Two new reports from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons challenge claims that chemical weapons were used in two alleged attacks in Syria.
You won’t read about it in the Australian media but two more reports from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons have called into question claims that chemical weapons were used in two attack in Syria – one said to have occurred in Aleppo in November 2018 and the other in Saraqib in the Idlib governorate in August 2016.
The two OPCW Fact Finding Mission (FFM) reports https://www.opcw.org/media-centre/news/2020/10/opcw-issues-two-fact-finding-mission-reports-chemical-weapons-use
were released on I October 2020. They add to the list of official and unofficial findings that destroy many of the claims of Syrian government chemical weapons attacks.
Nevertheless Australian media commentators unquestioningly trot out propaganda about Syrian government chemical weapons attacks as if the allegations were fact.
The OPCW analysis of the 24 November 2018 North-West Aleppo incident, which the Syrian Government suggested could have been a terrorist attack, concluded that the evidence “did not allow the FFM to establish whether or not chemicals were used as a weapon.”
The Saraqib incident allegedly took place on the night of 1 August 2016 in Idlib, an area at that at the time was held by Islamist forces. Initial reports claimed 30 people, mostly women and children, had been affected and developed symptoms, including breathing difficulties, coughing and lacrimation.
The allegations were spread by the Syrian Civil Defence or White Helmets. They claimed the Syrian army had mounted a helicopter attack. The Syrian Armed Forces said the claims were fabricated.
The OPCW concluded: “The results of the analysis of all available data obtained up until the issuance of this report did not allow the FFM to establish whether or not chemicals were used as a weapon in the incident that took place in Saraqib, in the Idlib Governorate, on 1 August 2016.”
Given the US government’s heavy influence within the OPCW, that’s about as strong a statement that no chemical weapons attack took place as you’re ever likely to get.
Other claims of Syrian government chemical weapons attacks are suspect. The most egregious is the claim that the Syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack on Douma in April 2018 – a claim that was used to justify United States, British and French airstrikes on Syria on 14 April 2018.
When the US launched its airstrikes the State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert said the US had “excellent intelligence” that sarin and chlorine gas had been used in the Douma attacks that killed between 40 to 45 people. The US Defence Secretary James Mattis also claimed sarin or chlorine had been used.
The sarin claim was later unequivocally rejected by the OPCW Fact Finding Mission.
But media, keen to find a culprit to justify the airstrikes and damn the Assad regime, quickly seized on another FFM finding that “reactive chlorine” had been found at the site. Chlorine is not a banned chemical weapon and there were many sceptics who raised doubts about the chlorine bombing claims.
The scepticism proved justified when in late 2019 and January 2020 a series of leaks https://publish.pearlsandirritations.com/paul-malone-the-australian-media-and-the-alleged-douma-chemical-weapons-attack/
from inside the OPCW itself revealed the doctoring and spinning processes that took place to produce the public reports that created the impression that the OPCW had concluded that there had been a chlorine incident.
To top this, the inspector who led the OPCW Douma team — South African ballistics expert, Ian Henderson — went public saying that his team “had serious misgivings that a chemical attack had occurred.”
In their reports of chemical weapons attacks the media either forgets or ignores the history and the context. On 14 September 2013 an agreement was reached between the United States, Russia and Syria on a Framework for Elimination of Syrian Chemical Weapons. Thee OPCW then undertook a program of site inspections and destruction of chemical arms and precursor chemicals.
With the endorsement of the Syrian government, (but without the agreement of the Al Qaeda-linked Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) destruction of chemical weapons began on 6 October 2013. On 22 January 2015 Ahmet Üzümcü, Director-General the OPCW, said all declared chemical weapons had been removed from Syrian territory, and 98% of them had been destroyed – including all sulphur, mustard and nerve agent precursors. https://www.opcw.org/sites/default/files/documents/ODG/uzumcu/DG_Speech_Complutense_University_Madrid.pdf
Two months later at the 2015 Nobel Peace Prize Forum, he said the action by the OPCW was the first time ever that a country’s arsenal of chemical weapons had been eliminated during an active conflict. https://www.opcw.org/sites/default/files/documents/ODG/uzumcu/DG_Nobel_Peace__Prize_Forum_Speech.pdf
After Russia joined the Syrian government war against Islamic extremists and mounted air strikes beginning in October 2015, new allegations of chemical weapons attacks emerged.
