Statement by Vassily Nebenzia, Permanent Representative of Russia to the UN, at the open VTC of UNSC members on the implementation of resolution 2118
Mme. President,
We thank High representative Nakamitsu for the presentation of reports by OPCW Director-General and OPCW Fact-Finding Mission in Syria (FFM).
Director-General’s report on the July decision of the Organization’s Executive Council (EC) made no revelation. It predictably accuses Syria of incompliance. This outcome was not hard to foresee. It was clear from the very start that the decision was knowingly unrealistic and had only one goal – to demonize Damascus in the perception of the global community. No one cares to understand that Syria is demanded to do the impossible. This condition cannot be met even theoretically, as it asks to declare within 90 days previously undeclared chemical weapons and facilities, allegedly related to them – the very facilities that were destroyed, the fact of which was verified. No OPCW inspection since 2013 has been able to prove the opposite.
We have already expressed our detailed criticism of this decision and its underlying report of the OPCW Investigation and Identification Team (IIT) on the incidents in Al Lataminah in March, 2017. The decision itself was pushed through at the Executive Council by a very small margin. The IIT report is politically biased, factually unreliable and technically unconvincing. This document is nothing like a serious expert investigation. But even this pseudo-report, when touching upon the combat situation near Al Lataminah and Hama in March-April, 2017, states that Syrian governmental forces had no need whatsoever – even hypothetically – to use chemical weapons. On that we agree with the authors: back then, the Syrian Army was on a successful offensive in Hama Governorate, with most of its territory already back under control. To use chemical weapons and thus “draw the fire upon itself” would make no sense for the Syrian Government – even in theory. Anyway, logic is no longer part of the toolbox of our Western colleagues, otherwise they would have to admit that conclusions on a number of high-profile cases of alleged CW use, baselessly ascribed to Syria (and, since recently, also to Russia) do not reconcile with common sense.
It is very indicative that Western colleagues had started to call upon the UNSC to “punish” Syria as early as in July, long before this DG report was issued. It means they understood perfectly well that Syria stood no chance of complying with the July decision of the OPCW Executive Council. We hope the other UNSC members will be critical of the current developments and will take no part in this performance that threatens to undermine the authority of the Council.
Last time we pointed out that in his cover letter to the monthly report (S/2020/1056) on the progress of UNSC resolution 2118 the UN Secretary-General all of a sudden used the language of the afore-mentioned biased and unrealistic decision of the OPCW Executive Council that “those individuals responsible for the use of chemical weapons must be held accountable” and that it allegedly takes the unity of the Council to uphold this “urgent commitment”. Sadly enough, the situation repeats this time as well. Encouraging of such biased approaches does not become the UN Secretariat. It is even more inappropriate to openly and clearly side with those who besmirch Syria, when knowing that their allegations are unfounded or at least controversial. Distorted and politicized language must not find its way to the documents published on behalf of the UNSG. It is a question of his personal authority and the authority of entire United Nations.
We are deeply concerned by the presence of “incriminating” paragraphs on outstanding issues with regard to initial declaration, especially now that we learned from former OPCW inspector I.Hendersen during our “Arria-formula” VTC on 28 September, 2020, that guidance of the TS instructs the Declaration Assessment Team (DAT) to keep those issues open. With such an approach, no matter how Syrians justify themselves, this part of the file will not be closed. Let me also remind that, according to the same expert, at the initial stage of joining the CWC, many states-holders encountered similar problems when filing their declarations. But in their cases those were interpreted as “minor drawbacks” that did not undermine the integrity of the declaration. It means the TS treatment of Damascus is biased. Then why does the UN Secretariat connive in those political games?
Besides, we do not understand on what ground Western delegations try to initiate the detailed discussion of Syria’s initial declaration at the Security Council. This topic is a prerogative of the Hague platform. Information that countries submit in the framework of initial declaration is strictly confidential. It must not be discussed publicly, all the more in New York. This looks like another, forgive my word, uncouth attempt to nail Syria being sly.
