the incident. All evidence was collected by the infamous NGO “White Helmets”. What chain of custody can we talk about? Half of the witnesses questioned are from the “White Helmets”.
Secondly, chlorine makes more damage when used massively. During World War I, in order to inflict greater damage on the French army, Germany had to use 180 tons of chlorine. In its Saraqib investigation, the IIT cites the usage of just one (!) cylinder of chlorine, which allegedly caused minor injuries with 12 people, all of whom were let out of hospital within two hours from admission. From the point of view of basic common sense (let alone the military tactic), why would Damascus use chlorine in Saraqib and make itself open to the international criticism, knowing that it would not yield any military or other advantage?
And I am not speaking of other discrepancies here, which may be smaller, but still striking. Suffice it to mention the cylinder, half of which corroded within 12 hours after it hit the ground. We have many questions, and we will provide a detailed account of them once our experts have completed their analysis.
Colleagues,
Let me remind you of the quote from former OPCW Spokesperson M.Luhan that independent journalists Aaron Mate referred to at a Security Council Arria-formula VTC on 16 April 2021. Mr.Mate cited Mr.Luhan say in 2013 that the Organization would never test samples to have been gathered by anyone other than OPCW experts in the field. What do we see today? The Technical Secretariat openly violates its own principles and does not shy away from confirming it in a report. How then can we trust its work at all?
As if it all was not enough, the new IIT report contains an element which goes beyond all conceivable limits. In one of its paragraphs, the report says that one of the most probable motives for launching a chlorine airstrike was “a ‘punishment’ for the downing of the Russian aircraft SU-25". The IIT makes this conclusion referring to an anonymous “military expert”. We expect the leadership of the OPCW to provide exhaustive explanation of why the Technical Secretariat which is said to deal with purely technical analysis, would make such a demonstrative step out of its mandate to engage in unabashed speculations.
It would only be logical if this and many other questions that we asked in December 2020 and that received no response were answered by the head of the OPCW – Director-General Arias himself. By the way, plans for this VTC envisaged his participation, but he declined on the pretext of being “busy”. In light of this, I would kindly request the upcoming Estonian Presidency to send to Mr.Arias an invitation to the next discussion of resolution 2118 in June well in advance, and pick such a date which would fit into his schedule.
In the absence of DG Arias, I would kindly request Ms.Nakamitsu to address the issue I raised.
Mr. President,
We cannot let the OPCW or any other specialized international platform turn into a tool to “punish the unwanted” via throwing baseless accusations of WMD usage. Any state can end up in Syria’s place if Western colleagues decide to use the “chemical leverage” against them. Suffice it to look into the recent report of the US Department of State on implementing the CWC. The report cites not only Syria, but also Iran, Myanmar, and even China among the “violators”. However, while assuming the role of a judge, our American colleagues do not mention that the country which possesses (and does not hurry to get rid of) the largest CW stockpiles is the US itself. What is happening with Syria is outrageous double standards and unacceptable politicizing of independent mechanisms designed to promote WMD non-proliferation.
Let me stress that Russia, as a responsible OPCW member state, in strongest terms condemns usage of chemical weapons by whoever, wherever, and for whatever purposes. We have supported OPCW since its very founding, which we were part of. That is why we are determined to have all the developments clarified. There have been too many questions. The exposed large-scale violations, first of all with regard to the Douma investigation, call into question the validity of any further conclusions of the TS inspection missions.
Mr. Aaron Mate whom I already mentioned today briefed the Council twice regarding the Douma incident. During our Arria-formula VTC in April he addressed the representatives of the US and the UK asking if they would support the fraud around the FFM report being taken up by the OPCW Scientific Advisory Board with participation of the original team experts. I remind that under para. D (45) of the CWC, the OPCW Director-General is responsible for the activity of this Board. We promised to Aaron that we would repeat his question at a formal UNSC meeting. Hopefully, our colleagues will answer it today.
