Syria: OPCW Whistleblowers Confirm What We Already Knew

November 5, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Whistleblowers have come forward revealing what many had known all along - that the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) had deliberately altered various reports and suppressed evidence regarding alleged chemical weapon attacks in Syria to help bolster US war propaganda.

The Courage Foundation - comprised of various whistleblowers and investigative journalists - in a statement titled, "Panel Criticizes ‘Unacceptable Practices’ in the OPCW’s investigation of the Alleged Chemical Attack in Douma, Syria on April 7th 2018," would conclude (emphasis added):

Based on the whistleblower’s extensive presentation, including internal emails, text exchanges and suppressed draft reports, we are unanimous in expressing our alarm over unacceptable practices in the investigation of the alleged chemical attack in Douma, near the Syrian capital of Damascus on 7 April 2018. We became convinced by the testimony that key information about chemical analyses, toxicology consultations, ballistics studies, and witness testimonies was suppressed, ostensibly to favor a preordained conclusion.

The panel called on the OPCW to revisit its investigation of the alleged 2018 Douma attack, stating:

This would help to restore the credibility of the OPCW and work towards demonstrating its legally mandated commitment to transparency, impartiality and independence. It is of utmost importance to restore trust in the verification procedures relied upon to implement the prohibitions of the CWC [Chemical Weapons Convention].

The panel included a member of the OPCW itself - José Bustani - who in fact served as the first Director General of the OPCW. He would conclude:

“The convincing evidence of irregular behaviour in the OPCW investigation of the alleged Douma chemical attack confirms doubts and suspicions I already had. I could make no sense of what I was reading in the international press. Even official reports of investigations seemed incoherent at best. The picture is certainly clearer now, although very disturbing.”

A detailed breakdown on precisely what evidence was suppressed can be found here.

Confirming the Obvious

From the beginning, the OPCW's role in Syria was clearly to buttress a US pretext for direct military intervention.

Despite this obvious goal, because many of OPCW staff are professionals and as clearly seen through the actions of whistleblowers coming forward - are principled - the OPCW resorted to very subtle methods to skew the outcomes of its reports and word its conclusions in such a way that media spin could fill in gaps and ambiguity the OPCW itself did not want to directly and overtly lie about.

Despite information within their own reports either indisputably disproving claims of Syria's government using chemical weapons, or admissions that no fact-based claims could even be made with investigators often never even visiting sites where alleged attacks took place, the OPCW would release several politically-motivated conclusions that fed directly into US war propaganda at the time.

The alleged 2018 Douma chemical attack was perhaps the most pertinent example of this, with details of the alleged attack sparse and unconvincing and with the final OPCW report even including a picture taken at a militant weapon's factory where a cylinder similar to those allegedly used in the attack was found among ordnance being prepared for use.

The report also included photographs of the alleged holes made on rooftops from what were claimed to be chemical munitions - but noted that adjacent buildings had similar craters and holes that clearly were not the result of chemical munitions. In other words, evidence suggests the canisters were likely placed into position, taking advantage of holes and craters created by conventional weapons.

Despite evidence suggesting the attack was staged, the OPCW chose to suppress or downplay evidence and use ambiguous language to allow Western media sources to spin the report and "confirm" that not only an attack take place, but that the Syrian government was allegedly behind it.

Only upon reading the actual OPCW report would anyone know just how flimsy accusations against the Syrian government were and that despite Western media headlines accusing the Syrian government, evidence within the report pointed the finger instead at US-backed militants operating in the area at the time.

Will Shake Up at IAEA Impact Iran?

July 31, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Yukiya Amano's passing has stirred up suspicion and further tensions amid US-Iranian tensions.

Amano was 72 years old and as of mid July 2019 had already begun preparing to step down due to poor health.

A July 18 AFP-JIJI article titled, "Japanese IAEA head Yukiya Amano to step down next year for health reasons: diplomatic sources," reported:

The head of the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog, Yukiya Amano, will step down in March for health reasons, diplomatic sources said Wednesday, as the agency navigates verification of the increasingly fragile Iran nuclear deal.

However, in the wake of his death and because of his perceived opposition to US efforts to undermine the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) or "Iran Deal" - suspicions began circulating that the US or Israel - or both - may have played a role in his death.

Iran-based Tasnim News Agency in an article titled, "Sources Raise Possibility of Israeli Assassination of Amano," would claim:

Informed sources have speculated that late chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Yukiya Amano was assassinated by Israel in collaboration with the US for refusing to give in to pressures to raise new fabricated allegations against Iran’s nuclear program.

