UN Hearings - Salisbury nerve agent attack

[TheBigShort]

Incredible stuff occurring at the UN hearings regarding the Salisbury nerve agent attack.
Russia accusing British of using Nazi propaganda techniques. Britain and US trying to tie alleged Syrian chemical attack as 'evidence' of Russian involvement in Salisbury.

Its great political theatre if it werent for the fact that the underlying agendas are to undermine the integrity of nation states.

 

[Ceist Beag]

Agreed TBS, it would be funny if it weren't for the fact the stakes weren't so high. Some of the statements being made on either side are incredible. BJ comparing Putin to Hitler, the Russian ambassador to the UK saying they are concerned at the high number of Russian natives who have died in the UK under suspicious circumstances, it really is a case of diplomacy being thrown out the window and a free for all in the language being used. I really do wonder how some of these people managed to make it to where they are in politics but it's scary just how little diplomatic skills some of the players are portraying. It's like they all want to outdo the Donald or something!

 

[TheBigShort]

I agree Ceist Beag, this is the UN 'Security' Council!

I think it is pretty alarming rethoric - the last time I heard anything of this, with accusations of WMD being thrown about, was the lead up to the Iraq invasion.
I don't think we need worry too much about anything like that, yet, but its clear to me that underlying agendas are at play to antagonise sovereign nations through nefarious means.
The purpose of which is for what exactly? Why is this road being taken?

 

[elacsaplau]

Hold on a second TBS and CB!

We can trust the Brits - we can't trust the Ruskies - like, there's no way the Brits would ever prepare and present a dodgy dossier, is there?

 

[TheBigShort]

https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxn...enies-reports-syrian-chemical-attack.amp.html

https://www.rt.com/news/423499-us-blames-russia-douma-chemical/

The chemical weapons propaganda war is heating up. Either Russia is behind, or collaborating in chemical attacks in England and more tragically, Syria, or there is an attempt now to tarnish Russia in the same manner as Iraq under Sadam.

Either way, its now looking increasingly more likely that further conflict is on the way.

 

[TheBigShort]

This is moving fast. Direct US intervention to topple Assad looks likely to me.

https://edition-m.cnn.com/2018/04/08/middleeast/syria-chemical-attack-douma-intl/index.html

 

[Purple]

Either way, its now looking increasingly more likely that further conflict is on the way.

Yep, unfortunately.
It's like the modern version of The Great Game.

 

[cremeegg]

Yep, unfortunately.
It's like the modern version of The Great Game.

With added aerial bombing, chemical weapons and nuclear threat.

In fact the great game the had clear strategic vision on both sides. I think only the Russians have a strategic vision in the ME today.

 

[TheBigShort]

Im not sure what the truth is in all of this, and the alleged chemical attack in Syria, but im pretty certain whatever the truth, we are not being told.
Im in no doubt at this point that underhanded ulterior motives are at play for other purposes other than concern for the Syrian citizenry.

 

[TheBigShort]

Just as a side, before tomorrows papers are out, im guessing some major headlnes with 'exclusive' content into the syrian regime chemical weapons program.
And perhaps also further 'revelations' into the Skirpal case.

 

[TheBigShort]

My underlying sense is that the alleged chemical attack in Syria never actually happened.
The media have gone very quiet over this. And for the US/UK/Fra to attack an apparent chemical weapons laboratory was simply wreckless.
Fortunately they have appeared to have notified everyone in advance so there was no casualties and also no chemical weapons.

What is their game and is there any accountability for bombing sovereign nations on false pretentions?

 

[odyssey06]

My underlying sense is that the alleged chemical attack in Syria never actually happened.
The media have gone very quiet over this. And for the US/UK/Fra to attack an apparent chemical weapons laboratory was simply wreckless.
Fortunately they have appeared to have notified everyone in advance so there was no casualties and also no chemical weapons.
What is their game and is there any accountability for bombing sovereign nations on false pretentions?

Perhaps North Korea has taken centre stage?

For now, an attack still seems the most plausible explanation:
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/syria-chemical-attack-the-evidence

A regime which uses chemical weapons on its own citizens has lost its sovereignty, and there is no doubt that this regime in the past has done so.
What accountability was there for those actions?

 

[TheBigShort]

Perhaps North Korea has taken centre stage?

For now, an attack still seems the most plausible explanation:
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/syria-chemical-attack-the-evidence

A regime which uses chemical weapons on its own citizens has lost its sovereignty, and there is no doubt that this regime in the past has done so.
What accountability was there for those actions?

Thanks for that. But that is just a summary of of the 'evidence' for and against the allegation of the recent attack, being an attack using chemical weapons. Even if evidence is found that CW were used, there is no conclusive proof who carried it out.

"In the past, investigators from the OPCW have been successful in confirming the use of toxic substances, but have not always drawn conclusions about who was to blame. But, time and again, there is at least some evidence that points towards the Assad regime – even if it’s not always definitive."