Colleagues,
In conclusion let me underscore that it would not take too much to improve the current dire situation in the OPCW. It would be enough if its Technical Secretariat dealt with its mandated task, namely – if it controlled the observance of the CWC provisions and carried out professional and unbiased investigations, and if the states parties did not interfere with the TS work. In other words, strict compliance with the CWC would be enough, because its provisions clearly state what I just said.
Observance of the CWC is all Russia is calling for. That is why it is twice as strange to hear our Western colleagues blame us for “shattering and undermining the OPCW authority”. According to their logic, the Organization would harm itself if it observed the Chemical Weapons Convention. Rather twisted logic, isn’t it?
We strive to restore the OPCW’s good name, we seek answers to questions that are relevant to everyone. The Security Council cannot afford being a passive spectator who watches one of the pillars of WMD non-proliferation regime being destroyed by politicizing. Restoring trust in the OPCW and strengthening its authority must be our shared goal. We hope that all sensible members of the Council will support us with that. As for the anti-Syrian decision that was so much promoted by our US colleague – it is a step in the opposite direction.
Thank you.
In response to the representative of the United States:
Mr. President,
I would like to react to the attempt of my American colleague to shift responsibilities. A nice attempt, though unconvincing.
To be frank, when you took the floor, I rejoiced, because I thought you were going to answer to the question I had asked regarding the words of Mr. Aaron Mate, who by the way is your fellow citizen and a competent expert. However you preferred not to answer and instead to cast a shadow (totally unsuccessfully) over my statement.
On the contrary, what you said only proves that you seek to depict the adopted CSP decision as a consensus decision of almost entire global community. I call on you to stop these attempts, because they look unconvincing and pitiful. Yes, the decision formally complied with CWC requirements. But you must understand that apart from being adopted, the decision will need to be implemented. In fact, fewer states supported it, which means there will be problems at the implementation stage. Consensus is not mandatory, but it is a good tradition, and consensus-based decisions are far more likely to be successfully implemented.
Instead of seeking consensus, the United States and the co-sponsors did their best to destroy it. In my statement I mentioned the catches and provocations that were employed to adopt this decision in violation of the CWC norms and practices. You ruin the consensus instead of “mending” the OPCW and helping it carry on with its mandate. It is you who politicize the OPCW, and not us.
Again, all that we call for is observance of the CWC. Is the United States against the CWC being effective? Your words imply that you are.
What you said about the Douma incident was a very weak attempt. The FFM report is not the only one that we accentuate. In my statement I addressed at least 3 reports that we have questions about, and in fact there are more of these. All of them have one and the same problem: they are prepared in violation of the working principles of the Technical Secretariat that I mentioned. First of all, those are principles relating to the collection of data and evidence. For example, the Saraqib report contains the same irregularities as the Douma report. Of course it will be just as unconvincing and useless as the one on Douma.
You blamed us for impeding the visit of the FFM team. It is simply not true. We repeatedly refuted those allegations, you know about it. In the meantime, it would be great if you could explain why the US, the UK and France had hit the alleged CW production facilities in Syria before the inspectors could work with it. If the inspection team is about to arrive, wouldn’t it be good to ensure the best possible conditions for its work? Instead, in the absence of any facts or concrete evidence, you bombed down the facilities that you alleged were used for CW manufacturing. Thus you could destroy evidence in the first place. Besides, if we suppose for a second that there was CW at this location, by bombing it you exposed Syria to a risk of a chemical disaster. Of course, there was no CW there, and everything that was done later was meant to twist these facts and make them fit into the Western agenda.
I call on the US to be constructive, stop politicizing the OPCW and using this organization as a tool to punish the unwanted.
Again, only six of the SC members supported your decision. And it is not a bad result for you, because the real skepticism as to what the Western states are doing around the OPCW is but growing. It is not one or two no-name specialists who have questions to DG Arias and the Technical Secretariat. You know about the letter of the “Courage Foundation”, you are aware of the position of former DG Bustani, whom you tried to deprive of a say at the Security Council. You see, truth is hard to hide – it will come to light all the same. So your tricks, including those you used today, will lead to nothing. Instead, let us rather enhance trust and cooperation within the OPCW. Rephrasing one of the American presidents, let’s make OPCW great again.
Thank you.