Considering the foreign policy track records of either the US or Israel - an assassination targeting members of international institutions impeding Western interests certainly sounds plausible. However no evidence has been provided to suggest Amano was assassinated.

Furthermore - his death whatever the cause will likely have little impact on the IAEA's policies or the general state of US-Iranian tensions - for several reasons.

International Institutions are the Sum of their Member States

International institutions reflect the vector sum of sponsoring nations' interests. As the global balance of power shifts, so too does the proportion of influence of each member state represented by these institutions. In turn the agenda of these institutions changes accordingly.

The IAEA's criticism of Washington's undermining of the Iran Deal reflects not the IAEA's independent assessment - but the collective interests of member nations the IAEA supposedly represents in all matters of nuclear technology. It is no coincidence that in the halls of foreign ministries around the globe similar criticism has been leveled against Washington regarding the Iran Deal.

Nations in Europe attempting to salvage the deal have taken measures to sidestep US sanctions imposed after the US unilaterally and without justification, withdrew. Whatever influence these same nations have within the UN and IAEA has certainly filtered through and was reflected by Amano's position over the Iran Deal prior to his death.

With this in mind, one can expect the IAEA's position to remain relatively unchanged regardless of who becomes the institution's next chief.

Washington's Abuse of International Institutions: A Tired Trick 

The United States and its partners have so regularly abused or even entirely sidestepped international institutions that the legitimacy and impact of these institutions have been greatly diminished.

While the IAEA may reflect a position supporting the Iran Deal's continuation - nations of the world pragmatically sidestepping US sanctions and pursuing multilateral diplomacy is by far more important than anything the IAEA can contribute.

Should the US or Israel succeed in maneuvering to the head of the IAEA a new chief reflecting their interests it will only accelerate the IAEA's irrelevancy further regarding the Iran Deal.

US' Destruction of Syria will take UN With it

October 11, 2016 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - The United Nations has never looked more impotent, irrelevant and politically motivated in its actions than it has regarding the ongoing conflict in Syria. 

It has categorically failed to take an impartial stance on the conflict which has raged for over 5 years now. This includes a failure to properly identify the conflict as a foreign-funded and backed proxy war rather than a "civil war," as well as identify and hold accountable those nations fueling anti-government hostilities within and beyond Syria's borders.

By failing to do so, the UN has undermined its own credibility, credibility required to ensure the Syrian government and its allies adhere to international law and observe human rights as they execute security operations aimed at restoring order and stability across the country.

Quest for "Veto Limits" is Politically Motivated 

The most recent and perhaps severe collapse of the UN's credibility revolves around US-backed calls to "limit veto power" upon the UN Security Council, effectively allowing the council to green-light without opposition any war the US wills predicated on its well-practiced "humanitarian war" rhetoric. 

The US State Department's Voice of America would publish an article titled, "UN Official Calls for Security Council Veto Limit to Halt Syrian Bloodbath," which claimed:

The United Nations' top human rights official has called for limits on the use of the veto power by the U.N. Security Council's five permanent members to halt the tragedy unfolding in east Aleppo in northern Syria. 

U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra'ad al Hussein has called the situation nothing short of calamitous and likened the horrors being inflicted on the citizens of Aleppo to those that occurred in cities such as Warsaw, Stalingrad and Dresden in World War II.

It is no coincidence that Zeid hails from Jordan, one of several nations directly involved in harboring, training, arming and refitting militant groups along Syria's borders, belying claims that the conflict is a "civil war" rather than a foreign sponsored proxy war.

VOA also claimed:

Russia, often backed by China, has used its veto power in the Security Council to block resolutions it deemed unfavorable to its ally, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The high commissioner's spokesman, Rupert Colville, said Zeid was calling for bold leadership to end this practice.

And indeed, Russia's veto is all that prevented a recent French-sponsored resolution aimed at establishing a no-fly-zone and thus impunity for terrorists trapped in the city of Aleppo and surrounding it, prolonging the conflict and suffering of those trapped amid it, not ending it.

US Upstaged at UN General Assembly - Who's to Blame?

October 2, 2015 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - The UN General Assembly this year celebrated its 70th anniversary which is why more leaders than usual attended and participated. While the speeches were typical and mostly irrelevant for people already well-informed about world events, there was one particular point to note that made this gathering more telling than most.