FFM reports on the incidents in Aleppo in November, 2018, and Saraqib (Idlib) in August, 2016, are yet another proof of double standards on the part of OPCW Technical Secretariat. The TS elaborated those documents only after our numerous and insistent calls. Besides, for more than a year both us and the Syrian side had been bombarded with requests for more information. Something lacked all the time; TS encountered “unsurmountable” barriers; samples went missing; and so on. At some point, we were completely exhausted proving that we had submitted all the materials. So why did the “investigation” of those incidents take so long and go so hard? Isn’t it because it was the opposition, not the Syrian Army, that was accused of using chemical weapons? Of course, we entertained no illusion that FFM would prove principled and unbiased. And of course, the Mission could not “determine” the fact of CW usage by opposition groups. The TS could have spared efforts pretending that the investigation was underway, as we said before. Instead they could have published this conclusion right away and, for that matter, admit that they would not even consider that the Syrian opposition might have been related to the use of chemical weapons.
We see our Western colleagues more often turn to the ill practice of fabricating accusatory aspects of CW files to “punish” the unwanted countries. As recently as yesterday, at their initiative the First Committee of the General Assembly adopted a highly politicized and confrontational resolution on the CWC – the document that used to be truly consensual and aimed at strengthening the unity of the Organization. Now it has lost all of its initial meaning and turned into a biased tool used to project sanctions-related aspirations of the West.
Inclusion in this resolution of a paragraph about the incident with Russian blogger A.Navalny is an eloquent testimony to that. I must say that during the First Committee general debate we addressed to the German side a number of concrete questions on this issue and asked to clarify on that. However, there followed no reaction. “Highly likely” paradigms do not favor facts and answers. Instead of a frank and direct talk, our Western colleagues pretend Russia’s guilt has been proven. We have seen this tactics used in the context of provocation with “Skripals poisoning”.
Let me pose a direct question to our Western colleagues: do you realize the results of your acts? We are eye-witnessing symptoms (if not metastases) of a severe disease – large-scale confidence crisis at the OPCW. The consequences of such a scandalous situations spread far beyond the Organization. It is not about criticism of results of particular investigations, it is about a systemic problem, which, unless solved, will not let the OPCW function normally and be trusted.
We have accumulated a “critical mass” of questions to the Technical Secretariat and the leadership of the OPCW. Proofs of manipulations and falsifications in its reports have become too numerous to ignore. Let me remind that our claims regarding the FFM report on the incident in Khan Shaykhun of April, 2017, were ignored despite plentiful evidence that the incident had been staged. We have still received neither explanations from the TS regarding manipulations with the FFM report on the events in Douma in April, 2018, nor a response from the Director-General on how he is going to address the exposed malpractices. Many direct and concrete questions set by I.Henderson, A.Mate, and T.Postol during an “Arria-formula” event on 28 September, 2020, were left unanswered. Again, there has been complete silence regarding the facts raised in Jose Bustani's statement, whom our colleagues failed to “hush up” in October.
That is why Russian continues to insist that such files be discussed in the open. We are glad we have managed to ensure this for the third time already, even though you would always try to covertly prevent it. As we said on many occasions, neither Syria, nor – so we hope – members of the Security Council have anything to hide from the global community.
It is regrettable and very telling that OPCW Director General F.Arias is not taking part in this meeting, although at our previous session on the same item our Western colleagues explicitly stated that having him be very important. We remember perfectly well that this was why they were so hysterical and unwilling to take our proposal of having former DG Bustani as a briefer. Now a month has passed, but incumbent DG Arias has not briefed the Security Council yet.
If the OPCW leadership, as Western delegations would put it, is absolutely correct, professional, and unbiased in all its action on the Syrian chemical file, then it surely has nothing to fear. It should have more interest than anyone else in providing a public clarification of all the incoming criticism. If this criticism is inadequate, they should offer their counter arguments. The more they try to evade this conversation, the more everyone is inclined to think that the OPCW leadership has something to conceal.
