More on Syria

[rowan]

Hapless is evidently unaware of who started this thread

[cashead]

Hapless is evidently unaware of who started this thread

No one gives a fuck about how many threads you start, dipshit. Half of them are you shouting into the void anyway.

Not that it's particularly relevant to the fact that you are continuously demonstrating that you truly are as dense as osmium.

[rowan]

Still waiting for your debut constructive comment on this thread, hapless. Dragging it down to kindergarten level won't cut it.

[Stones of granite]

So, it turns out that the YPG in Afrin may be being supplied by Russia or a Russian ally.

The Turkish Armed Forces claimed they seized a large cache of weapons from the Kurdish-led People’s Protection Units (YPG) in the Afrin region of northern Syria.

Among the weapons they seized from the YPG, the Turkish military claimed their forces captured a Russian-made SA-18 anti-aircraft missile while conducting an operation in the Afrin region.

The Turkish military added that the anti-aircraft missile was seized some time between January 30th and 31st.

“In total, one SA-18 air defense missile, four Kalashnikovs, two machine guns, two RPG-7 rocket launchers, four missile launchers, a sniper rifle, three guns, one anti-tank mine, two hand grenades, three binoculars, two hand-held radios and a large amount of light weapon ammunition were seized,”

https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/tu ... ile-afrin/

[rowan]

So you're now concluding a Turkish report of Kurdish militants having made-in-Russia weapons suggests they are being directly supplied by Russia or a Russian ally. This is interesting on a number of levels. The comment infers you are firmly on the side of Turkey in its conflict with the Kurdish militant group and are attempting to demonize the latter through a tenuous connection to big bad Russia. Meanwhile, we know for a fact America has supplied rebel fighters in Syria, and that terrorists have got their hands on a lot of this (and even used them against the Kurds) - because Barack Obama told us so. In fact, I'm watching live news of Turkey's invasion this afternoon and the report you're so excited about hasn't even been mentioned, Wonder why...

[Mellsblue]

The Turkish military added that the anti-aircraft missile was seized some time between January 30th and 31st.

The 30.5th?

[rowan]

Another good read on the issue:

'At $1 billion, Syria-related operations account for about $1 of every $15 in the CIA's overall budget... US officials said the CIA has trained and equipped nearly 10,000 fighters sent into Syria over the past several years — meaning that the agency is spending roughly $100,000 per year for every anti-Assad rebel who has gone through the program.'

http://medialens.org/index.php/alerts/a ... cracy.html

[Stones of granite]

So you're now concluding a Turkish report of Kurdish militants having made-in-Russia weapons suggests they are being directly supplied by Russia or a Russian ally. This is interesting on a number of levels. The comment infers you are firmly on the side of Turkey in its conflict with the Kurdish militant group and are attempting to demonize the latter through a tenuous connection to big bad Russia. Meanwhile, we know for a fact America has supplied rebel fighters in Syria, and that terrorists have got their hands on a lot of this (and even used them against the Kurds) - because Barack Obama told us so. In fact, I'm watching live news of Turkey's invasion this afternoon and the report you're so excited about hasn't even been mentioned, Wonder why...

You make a number of inferences in this post that are ridiculous. So ridiculous that I am not going to address them.
Billy Bullshitter tells lies.

[Stones of granite]

The Turkish military added that the anti-aircraft missile was seized some time between January 30th and 31st.

The 30.5th?

Presumably

[rowan]

So you're now concluding a Turkish report of Kurdish militants having made-in-Russia weapons suggests they are being directly supplied by Russia or a Russian ally. This is interesting on a number of levels. The comment infers you are firmly on the side of Turkey in its conflict with the Kurdish militant group and are attempting to demonize the latter through a tenuous connection to big bad Russia. Meanwhile, we know for a fact America has supplied rebel fighters in Syria, and that terrorists have got their hands on a lot of this (and even used them against the Kurds) - because Barack Obama told us so. In fact, I'm watching live news of Turkey's invasion this afternoon and the report you're so excited about hasn't even been mentioned, Wonder why...

You make a number of inferences in this post that are ridiculous. So ridiculous that I am not going to address them.
Billy Bullshitter tells lies.

You didn't address these ones either, Stones of Cowardice. Seems you've been well and truly taken apart and are now endeavouring to reduce the discussion to kindgarten level a la the hapless Cashead...

perhaps it's a Turkish thing.