It wasn't a point that could be discerned by simply watching the speeches play out on the floor of the General Assembly hall, but rather revealed itself in the reaction to the speeches by American policymakers online.

While they predictably railed against the speech presented by Russian President Vladimir Putin, they also derided US President Barack Obama for being upstaged by his Russian counterpart. But it wasn't President Obama's shortcomings nor that of his speechwriters that led to this apparent humiliation. It was American policy itself, owed to the very policymakers being derisive.

Contrary to popular belief, American policy is not created by politicians either in the Oval Office or in Congress. Instead, doctrine, war plans, domestic and foreign economic policy, and geopolitical and strategic plans laid out for years to come, originate in corporate-financier funded think tanks and among the army of academics, industry leaders, and other lobbyists of special interests employed by them. These think tanks and the policymakers that work within them are unelected, transcending political party lines, and political administrations. 

The fact that a Democratic US president expanded the wars of his Republican predecessor, and provoked those this Republican opponents failed to implement during their term, illustrates perfectly the continuity of agenda prevalent in Western politics. Like the US often accuses its competitors around the world, the United States itself is ruled by an oligarchy of special interests who simply dress up their singular agenda as partisan politics to maintain the illusion of representative governance.

Their wars which in reality serve the singular purpose of achieving and maintaining global geopolitical socioeconomic hegemony are dressed up as "defending the homeland" under Republicans, and "humanitarian interventions" under Democrats. In following the unwarranted wealth and influence wrought from such wars, it can be seen clearly for what purpose they are truly waged. 

Thus, the criticism from across American foreign policy circles in the wake of the UN General Assembly, reveals precisely where America's true problems lie. It was their policy that President Obama was attempting to present to the world at the UN General Assembly. President Obama wasn't upstaged because he is a poor orator or because he depends on incompetent speechwriters, but because nothing the United States is truly doing around the world could be honestly presented to the public, leaving only the same tired rhetoric and boundless hypocrisy that even the least observant among us are beginning to notice.

This can best be illustrated in Syria, where the United States claims to be committed to defeating terrorism, all while it transparently supports terrorist militants in its goal to overthrow the government in Damascus. Thus, President Obama's talking points during the UN General Assembly regarding Syria rang particularly hollow. Conversely, when Russia stated that it planned to defeat terrorism in Syria, the world could already see clearly that it has been Russia supporting the only force within Syria's borders confronting terrorism - the government in Damascus.

American policymakers don't appear to realize or at least be willing to accept that it is they and the special interests they serve that are responsible for America's decline, its unpopularity, and the rise of competitors able to upstage the US in front of the UN General Assembly, and upon the stage of geopolitics.

These policymakers responsible for America's current course will never admit that they are not as smart as they believe themselves to be, or that their poor judgement, petty ambitions, egos, and plain incompetence has led to this irreparable decline in American legitimacy and influence.

And because they can never admit it, they can do nothing to resolve it. But maybe that is for the better.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine“New Eastern Outlook”.   

UN Peacekeepers: Enemies of International Law

May 6, 2015 (Valery Kulikov  - NEO) - The recent scandal involving the sexual abuse of African children carried out by members of a UN peacekeeping mission, despite numerous efforts of this international organization to play it down, will not be ignored. And the international community must finally recall what was the original purpose of the UN as established by allied powers after the Second World War in the name of peace and security for all people on the planet.

According to a series of publications by Bruxelles2, France Info, Guardian and a number of other media outlets, a number of French and Georgian soldiers that were employed in the UN peacekeeping operation “Sangaris” in Central Africa, are responsible of child sexual abuse.

It should be recalled that an armed conflict between the government of the Central African Republic and Muslim rebels, many of which took part in the civil war of 2004-2007, resulted in the French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian announcing that France would deploy a thousand soldiers in CAR to carry out a UN peacekeeping mission. On December 9, 2013 the United States decided to take part in this operation, while the Georgian parliament also agreed to send its soldiers to CAR a year later, on February 22, 2014. By June 2014 the number of Georgian Armed Forces in the Central African Republic reached 140 members.

According to the French news agency France Info, French and Georgian soldiers were raping children aged 8 to 15 years in the area near M’Poko airport and were subjecting them to sexual exploitation.