Most western media showed no scepticism about the claims which were promoted by the Syrian Civil Defence, or White Helmets, an organisation closely associated with the terrorists variously known as Tahrir al-Sham al-Hayat (the Levant Liberation Board) or the Al-Nusra Front, (Al Qaeda in Syria).
With the Russian-backed Syrian government winning the war, and possibly on the verge of reaching an anti-ISIS alliance with the US, chemical weapon allegations popped up. The timing of these claims and their source should have aroused suspicion. Regularly they occurred when the Syrian government was on the point of victory in a major battle. Why, at such a time, would the Syrian government mount an attack that would kill at most 100 people, be of no significant battlefield value and bring international condemnation? What was to be gained?
On the other hand, with their backs to the wall ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front, had everything to gain from videos apparently showing atrocities.
Leading old-hand journalists such as Robert Fisk, Seymour Hersh and Peter Hitchins https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7718627/Sexed-dossier-furore-alleged-poison-gas-attack-Assad.html have challenged the chemical weapons attack claims.
But in addition a number of OPCW Fact Finding Mission reports issued many months after the alleged incidents concluded either that there was insufficient evidence of a chemical weapons attack, or that there had been no such attack. Media which had prominently report the alleged incident, at times running television footage of injured civilians, gave no coverage whatsoever to the negative findings.
Take for example the alleged chemical weapon attack in Aleppo on 2nd August 2016 which was widely reported, including by the ABC, the BBC, Al Jazeera and CNN. The source of information was, as usual, Syrian Civil Defence or White Helmets.
What did the official investigation by the OPCW’s Fact Finding Mission conclude when it later investigated the Aleppo 2016 incident?
Answer: “…the FFM cannot confidently determine whether or not a specific chemical was used as a weapon in the investigated incident. From the results of the analyses of the samples, the FFM is of the opinion that none of the chemicals identified are likely to be the cause of death of the casualties in the reported incident.”
Did any of the media outlets go back and correct the “reports” that the Assad government had gassed people in Aleppo in August 2016?
No.
At the height of the war in Syria, when many chemical weapons attacks were reported, it was often impossible for the OPCW or any independent authority to visit the site of the alleged incident and conduct on the spot investigations. In addition, samples that might be collected were not held by independent bodies. Frequently they were passed to agencies in Turkey, a country with a government hostile to the Syrian government.
As a result, it is often impossible to say with certainty whether there was a chemical weapons attack at all and if it did indeed occur, even more difficult to determine, who carried it out.
Russian and Syrian sources claim that some attacks were carried out by ISIS and others were fake staged events carried out by ISIS.
OPCW and UN investigations have at times laid blame on both of the warring sides. https://news.un.org/en/story/2017/11/570192-both-isil-and-syrian-government-responsible-use-chemical-weapons-un-security
But in the minds of many media commentators – whether they be ABC broadcaster and former CNN reporter, Stan Grant or the ABC’s Media Watch – it’s a simply fact that the Syrian regime is solely responsible. At the very least, more scepticism is required.
Paul Malone is a journalist with over 40 years experience, having worked for the Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, The Australian Financial Review and the Canberra Times. He is a former Board member of the National Press Club; a former Treasurer of the Australian Journalists Association (ACT) Branch; and a former member of the Federal Parliamentary Press Gallery Committee.
Paul Malone has a long-running interest in Borneo. His book The Peaceful People: The Penan and their fight for the forest was published in 2014 by Gerakbudaya, Malaysia.
Comments
10 responses to “Media failure again on alleged chemical weapons attacks in Syria”
Interesting. John Bolton’s book “The room where it happened” describes in some detail Bolton’s actions in getting the Americans, together with France and the UK to bomb the Syrians because the attacks on Douma and others. Bolton is very strong on what he believes were indeed gas attacks by Syria. He also says that he strongly doubts that the Syrians have indeed destroyed all their gas producing and storage facilities.
His book was written in 2020 and hence all this info would (should) have been available to him. Note also that Bolton is rather fanatical in his hatred of Iran and was instrumental in pushing Trump to withdraw from the nuclear treaty with Iran.