& Perhaps denying war crimes your own country is involved in is a British thing, Stones of Cowardice...

The YPG in Afrin are not supported by the Americans.

According to media sources within the region itself there have been instances of direct support. The YPG themselves have also stated this. You've obviously been brainwashed by the corporate media, Stones of Cowardice . . .

The number of Turkish troops directly involved in Afrin is still relatively small

Silly comment. They're boasting about killing almost a thousand evil terrorists and marching on to the next frontier. You don't do that with a small number of troops, Stones of Cowardice . . .

Probably at least partially due to the fact that Erdogan recently purged the army of 28,000 men.

I'm sure that has totally decimated Turkey's army of almost 700,000, Stones of Cowardice . . .

Meanwhile, there are reports that "Operation Olive Branch" is provoking a Kurdish backlash, which may well result in the resumption and upscaling of terrorist activity by the PKK inside Turkey itself.

No kidding, Stones of Cowardice . . . !

Standby for the next edition of I know everything about a region I don't even live in by Stones of Cowardice . . .

[morepork]

"Standby for the next edition of I know everything about a region I don't even live in..."

Like goldy and bronzy.

[rowan]

What's interesting is that Stones has dismissed out of hand a number of claims the Turks have made, ie stating The YPG in Afrin are not supported by the Americans. But he then goes on to treat the Turks' comments as gospel when it suits him, ie Turkish military claimed their forces captured a Russian-made SA-18 anti-aircraft missile while conducting an operation in the Afrin region.

Talk about cherry-picking

Bottom line is, Turkey is NATO, meaning NATO forces are actively fighting in Syria. The proxy war for regime change with use of rebels/terrorists appears to have failed, so this looks like phase 2. At the moment they're only bombing Kurds, which neither side cares about, but let's see where it goes. Already concerns have been raised by various governments ...

[OptimisticJock]

Apparently the Turks are going to be targetting US personnel in YPG uniforms.

Not sure how many are cutting about in YPG uniforms. I imagine most will be in MTP in an OMLT role.

[Sandydragon]

Apparently the Turks are going to be targetting US personnel in YPG uniforms.

Not sure how many are cutting about in YPG uniforms. I imagine most will be in MTP in an OMLT role.

THat could get very interesting. Erdogan might be all pally with Putin these days but he would have to be bat shit crazy to pick a fight there.

[rowan]

Good column in today's Hurriyet Daily News:

The same principle is also valid for the U.S., which long sought to achieve regime change in Syria through destabilization. As part of this policy it was the U.S. that encouraged Turkey and other regional powers to organize and arm the “Syrian opposition.”

It is true that Turkey’s government ended up becoming more alarmed about the prospect Kurdish autonomy in northern Syria than anything else and started to target Kurdish militia. But it was primarily the U.S.’s misjudgments concerning Syria that exacerbated the danger of radical Islamism in the country. ISIS is a byproduct of the enforcement and arming of Islamists in Syria.

Indeed, many of the Islamists who were supported were not even local groups but transferred to Syria from many other countries, including Western countries. Many Islamists came to Syria from troubled places like Afghanistan, Pakistan and Chechnya, where “jihadism” has been encouraged as a tool of misled Western policies.

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/opinio ... est-126781

[rowan]

EU now openly accusing Turkey of going beyond its stated mission in Syria, opening up new fronts and extending operations to those who are not listed by the UN as terrorists. They say this will only continue to destabilize Syria. Meanwhile, several hundred people have been jailed for making unkind comments about the issue on social media. So I'll just leave off right here, I think . . .

[rowan]

American forces illegally occupying Syria "retaliated" against Syrian government forces today, killing 100 soldiers.
What's wrong with this picture

[rowan]

17 more Kurdish politicans headed behind bars for criticizing operation Olive Branch - which has apparently taken out over 1000 evil terrorists and zero civilians, according to local sources. You may recall that the Kurdish party attained the necessary threshhold for direct representation in government during the most recent elections (subsequently re-run), thereby denying the ruling party a majority. Not anymore. The entire leadership's in prison.

Meanwhile, NATO forces of one kind or another now occupy more than a quarter of Syrian territory, a region encompassing roughly half of its oil fields, and without a trace of legal authority. But they're only there to fight terrorists, even if the terrorists they're fighting are not the same ones and are actually fighting each other, and if government forces themselves attack those terrorists NATO will bomb them back.