The Troubling Truth Behind the Ebola Outbreak

April 13, 2014 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - In the Guardian’s article, “Panic as deadly Ebola virus spreads across West Africa,” it reports:

Since the outbreak of the deadly strain of Zaire Ebola in Guinea in February, around 90 people have died as the disease has travelled to neighbouring Sierra Leone, Liberia and Mali. The outbreak has sent shock waves through communities who know little of the disease or how it is transmitted. The cases in Mali have added to fears that it is spreading through West Africa.

The Guardian also reported that  Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), also known in English as Doctors Without Borders, had established treatment centers in Guinea, one of which came under attack as locals accused the foreign aid group of bringing the disease into the country. Also under fire is the government of Guinea itself, which has proved incapable of handling the crisis.

 

This latest outbreak, which has yet to be contained and is being considered by Doctors Without Borders as an “unprecedented epidemic,” illustrates several troubling truths about global health care, emergency response to outbreaks, and the perception many have of a West subjecting the developing world to a “medical tyranny.”

 

Failure to Prepare

 

In 2012, when Doctors Without Borders concluded its response to an Ebola outbreak in Uganda, it claimed in its post, “MSF Concludes Emergency Ebola Response in Uganda,” that:

The Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) emergency response to an outbreak of Ebola in Uganda has come to an end. The MSF team handed over the Ebola treatment center it set up in Uganda’s western Kibaale district to the Ugandan Ministry of Health (MoH).

The statement also claimed:

As part of a preparation plan for future outbreaks, MSF also restored a treatment unit in Mulago hospital, located in Kampala, Uganda’s capital. “Uganda has developed the capacity to respond to Ebola emergencies,” said MSF emergency coordinator Olimpia de la Rosa. “We can rely on the capability of Ministry of Health staff to take over and manage Ebola cases with all safety guarantees.”

One must wonder then, if MSF and other global health agencies can train Ugandan medical staff and hand over responsibilities to prevent a future outbreak to the government of Uganda, why haven’t similar provisions been undertaken in nations like Guinea, Liberia, Mali, and Sierra Leone. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), Ebola outbreaks occur “primarily in remote villages in Central and West Africa, near tropical rainforests.” Why then have nations in Central and West Africa not been prepared for such outbreaks – particularly when the many of the nations that back MSF are already heavily involved in the internal affairs of many of these nations?

 

France alone has expended hundreds of millions of euros during its ongoing military operations in Mali, reported by France 24 in 2013 to be costing the European nation approximately 2.7 million euros a day. Money spent on costly military operations designed to project Western hegemony across Northern and Western Africa, an extension of the West’s intervention in Libya, would lead one to believe that funds should also be available to prevent “unprecedented epidemics” of deadly diseases like Ebola, but apparently the same preparations made in Uganda have been neglected in French-occupied Mali, as well as other Ebola-prone nations.

 

While the West poses as chief arbiter of humanity and through its international organizations, intervening when crises strike, its failure to prepare other nations prone to Ebola outbreaks with a management formula already perfected in Uganda at the very least shakes public confidence and trust. When it intervenes in these very nations for geopolitical ambitions under the pretenses of “democracy,” “development,” and “human rights” but utterly fails to address the dire needs of the very people it claims to be rushing to the aid of, such confidence and trust is only further shaken.

 

Distrust Leads to Suspicion

Read the rest at New Eastern Outlook... 

UN's Syria "Aid" Appeal is Bid to Relieve Trapped Terrorists

December 17, 2013 (Tony Cartalucci) - In August 2011, the Telegraph reported in an article titled, "Libya crisis: Rebel leaders hoping to starve Gaddafi stronghold of Sirte into submission," that:

Rebel leaders hope to starve Colonel Gaddafi's home town of Sirte into submission, laying siege to his last remaining stronghold in an attempt to avoid mass bloodshed, according to the man spearheading efforts for a peaceful takeover.

Assisting them in the starvation of the 100,000 civilians who populated the coastal city of Sirte was NATO who rained bombs down upon the besieged city relentlessly while terrorists on the ground cut off electricity, water, gas, food, and other essential supplies.

AP would also report on the starvation of Sirte in its article, "U.N. Warns Libya Is Short of Water, Fuel, Medicine:" 

Rebel commanders have been negotiating with tribal leaders in Qaddafi's hometown of Sirte, hoping to avoid further bloodshed. They announced Thursday that they had extended the negotiations' deadline for another week, from this coming Saturday. 

