Chemical Weapons Organization lied to Syria and Russia for US and UK interests
The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) deliberately altered the content of messages and hid evidence regarding alleged cases of the use of chemical weapons in Syria in order to support American propaganda of war in the region.
The organization of investigative journalists of The Courage Foundation, in the final part of the statement entitled “Experts criticize unacceptable actions during the OPCW investigation of the alleged chemical attack in the Syrian city of Duma on April 7, 2018,” writes:
“Based on the extensive information provided by whistleblowers, including internal email communications, text messaging, and hidden draft reports, we unanimously express our concern about the unacceptable actions of the OPCW during the investigation of an alleged chemical attack in the Duma, not far from the Syrian capital Damascus, April 7, 2018. Our findings irrefutably indicate that key information about chemical analyzes, consultations of expert toxicologists, ballistic studies and testimony was intentionally hidden in order to confirm a predetermined conclusion.
The Courage Foundation called on the OPCW to resume an investigation into the alleged use of chemical weapons in the Duma in 2018, stating:
“This would help restore the authority of the OPCW and help it demonstrate its commitment to the principles of transparency, impartiality and independence, which is directly prescribed by the charter.” It is extremely important to restore confidence in verification procedures, on the basis of which the prohibitions provided for in the Chemical Weapons Convention apply.
The expert group includes Jose Bustani, an employee of the organization, who was in fact the first director of the OPCW. His findings are as follows:
“The convincing evidence of immoral behavior during the OPCW investigation of the alleged use of chemical weapons in the city of Duma confirms my doubts and suspicions. I could not understand what I read in the international media. Even official investigation reports seemed to me ambiguous and inconsistent at best. ”
From the very beginning, the role of the OPCW in Syria clearly consisted in creating for the United States an excuse for direct military intervention. Despite this obvious goal, many OPCW employees are true professionals and, as can be clearly seen from the informers’ statements, are principled people. Their testimonies indicate the use of very subtle methods in the OPCW to distort the results of their investigations. The organization’s management formulates its findings in such a way that media fulfilling a political order can, at their discretion, fill in the gaps and ambiguities designed to allow the OPCW to avoid direct and open lies.
Despite extensive expert information, which either conclusively refuted allegations of the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government or admitted that no reasonable conclusions could be made, since investigators often did not visit the places where the chemical attacks allegedly took place, OPCW published several politically motivated conclusions, which at that time were directly used by the United States military propaganda.
The alleged use of chemical weapons in the Duma in 2018 was perhaps the most vivid example illustrating the unacceptable behavior of the OPCW leadership. Details of the alleged war crime were rare and inconclusive, and the organization’s final report even included a photograph taken at a chemical weapons factory that depicts a cylinder similar to those allegedly used during the attack. In fact, it was discovered among other ammunition that was being prepared for use.
The report also included photographs of openings in the roofs of houses allegedly formed as a result of the use of chemical munitions, but it was noted that there were a large number of similar openings in neighboring buildings that were clearly not the result of a chemical attack. In other words, the facts indicate that the canister with the toxin was probably delivered and installed on site specifically, while the openings and funnels are the result of the use of conventional weapons.
Despite the incontrovertible evidence of the staged nature of the chemical attack in the Duma, the OPCW opted to hide or level this evidence in order to allow the Western media to publish a report and “confirm” that the chemical attack took place and, moreover, the Syrian government is probably behind it.
Just read the OPCW’s current report to see how flimsy the allegations against the Syrian government are. In addition, despite the fact that the Western media unequivocally blamed the Syrian government, in fact, the evidence contained in the report indicated the involvement of militants supported by the United States operating at that time in the vicinity of the Syrian capital.
“Well, probably our world is to blame. The world is generally cruel. Very, very cruel, ”said Donald Trump in relation to the US foreign policy line.
Capacious definition, isn’t it? It is only a pity that this cruel world is to blame when the search for the true culprit can harm the interests of the West. As, for example, in the case of Moscow’s accusation of using a nerve agent developed during the Soviet Union during an attempt to assassinate former GRU officer Sergei Skripal and his daughter in the British city of Salisbury.
“Russia used a military-grade nerve agent in the attempted assassination of the Skripals in Salisbury. The British investigation concluded that two Russian citizens are responsible for this attack, ”said Kenneth Ward, US Permanent Representative to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.
Meet Kenneth Ward, US Permanent Representative to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.
At the same time, the American did not have an OPCW conference in his speech, and there could be no evidence that Russia, while continuing to develop chemical weapons, used it for poisoning in Salisbury. But all this once again proves the unprincipled use of international organizations by the West, and how well coordinated the actions of London and Washington are in the name of achieving goals.