We hope that at least in December this year DG Arias will summon up his courage and answer to all the questions. Let me say right away: there are plenty of them, and we see no reason why we should not ask them in the open.
The times when we could “technically” discuss a Director-General’s reports on the progress of resolution 2118 have long passed by. At stake now is the authority, integrity, and fate of the OPCW. Only those who enjoy impunity and stage CW provocations can benefit from the OPCW systemic problems being unsolved.
Like all responsible members of the international community, Russia remains committed to the goals of the CWC and recognizes its responsibility for the future of the OPCW and the global CW non-proliferation regime as such. That is why we will continue to stand up for objective investigations and oppose disinformation and blatant lies.
Thank you.
In response to the statements by representatives of Germany and the UK:
Today we again heard, in particular from our British colleagues, the allegations we have long been familiar with: “Russia did this, Russia must be held to account”. There is one thing we agree with – use of chemical weapons is unacceptable, and if it really took place, the guilty must be punished. But beyond this, we agree no more.
Again, the situations around Navalny and the Skripals were raised. Let me remind what many started to forget or prefer not to remember at all. A large bulk of our questions relating to the Skripals incident remained unanswered. The British side would rather ignore them, because it has already proclaimed that Russia is to blame. “Why delve into detail? Everyone knows that it is highly likely”. I think though, we will find a way to refresh the memory of our British colleagues on those issues and demand answers to the questions raised.
The situation with A.Navalny unfolds after the same playscript – a conclusion is made, a verdict pronounced, Russia just needs to confess. In the meantime, German colleagues avoid giving answers to our very basic questions. Ambassador Heusgen asserted that the German side had answered all the questions we addressed to them in the First Committee. Here is the intervention of our representative in the First Committee that contains all those questions. The German delegation never answered them.
Now on Syria. One would try to convince us that everything has been proven – Damascus just needs to confess and repent. But here is the point – nothing has been proven. The falsification that the IIT came up with is not a proof. The IIT is your play toy. You use it for manipulations and, sadly enough, you start using the OPCW for the same purpose. We have just seen our German colleague make a classical propaganda case. As if trying to mesmerize the audience, he would say again and again that there were no confidence crisis, that Assad regime killed its subjects, i.a. by chemical weapons, that this were a verified fact and that Russia covered for it. A nice try at hypnosis, but it lacks persuasiveness.
Dear Christoph [Heusgen], the thing is that nothing has been proven. Or rather was proven in a manner that would convince no one but those who in due time pushed Syria into the abyss of civil war. Or does Germany live under alternative laws of physics and logic that make you take for granted any tales and fables, worthy of the Grimm brothers? Experts cite to you dozens of concrete and obvious discrepancies in OPCW investigations – you ignore them. Those who took part in the investigations point at blatant fabrications – you do not care. If we stick to this approach that ignores “the elephant in the room”, we will not only fail to dig out the truth, but, as I warned, will ultimately discredit the OPCW.
Thank you.
In response to the Permanent Representative of Germany:
I had a chance to visit Cesar's exhibition in Washington in 2018. We can discuss that issue during some other occasion since this topic is not directly related to Syrian chemical dossier which we are discussing today. We can discuss it with Christoph bileterally or devote to it another meeting
What concerns Syria and the case, which he was referring to, I would like once again to draw your attention to the statement made by Russian representative in the First Committiee of the UNGA, full of questions which stayed unanswered.
In his reply Christoph referred that the German side deliberately struck out the chemical formula of the substance that was allegedly used to poison A.Navalny, which we, of course, asked to provide. Then I would like to remind you that the conclusion in the OPCW report was that the substance that might have been the substance that allegedly was used in the poisoning, was not on the list of the Chemical Weapons Convention. And, of course, it makes it redundant - I mean my German colleague stating that it had been done on the grounds of confidentiality.
The formula is absolutely necessary, so we will continue on that. And indeed, I confirmed that the Russian Federation is today in consultations with the OPCW on how to proceed and cooperate on that issue.
Thank you.