"We want to save our fighters and not lose a single one in battles with Qaddafi's forces," said Mohammed al-Rajali, a spokesman for the rebel leadership in the eastern city of Benghazi. 

"In the end, we will get Sirte, even if we have to cut water and electricity" and let NATO pound it with airstrikes, he said.

And despite the title of the report, the UN made no mention of the tactics of the terrorists and their NATO backers. Instead, the UN was more concerned with aiding areas of the nation already taken by NATO's proxy army. 

In 2011, the general consensus appeared to be that cutting off an entire city surrounded on all sides by desert and sea, constituted a "humane" and "peaceful" means of taking the remaining strongholds of the overthrown Libyan government. How times and the sensibilities of the West have changed...

The Syrian Arab Army Surrounds Al Qaeda 

It is now the end of 2013, with the conflict in Syria having dragged on for three years. The Syrian government has decisively turned the tide against waves of NATO-backed foreign terrorists and their extremist collaborators within the country, having restored order in many parts of the country and having surrounded the terrorist proxies in a dwindling number of districts across the Syria. 

Image: "Humanitarian aid - Qatari Red Crescent-style." As the UN prepares to flood the Syrian conflict with another 6.5 billion dollars, tales of how "aid money" is ending up facilitating the activities of terrorists inside and along Syria's borders suggest the UN is not trying to provide mercy for the Syrian people, but perpetuate the tragedy further still. Were it truly interested in relieving Syrians, it would expose the true genesis of the conflict to the world and hold those responsible accountable. 

....

In some areas, the terrorists have been completely surrounded, cut off from reinforcements and supplies. Just as in Libya, the Syrian Arab Army is waiting for the terrorists to be starved out rather than attempt a bloody assault - the difference being that civilians - women and children - most certainly are allowed (at least by the Syrian government) to leave the besieged areas, leaving the terrorists alone.

A Bleak Look at the West's Vision for Syria

Terrorist controlled areas are scenes of sectarian brutality, fear, kidnappings, mass murder, collective punishment, and pillaging - the obvious end game of Western-backed regime change.

April 20, 2013 (LD) - Reports are starting to creep into Western media regarding sweeping atrocities committed by the so-called "Syrian rebels." Areas held by terrorists have become bleak landscapes both literally and socioeconomically - with sectarian extremists running the vast majority of civilians from towns and leaving whoever remains in perpetual fear for their lives, and in utter despair for their futures.

Image: Western-backed terrorists have driven out most religious and ethnic minorities, leaving Syria's ancient churches all but abandoned. Those who remain, live a life of perpetual fear and uncertainty. While the UN grandstands, claiming the refugee crisis is the result of the Syrian government, The Atlantic reported that some 300,000 Syrian Christians have fled the country, apparently from areas held not by the Syrian government, but by Western-backed sectarian terrorists. (photo by Danny Gold)

....   

UN Defends NATO's Premeditated Genocide in Syria

As long-planned sectarian bloodbath unfolds, UN deceitfully labels atrocities as "reprisals." 

December 21, 2012 (LD) - As early as 2007, it was reported that the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, together were not only organizing, funding, training, and arming militants directly linked to Al Qaeda to be used against Syria and Iran, but knew well in advance that by doing so, they would trigger an unprecedented "cataclysmic conflict" driven by sectarian extremism. Not only was such sectarian violence expected, it was desired ahead of redrawing a new map for the Middle East - one that favored Western corporate-financier and geopolitical interests, while keeping the region weak, divided, and infighting.

Now, the UN is feigning indignation over the inevitable, increasingly overt sectarian nature of the so-called "Free Syrian Army" and its so-called "rebellion." Entire communities of minorities face extermination. To blunt the impact this will have on public opinion, UN special adviser on the prevention of genocide, Adama Dieng has preemptively stated:

"I am deeply concerned that entire communities risk paying the price for crimes committed by the Syrian government."

According to Reuters' article, "U.N. anti-genocide envoy: Syria minorities face reprisal risk," the genocide NATO and its allies are arming, funding, and willfully fueling is merely "reprisals." What Reuters doesn't report is that US, Saudi, and Lebanese officials had for years warned that US foreign policy, started under Bush and continued in earnest under Obama, would trigger this very sort of sectarian violence - driven by Al Qaeda-style fanaticism, not "reprisals." 

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, Seymour Hersh writing for the New Yorker, wrote in his 2007 article, "The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?" that: 

"To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda." -The Redirection, Seymour Hersh (2007)