A medic treats a victim of the nerve agent attack on Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib Province, April 4, 2017
The European Union has extended sanctions on Syria’s Assad regime over its killing of civilians in chemical attacks.
The European Council announced an extension until 22 October 2022, specifying that the sanctions have been imposed on “two Syrian research centres and a Russian chemistry research institute”.
The sanctions were first imposed in 2018, including on officials and regime agencies involved in the development and use of chemical weapons. Last year, the EU added seven new regime ministers to the list of 280 people and 70 Syrian institutions and companies.
Last week the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons reiterated that eight years after committing to destroy all chemical weapons and facilities — following its use of sarin gas near Damascus in August 2013, killing more than 1,400 civilians — the Assad regime has still not declared all of its chemical agents.
OPCW head Fernando Arias reported to the UN Security Council that the agency is still being blocked by the regime from inspecting the Barzah and Jamrayah facilities of the Scientific Studies and Research Center, the Assad regime’s organization for chemical weapons development.
See also OPCW: Assad Regime Still Has Not Declared All Chemical Weapons
The regime’s Foreign Ministry protested the EU announcement on Tuesday, calling it an extension of “illegitimate unilateral coercive measures which target the Center for Scientific Studies and Research and some of its employees”.
Much of the Ministry statement continued the Russian-regime attempt to portray the OPCW as a political tool of “countries hostile to Syria”.
[Edited by moderator]
There were 4 major chemical attacks of the Syrian conflict.
1. The Khan-al-Assal incident of 2013 in which dozens were killed with sarin.
2. The Ghouta attack of 2013 in which hundreds were killed with sarin
3. The Khan Sheykoon attack of 2017 in which scores were killed with sarin and/or phosgene.
4. The Douma attack of 2018 in which dozens were allegedly killed with sarin and/or chlorine.
The OPCW did not identity the perpetrator of the first two. In both cases, small rockets were used.
It did blame the Syrian government for the third and claimed it was an aerial bomb.
It implied the Syrian government was responsible for the fourth (a canister dropped by an aircraft) but found no use of sarin.
The OPCW did not send a team to investigate Khan Sheykoon – relying on third parties- but did so for the other 3 major incidents.
Some important corrections:
1. The OPCW “did not identify the perpetrator” of the 2013 Khan al-Assal and Ghouta attacks because it could not investigate them, as the Assad regime was not a party to the Chemical Weapons Convention until — under pressure after the Ghouta attack — in autumn 2013.
2. The OPCW *did* find use of chlorine in the 2018 attack.
3. The OPCW could not send a team to the site of the 2017 Khan Sheikhoun sarin attack because of security issues; however, it established a custody procedure to investigate environmental and biological samples.
4. Your characterization of the OPCW Final Report on Douma is wrong. Contrary to your claim, the OPCW has *never* blamed Syrian rebels for the use of chemical weapons. Both claims have been deleted from your comment.
1. The OPCW study did not find evidence of the use of Iranian-designed M-600 missiles in the Ghouta attack (as you had claimed) and said they were “improvised munitions” of very limited range. This means that the rebels could have perpetrated the incident.
2. I clearly stated that the OPCW did not find any evidence of *sarin* used in Douma. I also correctly stated that their report did not establish if any of the biomedical samples taken showed evidence of chlorine poisoning. They didn’t confirm any deaths due to chlorine whatsoever.
3. The White Helmets and other rebel-linked groups in KS provided the samples and the OPCW admitted it was unable to (3:46):
(a) assess the geography and conditions of the location of the alleged incident;
(b) directly select sampling points and items;
(c) conduct on-site collection of samples; and
(d) implement a complete chain of custody, by the team, for samples from source
https://www.opcw.org/sites/default/files/documents/Fact_Finding_Mission/s-1510-2017_e_.pdf
Varharan,
As I never claimed the OPCW found Iranian M-600 missiles were used on Ghouta — the investigation established that the Assad regime used Soviet-made rockets — your Point 1 is misinfo.
2. Point 2 is a red herring. OPCW established use of chlorine in the building where 43 bodies were discovered on April 7, 2018. The only reason why cause of death was not formally established was because OPCW could not get access to the bodies, as Russia and Assad regime controlled Douma area from April 8, 2018.
3. Point 3 is a red herring as it ignores that OPCW and JIM reports each detailed how chain of custody was assured for the environmental and biological samples in the conditions around Khan Sheikhoun.
4. Point 4 is misinformation, as only two and only ex-OPCW staff — neither of whom were involved in OPCW’s final report on Douma 2018 — have challenged the findings of the experts. Therefore, it has been deleted.
S.
You’re right. In the two incidents where locals accused the rebels of using chlorine, the OPCW [“couldn’t prove chemical use” — headline added by moderator]: https://apnews.com/article/chemical-weapons-syria-archive-aleppo-04f6a88cb89098925d5ca2ee2d09d74b
“Its investigations and analysis “did not allow the FFM to establish whether or not chemicals were used as a weapon,” according to the report issued Friday. The alleged chlorine attack in Aleppo was blamed on rebel forces. “Social media reported that armed opposition groups dismissed accusations that they had used poisonous gases to attack areas controlled by the government in the city of Aleppo,” the OPCW report said. “