O.P.C.W., Chemical Weapons Watchdog, Gets Power to Assign Blame

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/27/world/middleeast/chemical-weapons-attacks.html

Version 0 of 1.

LONDON — The world body that investigates cases in which banned chemical weapons are used will begin also assigning blame for those attacks, after a vote on Wednesday by member countries that was bitterly opposed by Russia and Syria, both of which have recently been accused of using the weapons.

The vote grew out of repeated uses of chemical weapons in the civil war in Syria and the charge that a former Russian spy and his daughter were attacked in Britain with a nerve agent.

The investigative group, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, has sent investigators to determine whether chemical attacks have taken place, violating a treaty joined by nearly every nation, but has not previously pointed fingers at those responsible.

The push to begin laying blame was led by Britain, which has charged that the Kremlin was responsible for the nerve agent poisoning on its soil in March — an allegation that Moscow has rejected and ridiculed — and sponsored by more than 20 of its allies, including the United States and most of the countries of Western Europe.

Member nations of the O.P.C.W. voted 82 to 24 on Wednesday in The Hague to expand its mandate. Twenty-six countries abstained, unwilling to take sides between the opposing powers, and a similar number that were eligible to vote were absent.

The ability to assign blame “is crucial if we are going to deter the use of these vile weapons,” Boris Johnson, the British foreign secretary, said after the vote.

The attack on the former Russian spy and his daughter in Salisbury, England, in March, which also sickened a third person, and the claim by Britain that Russia was to blame, seemed to signal a breach in the unwritten rules of international affairs and espionage. It also rallied Western countries to Britain’s support, deepening Russia’s diplomatic isolation.

In recent years, Syria has experienced the most frequent use of chemical weapons anywhere globally in generations, raising fears that the world could become numbed to once-unthinkable atrocities. The O.P.C.W. is expected to report soon on a suspected chemical attack in April in eastern Ghouta, near Damascus, which prompted airstrikes against Syria by the United States, France and Britain.

Western governments and aid groups have blamed rebel groups for some of the attacks in Syria but have attributed most to the government of President Bashar al-Assad, accusing it of indiscriminately killing civilians with banned substances (though it has killed many more with conventional munitions).

The Assad government and its primary backers, Russia and Iran, have denied using chemical weapons; Western diplomats say that if Syrians are accused of war crimes in an international tribunal, Russians could be accused of complicity, even if they had no direct role in the attacks.

This week, Russia, Syria and Iran led the opposition to having the O.P.C.W. alter its role. Russia, in particular, used a series of delaying tactics on Tuesday, the first day of the organization’s meeting, to try to call into question its legitimacy or prevent a vote, and on Wednesday the Russian delegation tried again to delay the vote.

In addition, Belarus, Syria, Iran, Kazakhstan, Venezuela and others introduced a series of amendments to Britain’s proposal. But all of the amendments were defeated, according to diplomats who were present.

Opponents of the British motion warned of politicizing the organization’s work, a charge with a long history and some justification. In 2002, the United States forced out an O.P.C.W. chief, who later said the George W. Bush administration had gotten rid of him out of fear that the group would undermine American claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

But on Tuesday evening, as the British motion was discussed, Brett Mason, Australia’s representative, mocked concerns about ruffling feathers.

“Are we really committed to prohibiting chemical weapons, or only committed if no one is upset, only committed if no one complains, only committed if no one is put out?” Mr. Mason asked.

“Without attributing responsibility for their use, our words will become empty rhetoric,” Mr. Mason said. “Those that use chemical weapons will more confidently wear a cloak of impunity.”

The Syrian ambassador, Bassam al-Sabbagh, devoted most of his speech to the group to attacking the United States, which he said had caused the bloodshed in the Middle East, distorted the operation of the O.P.C.W. and other international bodies and conducted “a campaign of false allegations” against his country.

He even blamed Americans for the use of chemical weapons in Syria. The United States gives chemical weapons to allied militias, he claimed, to use “in order to inflame international public opinion against the Syrian government.”

In 2015, the United Nations created a system for investigating chemical weapons attacks with the help of the O.P.C.W., and saying who was to blame for them. But the arrangement, called the Joint Investigative Mechanism, drew intense criticism from Russia after blaming the Syrian government for one of the worst chemical weapons uses of the war, a sarin gas attack in April 2017 that killed dozens of people.

The mandate for the mechanism expired in late 2017, and Russia vetoed an attempt to renew it. It was the 11th time Russia had used its veto power in the United Nations Security Council to shield Syria from international action since the civil war began.

The group Human Rights Watch hailed the O.P.C.W. vote as an important move toward accountability, particularly in Syria. Louis Charbonneau, the group’s United Nations director, said that “the days of Russia using its Security Council veto to suppress the truth about chemical attacks in Syria are over.”