I'm not condoning the Assad regime, and for previous attacks and accepting the OPCW has found 'sufficient' evidence to blame Assad, then he should be held to account to international law.
But the US/UK/Fra attacks, appear to me, based on very flimsy evidence, were rushed, and in turn, targeting a suspected CW laboratory was simply reckless.
Not only that, the rethoric used at the UN seemed more for the cause of threatening the integrity of Russia as much as Syria.

 

[odyssey06]

Thanks for that. But that is just a summary of of the 'evidence' for and against the allegation of the recent attack, being an attack using chemical weapons. Even if evidence is found that CW were used, there is no conclusive proof who carried it out.
"In the past, investigators from the OPCW have been successful in confirming the use of toxic substances, but have not always drawn conclusions about who was to blame. But, time and again, there is at least some evidence that points towards the Assad regime – even if it’s not always definitive."
I'm not condoning the Assad regime, and for previous attacks and accepting the OPCW has found 'sufficient' evidence to blame Assad, then he should be held to account to international law.
But the US/UK/Fra attacks, appear to me, based on very flimsy evidence, were rushed, and in turn, targeting a suspected CW laboratory was simply reckless.
Not only that, the rethoric used at the UN seemed more for the cause of threatening the integrity of Russia as much as Syria.

The Syrians denied the OPCW access to the site. This isn't the FBI trying to serve a domestic warrant with exclusive unfettered access to conduct an investigation.
You seem to be holding out for a standard of proof which is very easy for regimes who don't wish to play by the rules to evade. Maybe in the past Assad was less concerned about retaliatory strikes, but it is very easy to the regime to muddy the waters here - similar to Russia's use of "Little Green Men" elsewhere.

Why did Russia veto an independent UN investigation into the attack? As things stand, Russia's level of credibility and integrity on this issue is in negative territory.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ussia-un-deadlock-investigation-a8298671.html

What does "held to account by international law" mean when the world knows that the Russians, as security council members, will not hold their ally to account in the UN.
How held to account was Assad for the previous attacks?

 

[TheBigShort]

The Syrians denied the OPCW access to the site.

https://www.opcw.org/news/article/s...ble-chemical-weapons-production-facilities-a/

The alleged chemical attack took place on April 7. The US led attack took place six days later on 13 April. There was no denial of OPCW inspectors of the alleged CW laboratory. If it did hold CW, it was a reckless attack, no? Luckily it appeared not to have.

Why did Russia veto an independent UN investigation into the attack? As things stand, Russia's level of credibility and integrity on this issue is in negative territory.

It would appear that they were not satisfied with the 'attribution' clause;

Nebenzia said the US resolution, despite Washington claiming to take Moscow’s concerns into consideration, was effectively an attempt to resurrect the deprecated Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM). Even if the US project was adopted, it would take months to implement, the diplomat said, adding that the draft was a “provocative step” that had “nothing to do with the desire to investigate the Douma incident.” He said it was obviously designed to fail in order to serve as a justification for unauthorized military action against Syria.

“Why do you need the attribution mechanism, if you’ve already named the perpetrators before any investigation?” Nebenzia said, referring to blatant accusations against Damascus coming from the US and its allies.

https://www.rt.com/news/423751-un-syria-resolutions-vote/

How held to account was Assad for the previous attacks?

Obviously he hasn't been held to account. If of course his regime was responsible?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_chemical_weapons_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War

There is strong indicators and pointers blaming his regime, but it appears nothing definitive.

 

[odyssey06]

It would appear that they were not satisfied with the 'attribution' clause... There is strong indicators and pointers blaming his regime, but it appears nothing definitive.

Of course the Russians were not satisfied with the attribution clause, because they well know that it will lead directly to their ally or its agents!

How can there be anything definitive, if the Russians veto a UN investigation into establishing the perpetrators? You have circular logic here. No action should take place until it has been established both that chemical weapons were used and by whom - but the Russians veto the investigation into establishing who to attribute the action to... so that knowledge can never be established to your satisfaction... International law may as well not exist, if it held to this standard and so easily frustrated.

 

[TheBigShort]

Of course the Russians were not satisfied with the attribution clause, because they well know that it will lead directly to their ally or its agents!

How can there be anything definitive, if the Russians veto a UN investigation into establishing the perpetrators? You have circular logic here. No action should take place until it has been established both that chemical weapons were used and by whom - but the Russians veto the investigation into establishing who to attribute the action to... so that knowledge can never be established to your satisfaction... International law may as well not exist, if it held to this standard and so easily frustrated.

Im not disputing that there are under-handed tactics at play, but it is far from clear who is responsible. The Russians proposed an alternative motion for investigation that would allow the UN Sec Gen determine who the investigators would be – the US, UK and Fra voted against, why?