[rowan]

Looks like another WMDs false flag all over again . . .

U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis confirmed that the U.S. government has no evidence that the Syrian government used sarin gas on its people— a claim that was used by the White House as justification for an April 2017 launch of 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at the Al Shayrat airfield in Syria.

On Friday, Mattis said that reports of chemical weapon use by the Syrian government have come from aid groups and others, but that the U.S. doesn’t have any evidence to support these assertions.

“We have other reports from the battlefield from people who claim it’s been used,” Mattis told reporters at the Pentagon. “We do not have evidence of it.”

“We’re looking for evidence of it, since clearly we are dealing with the Assad regime that has used denial and deceit to hide their outlaw actions,” Mattis continued. “We’re even more concerned about the possibility of sarin use.”

Mattis explained that he was not refuting the third-party reports of chemical weapons used by the Syrian government led by President Bashar Assad. Assad has steadfastly denied that his government has used chemical weapons throughout the conflict.

In 2013, UN investigator Carla Del Ponte made note that Syrian rebels, not the Assad regime, used chemical weapons in the two-year civil war, contrary to assessments made by American officials.

According to a report by The Times of Israel:

“Carla Del Ponte, head of the independent UN commission investigating reports of chemical weapons use in Syria, told a Swiss-Italian television station that UN investigators gleaned testimony from victims of Syria’s civil war and medical staff which indicated that rebel forces used sarin gas — a deadly nerve agent.

‘Our investigators have been in neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated,’ Del Ponte said in the interview, translated by Reuters.

‘This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities,’ she added.”

During his comments on Friday, Mattis referred to the April 2017 cruise missile strikes on a Syrian airbase, noting that the Syrian government would “be ill-advised to go back to violating” the chemical weapons prohibition.

In addition to the UN investigation, one of the foremost academic experts in the field of missile fired chemical weapons, Theodore Postol, Professor of Science, Technology and National Security Policy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), came forward in a series of reports to note his opposition to the official Trump administration’s narrative in regards to the Khan Sheikhoun nerve agent attack in Syria, blamed on the Assad government, which precipitated the cruise missile strikes by the U.S., according to a report in the International Business Times. According to Postol, the Syrian gas attack was not carried out by the Syrian government.

In one of his reports, Postol concluded that the US government’s report does not provide any “concrete” evidence that Assad was responsible, adding it was more likely that the attack was perpetrated by players on the ground.

Postol wrote in his report:

“I have reviewed the [White House’s] document carefully, and I believe it can be shown, without doubt, that the document does not provide any evidence whatsoever that the US government has concrete knowledge that the government of Syria was the source of the chemical attack in Khan Sheikhoun, Syria at roughly 6am to 7am on 4 April, 2017.

In fact, a main piece of evidence that is cited in the document point to an attack that was executed by individuals on the ground, not from an aircraft, on the morning of 4 April.

This conclusion is based on an assumption made by the White House when it cited the source of the sarin release and the photographs of that source. My own assessment is that the source was very likely tampered with or staged, so no serious conclusion could be made from the photographs cited by the White House.”

Postol noted that he has “unambiguous evidence that the White House Intelligence Report (WHR) of April 11, 2017 contains false and misleading claims that could not possibly have been accepted in any professional review by impartial intelligence experts.”

Postol called for an independent investigation into the decision to launch cruise missile strikes in Syria, concluding:

“It is now obvious that this incident produced by the WHR, while just as serious in terms of the dangers it created for US security, was a clumsy and outright fabrication of a report that was certainly not supported by the intelligence community.

In this case, the president, supported by his staff, made a decision to launch 59 cruise missiles at a Syrian air base. This action was accompanied by serious risks of creating a confrontation with Russia, and also undermining cooperative efforts to win the war against the Islamic State.”

http://theantimedia.org/us-admits-no-ev ... gas-syria/

[Mellsblue]

https://news.un.org/en/story/2017/09/56 ... es-against

[rowan]

U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis confirmed that the U.S. government has no evidence that the Syrian government used sarin gas on its people— a claim that was used by the White House as justification for an April 2017 launch of 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at the Al Shayrat airfield in Syria.

On Friday, Mattis said that reports of chemical weapon use by the Syrian government have come from aid groups and others, but that the U.S. doesn’t have any evidence to support these assertions.

