Are we about to have another allegation of poison gas use in the Syrian war? Will Western powers wait for proof or will they, as before, presume guilt, shower Syria with missiles and hope to have their actions justified post facto by the OPCW, the ostensibly independent arbiter of war crimes involving chemical weapons?

Or has the recent OPCW leak , https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2019/05/strange-news-from-the-opcw-in-the-hague-.html revealing hitherto-suppressed dissension among the body’s experts on the April 2018 Douma allegations, made such a sequence of events less likely?

I don’t know. But it will be interesting to watch.

By the way, I only recently came across this historical article by George Monbiot about an earlier, more public controversy about the OPCW. If major western media don’t think it important, the US government certainly does: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/apr/16/iraq.comment

There are signs that, though the recent OPCW leak has been very poorly covered in Western media, it has led to some concern among diplomats. France issued a bizarre statement affirming its confidence in the OPCW, though very few people in France know that the body’s impartiality has been questioned.

The US State Department issued an equally weird attack on supposed Russian and Syrian attempts to create ‘false narratives’ about Chemical Weapons (CW) use, attempts which (if they are such and if they exist) are largely unknown to Western public opinion. This sort of thing vaguely reminds me of the Bible verse which opens the second (and slightly better) version of that wonderful film ‘True Grit’, but that is because I am a bit mischievous and sceptical about governments, and you will have to look it up to see what I mean: Proverbs Chapter 28, verse 1, King James Version, if you please.

The war in Syria is currently going quite badly for the rebels, who have had the backing of Saudi Arabia, Saudi;s Gulf allies, and of the USA France and Britain to different degrees.

And the rebels concentrated in their last pocket of resistance in Idlib are now almost wholly dominated by jihadis such as the body currently known as the Hayat Tahrir al Sham, (‘Organization for the Liberation of the Levant’) . This was formerly the Nusra Front (the name by which it is better known) and until recently a declared affiliate of Al Qaeda, though it now disavows this link. You may choose to believe this or not, according to inclination. It also had an interlude when it was ‘rebranded’ as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham (The Front for the Liberation of Syria)

They are confined in the Idlib region, after defeats in much of the rest of Syria, especially following the capture of Aleppo by forces of the Assad state backed by Russia. It appears their eventual final defeat is likely unless they can somehow persuade the USA and other major western powers to offer them major support, soon.

Another complicating factor is the attitude of Turkey, which has in the past been helpful to the Jihadists, but in the end follows its own interests. There is also a dispute about who has broken an agreement on a supposedly demilitarized zone between Idlib and Damascus-controlled areas. This has broken down since HTS established pretty much exclusive control of much of the Idlib pocket neighbouring Syrian-held territory. This Associated Press story from January may help to explain the background:

https://www.apnews.com/4f459eb620a5461886f43952e7d1bf96

HTS’s former name in full, by the way, translates as ‘Victory Front for the People of the Levant by the Mujahideen of the Levant on the Fields of Jihad’.

To give some indication of where they stand in the Jihadi spectrum, they publicly supported (in an earlier incarnation) the November 2015 outrages by terrorist murders in Paris, according to this report

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/syrias-nusra-front-backs-paris-attacks-despite-opposition-islamic-state

But they are said to be more pragmatic than ISIS, being readier to work with other Islamist groups and to refrain from imposing strict Islamic dress codes etc on areas that they control. I haven’t been. I can’t confirm. My suspicion is that any journalists who do enter areas under their control have to undergo some pretty strict vetting first, but again, I have never tried.

These are deep waters, and they are not very well-covered by Western media for the obvious reason that such areas are very dangerous for such media to visit, for any number of reasons. Even if you can get in, and hope to get in again, you would in my view be quite constrained. I claim no detailed knowledge of them, and welcome corrections and additions from anyone with better information. But I hope what I write here, all of it second-hand, and making no pretence to be anything else, may still be useful background to what is happening now.

On 21st May the New York Times reported a briefing from the State Department in Washington DC, attributing it to that department’s new spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/21/world/middleeast/bashar-assad-syria-weapons.html

The core of it was that the US State Department was giving credence to claims, by Syrian jihadists, of a suspected chlorine attack in Idlib. This may seem pretty scanty to you. It does to me, not least because chlorine gas is such a clumsy, obsolete weapon on a battlefield, as well as the only certain way of ensuring US military support for the jihadis, just when they would otherwise lose the war. The Assad state would therefore be quite mad to use it. But what struck me as interesting was that it came so soon after the leak from the OPCW which had called into question the impartiality of that organisation, and which will therefore cast a shadow over any future determinations it makes about the use of CW.

More on that in a moment, but first, let us see what the New York Times said the following day:

Having headlined its 22nd May report ‘US says Assad May Be Using Chemical Weapons in Syria Again’, the USA’s most influential newspaper did a somersault.

On 23rd May, it published a very different story

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/world/middleeast/syria-chemical-weapons.html

under the very different headline ‘US Yet to Find Evidence of New Chemical Weapons Attack in Syria’

The second story (by the same reporter who wrote the first one) is described as a ‘recalibration’ (lovely word) of the previous day’s statement’ , which had been given by State Department spokeswoman Ms Morgan Ortagus.

The ‘recalibration’ was done by a senior US government official, while speaking to a Congressional hearing. The story also mentioned that Ms Ortagus was the ‘new’ spokeswoman of the State Department (perhaps suggesting inexperience?). Ms Ortagus then fell into line with the revised version.

In a key passage the NYT records ‘On Wednesday afternoon Ms Ortagus told reporters at the State Department that she agreed with Mr Jeffrey’s comments that morning that raised questions about reports of a new chemical weapons attack by Mr Assad’s government. She declined to give specific details on what prompted the tough statement from her on Tuesday’.