The UN are certain that CW were used in attacks in 2013/2014 and have proof. They are confident the Syrian military is responsible, but do not have definitive proof. Syria denies the allegations (that they carried out the attacks, not that the attacks occurred).

They embarked on a program of disarmanent of CW stock piles. The OPCW confirmed that they had done this.

To understand why there is an objection to the attribution clause, you have to understand that in the event that an independent investigation is inconclusive as to who the perpetrators were, then US coalition has already decided who ‘probably’ was responsible, or ‘most likely’ responsible - just as you appear to have decided yourself.
In other words, the US/UK/Fr can blame Assad and then justify regime change (to themselves) without conclusive evidence.

It is Iraq and WMD all over again (with the exception that CW do appear to have been used in some instances – but is it not established who used them).

 

[odyssey06]

Im not disputing that there are under-handed tactics at play, but it is far from clear who is responsible. The Russians proposed an alternative motion for investigation that would allow the UN Sec Gen determine who the investigators would be – the US, UK and Fra voted against, why?
The UN are certain that CW were used in attacks in 2013/2014 and have proof. They are confident the Syrian military is responsible, but do not have definitive proof. Syria denies the allegations (that they carried out the attacks, not that the attacks occurred).

The Russian alternative is a joke and it is a fallacy to present the investigations as in any way equivalent:
"Russia, meanwhile, proposed that the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres choose the investigators but that the results be reviewed by Russia for “acceptance” prior to making them public, according to Ms Haley. It also did not contain any clause to assign attribution of the suspected attack."

So you want the UN to establish conclusive evidence as to who carried out the attacks, but you criticize the countries who pushed for an investigation to establish attribution; and you defend the country who removes that clause?
The Syrians seem spectacularly unconcerned at allowing independent proof to be established that they are NOT responsible. You would think if they were innocent, they would be opening all doors to the UN to show this to the world? Every action they and the Russians have taken are the actions of a guilty morally bankrupt party.

The Syrians and Russians are muddying the waters such that the UN cannot conduct a proper investigation. You demand a proper investigation before action can be taken and the muddied waters mean that no such proper investigation will ever be allowed by Russia. It's clear for the world to see what is going on and the UN is being thwarted and taken for a fool by Russia.

 

[TheBigShort]

The Russian alternative is a joke and it is a fallacy to present the investigations as in any way equivalent:
"Russia, meanwhile, proposed that the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres choose the investigators but that the results be reviewed by Russia for “acceptance” prior to making them public, according to Ms Haley. It also did not contain any clause to assign attribution of the suspected attack."

Yes, meaning that if the investigation was inconclusive, then the result is inconclusive. Under the attribution clause, and in the event that the investigation was inconclusive, the investigators would have to declare who they believed ‘most likely’, or ‘probably’ – both of which, under international law, are inefficient to determine guilt.
Under US/UK/ Fra regime change standards however – it is sufficient.
How easily we forget, WMD and Saddams 45-min chemical attack capability to attack UK?
Over 1m Iraqi’s would be alive today if it were not for such a cock-up of gigantic proportions. Do you seriously think they should be trusted again?

So you want the UN to establish conclusive evidence as to who carried out the attacks, but you criticize the countries who pushed for an investigation to establish attribution;

Attribution is not establishing conclusive evidence of guilt, it is the act of alleging, attributing guilt in the absence of conclusive evidence.

The Syrians seem spectacularly unconcerned at allowing independent proof to be established that they are NOT responsible.

This is just speculation.

You would think if they were innocent, they would be opening all doors to the UN to show this to the world?

But they have already opened the doors to the UN OPCW who have confirmed the inoperability of it CW stockpile.
You seem to think that just because US/UK governments say that Syria was responsible that Syria, or any other sovereign state for that matter, should jump to the tune of the US/UK?
How about the US/UK actually provide some evidence?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/13/uk-denounces-claims-it-was-behind-staged-syrian-gas-attack

on the other hand

http://www.thejournal.ie/russia-proof-britain-chemical-attack-syria-3957015-Apr2018/

Who to believe? Why set up an investigation with an attribution clause? Why not wait until the investigation is concluded? If it can determine that Syria was responsible, or some other party, then let the investigation conclude that. If it cannot determine who was responsible then that is the conclusion.

 

[odyssey06]

They have already opened the doors to the UN OPCW who have confirmed the inoperability of it CW stockpile.

How could the OPCW ever know the full extent of Syria's stockpile? Did they cover ever acre of Syrian territory? Every bunker?
OPCW know about the stockpile that was declared to them by Syria. That is all.

Who to believe? Why set up an investigation with an attribution clause? Why not wait until the investigation is concluded? If it can determine that Syria was responsible, or some other party, then let the investigation conclude that. If it cannot determine who was responsible then that is the conclusion.

You are holding the UN to a standard of the proof that Russia will never allow it to establish if it is likely that evidence leads to its ally Syria.