This news comes as no surprise to anyone living here in the region, nor anyone who takes the time to go beyond the mainstream propaganda and actually research the facts properly. From the moment the conflict began everybody here understood it was being engineered by the Americans. Even those who supported the conflict because they thought they had something to gain by it, regardless of the human cost involved, knew the US was behind it. & even those with a truncated view of history will be cognizant of American involvement in this conflict. The US has clearly set out to destroy Syria, just as it destroyed Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and is currently helping Saudi Arabia destroy Yemen. Former general Wesley Clarke even admitted as much openly to the world not long after 9/11 - these were the countries America was going after, including Syria. It's actually followed the script entirely. This is no revenge missions, however, but simply expansion of the US military empire. A more subtle approach than usual was required in Syria, mostly due to the Russian factor, which has ultimately thwarted them to this point. There is also the issue of rising public opposition to American invasions, both at home and abroad, after the genocidal consequences elsewhere. Of course, the same tired old propaganda is being wheeled out yet again - Hitler-of-the-month, torture chambers discovered, chemical weapons used. The truth about the chemical weapons attacks was revealed by some of the world's most respected journalists years ago, and now the American politicians themselves are beginning to fess up to their lies. It's WMDs all over again...

[rowan]

Deja vu all over again . . .



'Serious, experienced chemical weapons experts and investigators such as Hans Blix, Scott Ritter, Gareth Porter and Theodore Postol have all cast doubt on “official” American narratives regarding President Assad employing Sarin.'

http://www.newsweek.com/now-mattis-admi ... ple-801542

[Sandydragon]

Deja vu all over again . . .



'Serious, experienced chemical weapons experts and investigators such as Hans Blix, Scott Ritter, Gareth Porter and Theodore Postol have all cast doubt on “official” American narratives regarding President Assad employing Sarin.'

http://www.newsweek.com/now-mattis-admi ... ple-801542

What about official UN narratives? It was their investigation which claimed that the use of WMDs had been employed by the Syrian government.

And that article is full of assumptions. Why would Assad use chemical weapons for example? This is against a leader who is indiscriminately bombing areas with plenty of civilians, I'm not sure Asad is run-in to the same rules of armed conflict as the author.

mattis' comment is interesting but looks more like an effort to row back from Obama's red lines.

[Sandydragon]

https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/sc13196.doc.htm


Summary of a recent UN meeting on the use of Chemical Weapons in Syria:

Amid New Reports of Chemical Weapons Use in Syria, United Nations Top Disarmament Official Says International Community Obliged to Enact Meaningful Response
There was still work to be done before the international community could have shared confidence that the Government of Syria’s chemical weapons programme had been eliminated, the Security Council heard today, as it was briefed by the United Nations top disarmament official on recent events in the war-torn country.

Allegations of the use of chemical weapons in Syria continued, including new ones from the past weekend, said Izumi Nakamitsu, High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, stressing: “This makes abundantly clear our continuing and collective responsibility to ensure that those responsible are held to account.”

New reports by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) fact-finding mission were pending, and should they conclude that there had been the use, or likely use of chemical weapons in any of those alleged incidents, the international community’s obligation to enact a meaningful response would be further intensified, she emphasized.

The representative of the United States said it was evident that the Syrian regime had used chemical gas against its people, which she described as “appalling”. The regime’s obligations were clear — it must immediately stop using chemical weapons, and it must destroy all such remaining arms. Despite the urgency of those goals, the Council had spent much of 2017 watching one country protect Syria and refuse to hold it responsible.

Any future investigative instrument should be free of politics and controlled by experts, not politicians or diplomats, she continued. The latest Russian Federation draft resolution did not meet those criteria. That country wanted to be able to cherry-pick the investigators, and insert arbitrary investigative standards. Further, it wanted the Council to review any material to decide what made it into the final report.

The Russian Federation’s representative stressed that some statements from delegations were not focusing on Syria, but rather were being used to slander his country following the success of the Syrian national dialogue in Sochi. Those delegations were concerned about efforts to breathe new life into the process and had undertaken powerful slander campaigns against the Russian Federation to cast doubts on its role in the political settlement process in Syria.

A fact-finding mission should be sent to relevant areas to conduct work, he continued, adding that any conclusions needed to be preceded by an investigation. His country’s draft resolution would replace the OPCW-United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism that had been shut down.