Which is a nice way of saying that she was rowing back hard.

The second story went on to deal another thumping blow to the first one, quoting unnamed ‘American military officials’ expressing ‘surprise’ over the ‘tough’ statement issued by Ms Ortagus on Tuesday. In other words, scoffing at it.

Something is clearly going in in Washington, where not everyone is signed up to the ‘Bomb Syria at every opportunity’ policy embraced by the British government.

As far as I could find out, the only other major outlet reporting this matter was ‘The Guardian’ of London.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/22/us-accuses-syrian-government-of-fresh-chemical-weapon-attack

But Fox News also ran this story on 24th May (I assume it is matched by a filmed report)

https://www.foxnews.com/world/syrian-doctor-chemical-attacks-harsh-response

It notes that 'A specialized team is said to have collected blood, urine, saliva and clothing samples from the injured to be tested, with the hope of starting a thorough investigation by OPCW.' But this would violate the custody chain for evidence. As Michael Luhan, a spokesman for the OPCW explained to Reuters in 2013 here

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-crisis-chemical-weapons/evidence-of-syria-chemical-weapons-use-not-up-to-u-n-standard-idUSBRE93P0UG20130426

'Weapons inspectors will only determine whether banned chemical agents were used in the two-year-old conflict if they are able to access sites and take soil, blood, urine or tissue samples and examine them in certified laboratories, according to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which works with the United Nations on inspections.

“This is the only basis on which the OPCW would provide a formal assessment of whether chemical weapons have been used,” said Michael Luhan, a spokesman for the Hague-based OPCW.’

Later in the story the reporter explains: ‘Even if samples were made available to the OPCW by those making the assertions, the organisation could not use them. Then he quotes Mr Luhan directly (my emphases)

“The OPCW would never get involved in testing samples that our own inspectors don’t gather in the field because we need to maintain chain of custody of samples from the field to the lab to ensure their integrity,” said Luhan. (my emphases). The OPCW appears, at Khan Sheikhoun for instance, to have abandoned this rule in practice (its inspectors never went there) , but this surely raises very serious questions about the reliability of its conclusions.



Can anyone give me any reliable, checkable information on the background of the Chemical Violations Documentation Centre of Syria (CVDCS)? Is it an impartial body?

The Guardian report contained some interesting extra detail:

‘Local reports said four hardline Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) fighters were injured by chlorine released by munitions dropped near the village of Kabana on Sunday.

The use of chlorine was alleged by the Idlib province health directorate but has not been corroborated by monitoring groups or international media. No casualties were reported in the mountainous area, where most residents have fled because of fighting.’

I asked the British Foreign Office if they had anything to say on the subject, and they said no, thank you. But others did.

On Wednesday 22nd, at Prime Minister’s Questions in the British Parliament, the very first question came from a former Labour, now independent, MP, John Woodcock. https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-05-22/debates/D0FB8DEF-CF6B-4254-83FE-20CE25D8DB1B/Engagements

He had come top in the question lottery, so giving him the first question on live TV when Parliament has its biggest audience, a coveted slot. He could, as far as I know, have asked anything he liked. He chose to air the Syrian issue. And he said to the Premier, Mrs Theresa May : ‘…She can act now against the return of banned chemical weapons. British experts are this morning investigating a suspected chlorine attack by al-Assad in Idlib. If it is proved, will she lead the international response against the return of this indiscriminate evil?’

Mr May replied : ‘The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of the evil that is the use of chemical weapons. We of course acted in Syria, with France and the United States, when we saw chemical weapons being used there. We of course suffered the use of chemical weapons here on the streets of the United Kingdom, and we made a robust response, supported by our international friends and allies. We condemn all use of chemical weapons. We are in close contact with the United States and are monitoring the situation closely, and if any use of chemical weapons is confirmed, we will respond appropriately. But our position is clear: we consider Assad incapable of delivering a lasting peace, and his regime lost its legitimacy due to its atrocities against its own Syrian people.’

These words ‘and if any use of chemical weapons is confirmed, we will respond appropriately’ were not casually spoken. Though it is worth recalling that when Britain took part in rocket attacks on Syria in supposed reprisal for use of CW in Douma, nobody waited for confirmation, which in my view (because I read the OPCW reports with care) has yet to arrive. If you*did* believe it had arrived before, it is now very much in doubt following the OPCW leak.

Mr Woodcock then went on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/JWoodcockMP/status/1131166218654756864

volunteering to me: ‘Peter, I raised with the PM after getting information from British chemical weapons experts on the ground in Syria who say they[are] investigating but that the claim seems credible so far’.

Mr Woodcock’s words in the Commons ‘British experts are this morning investigating a suspected chlorine attack by al-Assad in Idlib’ ; and then his statement to me that he learned this ‘from British chemical weapons experts on the ground in Syria who say they [are] investigating but that the claim seems credible so far.’ were fascinating. How did he know? And what were British experts doing in Idlib, a conflict zone controlled by Al Qaeda-supporting jihadi fanatics? What sort of experts might these be? How did they get in?



I will be kind here (I do not know Mr Woodcock nor he me, and he was surprised to learn, when I contacted him, of my scepticism about the claims of CW use by Syria. He may have thought I was an ally when he first contacted me). He has been a longstanding enthusiast for intervention in Syria, in opposition to the views of his former party leader, Jeremy Corbyn. I will say only that he has so far been unable to provide any more details of these on-the-ground experts, or why they regarded as ‘credible’ a claim from which the US government was retreating as he asked his question.

I will try to keep watch on events, but in any case knowledge of these reports and incidents may prove important later.