All of this in his declared interest in “keeping America safe”. And this is of course best done by bombing other countries into oblivion, vide Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and if he had half a chance, Iran.
Nice friends to have.
Hans, and of course the last thing Bolton’s prescriptions do is keep Americans and America safe. If he got out in the real world he might start to see how others see the America he has created.
Indeed
Hans, After Doutma the US attacked a number of sites that supposedly manufactured or stored chemical weapons. I contacted the OPCW and asked them about these sites.
In July 2018 I wrote the following: In media briefings shortly after the US airstrikes US Lieutenant General Kenneth McKenzie said that by hitting Barzah in particular the US had attacked the heart of the Syrian chemicals weapon program.
But the Barzah Damascus laboratory the US attacked was investigated by the OPCW in the months before the airstrike and found not to be producing chemical weapons. The Director General of the OPCW, H.E. Mr Ahmet Üzümcü reported on 13 March 2018 that on 22 November 2017 the OPCW concluded a second round of inspections at the Barzah and Jamrayah facilities.In February this year he said samples were sent to two designated laboratories for analysis.
“The results of the inspection were issued on 28 February … and it was noted that the inspection team did not observe any activities inconsistent with obligations under the Convention.”
Journalists also moved about the smoking ruins of the supposed chemical weapons research centre shortly after the airstrikes with no ill effect. An AFP journalist reported visiting the site with plumes of smoke rising from the building and a burning smell in the air. An engineer, Said Said, who identified himself as head of the centre’s paint and plastics department, told AFP that only non-lethal research and development took place at the centre.
“If there were chemical weapons, we would not be able to stand here. I’ve been here since 5:30 am in full health – I’m not coughing,” he added. Said confirmed that the OPCW had visited the site in Barzeh in recent months and had declared it free of any toxic weapons.
https://publish.pearlsandirritations.com/paul-malone-justification-for-syrian-airstrikes-evaporates/
Thanks Paul. Articles such as yours are so important. Without them we will be frogmarched into more pointless wars in other peoples’ interests. I have been following thegrayzone.com on this issue. So wonderful to see someone introducing this in local media.
Warren, I’ve written a few pieces on this. The Canberra Times published one and Pearls and Irritations has published others. But the mainstream media shows little scepticism despite the Iraq WMD lies, etc
Warren, I’ve written a few pieces on this. The Canberra Times published one and Pearls and Irritations has published others. But the mainstream media shows little scepticism despite the Iraq WMD lies, etc
Since writing this article, a former head of the OPCW, Brazilian Jose Bustani, has called on the OPCW to let Its inspectors speak out on their findings in relation to the Douma allegations. Bustani was invited to speak at the UN Security Councilbut his testimony was blocked by the US, the UK and France. In his statement he said he was removed from his position as head of the OPCW by a US-orchestrated campaign in 2002 when he was trying to uphold the Chemical Weapons Convention. (https://theintercept.com/2018/03/29/john-bolton-trump-bush-bustani-kids-opcw/ ) Bustani called on the current Director General, Fernando Arias to hear what all the Douma inspectors had to say and to be more transparent in reporting its investigations of the incident.
https://couragefound.org/2020/10/ex-opcw-chief-%EF%BB%BFjose-bustanis-statement-to-the-un-security-council/
Thanks for this article Paul. I listened to most of the three hour video from the recent UNSC session. Three briefers (Ian Henderson – former OPCW Team Leader and part of the Douma FFM, Professor Ted Postol – chemical weapons expert & Aaron Mate – journalist) provide logical, measured and considered evidence on the ‘irregularities’ in OPCW reports on alleged chemical weapons use in Syria. Mr Henderson had a very reasonable request; that the OPCW investigators be able to brief the head of the OPCW on the scientific and engineering evidence obtained as part of the investigation in person.
The response by the US, UK, French and German representatives to the UN was instructive. They ignored all of the evidence/issues raised and used the opportunity to attack Russia for its role in organising the meeting. They are clearly not interested in hearing any evidence which would remove the justification for their illegal missile strikes against Syria.
A summary of the session can be found here: https://thegrayzone.com/2020/10/07/opcw-syria-whistleblower-and-ex-opcw-chief-attacked-by-us-uk-french-at-un/
Yes Cameron. It’s frightening when the nations of “free speech” deny the right to speak.