China’s representative expressed support for the establishment of a comprehensive, impartial investigation into any alleged use of chemical weapons, which would help bring the perpetrators to justice. The creation of a new mechanism was critical to get to the bottom of the chemical weapons issue and ward off any future occurrences, and in that context, China supported the work of the Russian Federation to create a new mechanism.

The representative of France said any established investigative instrument must align with the essential standards of independence, impartiality and professionalism, which prevailed when the Joint Investigative Mechanism was established. Impunity in Syria was not an option and perpetrators would be held accountable. In that connection, France had launched the International Partnership against Impunity for the Use of Chemical Weapons, bringing together States that rejected impunity for those who carried out chemical weapons attacks.

The representative of Syria underscored that his country had joined the Chemical Weapons Convention and honoured all its commitments under that agreement, while also achieving a tremendous feat by ending the Syrian chemical weapons programme, both definitively and in record time; a fact confirmed by the Joint Investigative Mechanism. Syria was keen to establish the truth and would continue to support any initiative undertaken by the Council when its aim was to seek the truth and shed light on who was responsible for harming civilians in Syria.

Also speaking today were the representatives of the United Kingdom, Bolivia, Kazakhstan, Peru, Sweden, Poland, Equatorial Guinea, Côte d’Ivoire, Netherlands, Ethiopia and Kuwait.

The meeting began at 10:05 a.m. and ended at 11:44 a.m.

Briefing

IZUMI NAKAMITSU, High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, recalled that, at the time of her last briefing, planning was under way with regard to the destruction of the remaining two stationary above-ground facilities of the 27 such facilities declared by Syria. The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), working with the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS), was currently finalizing a contract with a private company to carry that work, which should be completed within two months. There had been some developments on the issues related to Syria’s initial declaration and subsequent amendments, including the completion of the translation and analysis of documents which were provided to OPCW by the Government of Syria in November. The OPCW indicated that the information provided clarifications on some issues, although it was continuing to follow-up with the Government of Syria on remaining gaps, inconsistencies and discrepancies.

Further to its routine inspections in Syria, samples taken by the OPCW team during its second inspection at the Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Centre were currently being analysed by two OPCW-designated laboratories and the Executive Council would be informed of the results of that inspection, she said. The OPCW fact-finding mission continued to look into all allegations of the use of chemical weapons in Syria, the majority of which involved the use of toxic chemicals, such as chlorine, in areas not under the control of the Government. The mission expected to submit a report on those allegations soon; while a report on another team’s investigation into allegations of the use of chemical weapons brought to the attention of OPCW by the Government of Syria was also pending.

There was still work to do before resolution 2118 (2013) could be considered to have been fully implemented and for the international community to have shared confidence that the chemical weapons programme of the Syrian Government had been eliminated, she said. Allegations of the use of chemical weapons in Syria had continued, including new allegations from the past weekend, she said, stressing: “This makes abundantly clear our continuing and collective responsibility to ensure that those responsible are held to account,” she said. New reports by the mission were pending, and should they conclude that there had been the use, or likely use of chemical weapons in any of those alleged incidents, the international community’s obligation to enact a meaningful response would be further intensified. She said that it was her hope, as well as that of the Secretary-General, that such a response would favour unity, not impunity.

Statements

NIKKI R. HALEY (United States) said that she had heard the news out of Syria that morning of troubling reports of another attack in that country on 4 February. Victims of what appeared to be chorine gas were pouring into hospitals. The use of chemical weapons by the regime of Bashar al-Assad was appalling. The regime’s obligations were clear. It must immediately stop using chemical weapons, and it must destroy all such remaining arms. Those were urgent goals, and yet the Security Council had spent much of 2017 watching one country protect it and refuse to hold it responsible. Everyone looking on could see a Council that could not agree to act, even after the OPCW-United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism it created found evidence of chemical weapons. It was evident that the regime had used chemical gas against its people.

A Security Council press statement had been proposed that would condemn the attack, she continued. The Russian Federation had delayed that condemnation, and she hoped that it would take the appropriate steps to adopt that text. Regarding the Mechanism, the Russian Federation had acted alone to kill it in 2017. Any such instrument should be free of politics and controlled by experts, not politicians or diplomats. The latest Russian Federation draft resolution did not meet any of those criteria. It ignored the findings of the Mechanism, which the that country supported until it found that the Syrian regime was responsible. The Russian Federation wanted to be able to cherry-pick the investigators, and insert arbitrary investigative standards. It also wanted the Council to review any material to decide what made it into the final report. It was a way to whitewash the findings of the last investigation that the Russian Federation wanted to bury. She applauded the efforts of France to launch the international partnership to end impunity for chemical weapons use.

JONATHAN GUY ALLEN (United Kingdom) condemned the series of reported chemical attacks in eastern Ghouta in the last months as the Assad regime continued its bombing of civilians. He said he was appalled by the reported deliberate targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure. The OPCW was already investing reports of chemical weapons use, but establishing the perpetrators would be difficult, as the Russian Federation had used its veto three times against the Mechanism to protect the Syrian regime. Any successive mechanism must be empowered to investigate all use of chemical weapons, wherever. The proposal of the Russian Federation focused only on non-State actors. Given Assad’s track record, it was imperative that any new mechanism investigated any such use by the Syrian regime. He noted that his second objection to the Russian Federation’s draft proposals was that it noted that the Council would have to review the evidence and decide upon its meaning. The entire purpose of the Mechanism was that an independent panel review the evidence, not Member States, as they had been unable to agree.

FRANÇOIS DELATTRE (France) noted that this was the second time the Security Council had convened in less than two weeks following reports of chlorine use against civilians in Syria. The use of toxic weapons in Syria continued unabated, he said, underscoring that the Syrian regime had already been found responsible for four of those instances. The stakes went beyond the Syrian dossier, as weapons that were thought to be confined to the past were being systematically used by the Syrian regime. There were suspicions about the Syrian stockpiles, as inspectors continued to find evidence of undeclared weapons, without any credible explanations being provided. The situation undermined regional stability, eroded the non-proliferation regime, weakened the international security architecture, violated the law and flouted the most basic principles of humanity. That situation could not be allowed to become commonplace and perpetrators must be held to account, which was the Council’s shared responsibility.

The perpetrators that continued the use of those weapons must be punished, he said. The obstruction of various initiatives put forward by the international community stoked impunity, which was why France had launched a partnership that brought together States that rejected impunity for those who carried out chemical weapons attacks. Any established investigative mechanism must align with the essential standards of independence, impartiality and professionalism, which prevailed when the Joint Investigative Mechanism was established. Impunity in Syria was not an option and perpetrators would be held accountable, sooner or later.

SACHA SERGIO LLORENTTY SOLÍZ (Bolivia) said that there could be no justification for the use of chemical weapons, no matter who had used them. The use of such weapons was a grave crime against international law and a threat to international peace and security. His country categorically condemned the use of chemical weapons as an unjustifiable criminal act and he expressed great concern about the use of such arms in Syria, including in eastern Ghouta. The Council must remain united to ensure justice. He called on the Government of Syria to cooperate with OPCW with regard to the investigations that were taking place and called on all parties to cooperate fully and prepare viable and reliable information. It was essential to have an impartial mechanism to carry out a conclusive investigation to find those responsible for such acts and the creation of a new mechanism must be done in a non-political fashion. In that connection, he considered the Russian Federation proposal as a new opportunity to achieve that goal.

KAIRAT UMAROV (Kazakhstan) said that he strongly condemned any use of chemical weapons and such threats must be eliminated. There must be accountability for the perpetrators of such crimes. He supported the work of OPCW, and noted that the speedy destruction of the remaining chemical weapons protection facilities was of utmost importance. It would help to dispel any doubts on the issues. During the inspection of the facilities all samples were sent to the OPCW laboratory, and he looked forward to the follow-up of that work. The continued reports on the alleged use of chemical weapons were alarming, but the most disturbing part was that the Council had no mechanism to investigate such reports. Because of the current developments, a new mechanism should be established at the earliest possible opportunity. The Council members were not experts on chemical weapons, but had to act on credible evidence provided by an investigative body, and his country supported consultations on the creation of a new instrument.

GUSTAVO MEZA-CUADRA (Peru) said that his country condemned the use of chemical weapons under any circumstances, and their use against the civilian population of Syria was a war crime and a flagrant violation of international law. Those responsible should be held accountable. The Syrian Government should comply with its obligations. There had been recent progress, including the destruction of the two last facilities for producing chemical weapons, as well as the provision of new financial resources to that end. Key points of the declaration of the Syrian Government had not been verified. On the allegations of new attacks with chemical weapons, he said there was an urgent need to bring to justice the perpetrators of those atrocities.

OLOF SKOOG (Sweden) said that the use of chemical weapons in armed conflict amounted to a war crime and perpetrators of such actions must be held accountable. For that reason, Sweden had jointed the International Partnership against Impunity for the Use of Chemical Weapons and supported all efforts to combat the use and proliferation of chemical weapons by State or non-State actors, anywhere in the world. Sweden counted on that initiative to complement and support the international community’s collective work in multilateral fora, as well as the existing multilateral mechanisms, to achieve unity around those goals. He echoed the Secretary-General’s call to hold accountable those responsible for the use of chemical weapons in Syria, which was why Sweden had engaged in negotiations aimed at establishing a new independent and impartial investigative mechanism.

JOANNA WRONECKA (Poland) said that her delegation was looking forward to the results of the ongoing investigations into the use of chemical weapons in Syria, which continued to pose a threat to the people of that country and constituted a serious challenge to international peace and security. There was a real need for a clear message to be sent that impunity for perpetrators of such crimes was not an option. The use of chemical weapons by anyone, State or non-State actors, anywhere in the world, under any circumstances must be rigorously condemned and those that carried out such acts must be held accountable. Her delegation supported the creation of an investigative mechanism that would carry out its work with impartiality and transparency.

ANATOLIO NDONG MBA (Equatorial Guinea) said that the political and humanitarian crisis in Syria was reaching alarming proportions. He condemned the loss of many civilian lives, and called on all parties to comply with international law on the protection of civilians, by making a distinction between military and civilian targets. His country expressed its satisfaction at the destruction of the facilities producing chemical weapons. Nevertheless, while he welcomed the cooperation between the Government of Syria and OPCW, vigilance was needed, and the denouncement of chemical weapons production and use needed to be condemned. He condemned the use of chemical weapons, no matter who used them. Those accountable for those horrendous acts must be brought to justice.

VASSILY A. NEBENZIA (Russian Federation) said that pending issues dealing with the declaration needed to be dealt with in a dialogue between Syria and OPCW. Syria was a conscientious member of the Chemical Weapons Convention and would provide access to documents related to that matter. Many officially raised issues should be closed and cast aside. The production place of chemical weapons had been destroyed. The Syrian side had continuously reported to the international community regarding the detection of dangerous chemical substances in areas liberated from terrorists. That must be investigated by the specialized experts of OPCW. He noted that, as a general rule, titanic efforts were needed at The Hague to react to the necessary message. There was a pretext being put forward not to travel there and decisions were being delayed.

In today’s meeting, some statements from delegations were not focusing on Syria, he said. Instead, it was being used by the representatives of the United States and the United Kingdom to slander the Russian Federation. It was taking place because some were concerned about the success of the Syrian national dialogue in Sochi. They were concerned over efforts to breathe new life into the process. They had undertaken powerful slander campaigns against the Russian Federation to cast doubts on its role in the political settlement process in Syria. Terrorists, through so-called civic organizations, were disseminating rumours in social networks that were immediately taken up by western networks, and members of the Council were now taking that up and spreading slander. An OPCW fact-finding mission should be sent to relevant areas to investigate. Any conclusions needed to be preceded by an investigation. It should be clear to everyone that capitals sending representatives to the Council needed no such investigation, as instead they needed to follow their political agendas. His country’s draft resolution would replace the Mechanism that had been shut down. He stood ready to adopt the press statement, but not in the form that had been proposed by its sponsors. Its pre-set goal was to baselessly accuse the Syrian Government of chemical weapons use. The reference to Article 7 of the United Nations Charter left no doubt as to what the crux of the statement was. He could not accept unconfirmed references to chemical weapons use.

BERNARD TANOH-BOUTCHOUE (Côte d’Ivoire) said his delegation was deeply troubled by reports about the potential use of chemical weapons in Syria, specifically in eastern Ghouta, which constituted a considerable setback in efforts to combat chemical weapons use in Syria. The suffering that had been inflicted on that country’s people was unacceptable and must be put to an end. The most recent allegations once again brought to the forefront the responsibility shouldered by the Council to expeditiously end such actions and identify the perpetrators of such acts. Inaction could be interpreted as a weakness of the Council and a green card for impunity, and in that context, the Council must set up a consensus-based framework capable of identifying perpetrators and holding them accountable. His country reiterated its emphatic condemnation of the use of chemical weapons in Syria and eagerly awaited the conclusions of the ongoing investigations.

WU HAITAO(China) said his country supported OPCW in continuing its coordination and cooperation with the Government of Syria and expressed its sympathy to that country’s people. No use of chemical weapons would be tolerated, he stressed, adding that China was deeply concerned by the recent reports of the use of such weapons. China was firmly against the use of chemical weapons and supported the establishment of a comprehensive, impartial investigation into any alleged use of such arms, which would help bring the perpetrators to justice. The establishment of a new investigative mechanism was critical to getting to the bottom of the chemical weapons issue and to ward off any future occurrences, and in that context, China supported the work of the Russian Federation to create a new mechanism.

KAREL JAN GUSTAAF VAN OOSTEROM (Netherlands) echoed the outrage expressed over reports of chemical attacks, recalling that, in Douma, eastern Ghouta, Idlib, and last night in Saraqeb, civilians, including children, had become victims once again. Other reports indicated that OPCW laboratory tests had found that samples of the chemical attack on Ghouta in August 2013 corresponded to the weapons arsenal declared in 2014 and the Khan Shaykhun attack in 2017. That confirmed again the suspicion that the Assad regime continued to use chemical weapons against its own population. Impunity had eroded the important prohibition of chemical weapons use, he said, recalling that the Council had had a professional Mechanism to ensure accountability in Syria, equipped with a strong mandate to investigate and identity perpetrators, and it had done so accordingly. But, its renewal had fallen to politics. That did not mean the Council must settle for less. The Netherlands was prepared to work on any proposal that strengthened accountability and the international rule of law.

TEKEDA ALEMU (Ethiopia) expressed concern over reports of chemical weapons use in Syria, as the use of those arms was unjustifiable under any circumstance. He could not agree more with the Secretary-General that the continued allegations of chemical weapon use highlighted the shared obligation to identify and hold to account those responsible for such use. Unity in the Council was important, without which its ability to respond to grave threats to international security would be hampered. He expressed regret that the Council had been unable to renew the Mechanism’s mandate. If that institutional gap was not addressed, and unity forged, the Council would send the wrong message and encourage impunity, he said.

MANSOUR AYYAD SH. A. ALOTAIBI (Kuwait), Council President for February, speaking in his national capacity, recalled that resolution 2118 (2013), adopted after the first evidence of chemical weapons use in Syria, should have brought an end to such acts. At the time, the Council had displayed unity and determination in confronting that crime. It was regrettable to see a “recession” in the Council’s approach to tackling chemical weapons use in Syria, marked by a lack of unity after the end of the Mechanism. He expressed concern over allegations of chemical weapons use in Syria as recently as last night, the third such attack in several weeks. The perpetrators would likely go unpunished as there was no guarantee of holding them accountable. He looked forward to consensus among Council members in order to hold those using chemical weapons to account.

Mr. ALLEN (United Kingdom) said that preventing the use of chemical weapons should transcend political disagreement. His delegation did not oppose the Russian Federation’s involvement in finding a solution to the crisis in Syria; nevertheless, the notion that it was anyone other than the Russia Federation that ended the Joint Investigative Mechanism was simply false. The voting records of the Council were clear and available for all, and showed that it was the Russian Federation that had vetoed the extension of the Mechanism multiple times.

MOUNZER MOUNZER (Syria) condemned and rejected in the strongest possible terms the use of chemical weapons. The targets of such weapons were the Syrian people, the primary victims of armed terrorist groups using those arms. Syria had joined the Chemical Weapons Convention and honoured all its commitments under that agreement, while also achieving a tremendous feat by ending the Syrian chemical weapons programme, both definitively and in record time; a fact confirmed by the Joint Investigative Mechanism. Syria was keen to establish the truth and would continue to support any initiative undertaken by the Council when its aim was to establish the truth and shed light on who was responsible for harming human life in Syria. He reiterated his condemnation of all Western accusations that his Government was responsible for launching chemical weapons attacks. The United States, United Kingdom and France bore full responsibility for the international community’s inability to establish a new international investigative mechanism. False accusations against Syria were part and parcel of an attempt to cover up the fact that innocent civilians had been killed by armed terrorist groups.

[Sandydragon]

So to be clear, the official UN investigator isn't happy that the Russians are hampering the investigation, including vetoing the mandate for the investigative body twice in November 2017.