Talk:UN/OPCW Joint Investigative Mechanism

OPCW Investigation

 * moved from Talk:Alleged Chemical Attack, March 16, 2015)

Reuters reports that OPCW will investigate the 16 March attack. If this is officially announced, we should consider preparing a written submission. I think we have enough consensus on this talk page to prepare a front-page article now. Pmr9 (talk) 15:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I was thinking we should draft a PDF report from this, send them that, and then use the report to structure the main page. It's a bit of work, best done by e-mail. I'll be in touch on this.--Caustic Logic (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, for a submission, we should use their language/format, and go by the right timeline, with whatever best form we have at the moment. In the meantime, we should work on getting the PDF up, mention that to them (it'll be public and pretty explicit, if it isn't already done). And direct them to the front page, which could be done anytime, and might start soon. The report, I'm heading up, with Pmr9 at least agreeing to contribute. Will take many days at least, likely a few weeks, depending... Just before one month after would be a good time if I can swing that. But done right and promoted, it could be big. --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Submission idea: we should acknowledge the limits of our probe - just video ('telemedicine"). But also how much better that is than what anyone else provided yet (the poison and the symptoms actually match here!), and so noting we have the best-yet, ask for a better-yet: a scientific investigation, with tissue samples/etc. from these six victims, verified, and not some stand-ins mildly does with the right poison. Also, a verification of the sixth victim actually dying instead of, say, being sold into sex slavery in one of the Gulf Monarchies - would also be helpful. Maybe not these exact words, but that kind of request, from a position of strength. --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

April 2: Still nothing on their site about Syria and chlorine newer than about May last year. Nothing on Syria at all since August, when the last sarin precursors were destroyed. That is a long time out of the chemical spotlight. No wonder "Assad" had to come up with this useless reminder. Just now, Al-Arabiya reports U.N. official says no Syria chlorine probe yet: "U.N. disarmament chief Angela Kane told reporters Thursday that the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has not yet started looking into the latest claims." Well, at least they're not done already, that's good in a way. Maybe someone in Turkey saw the science coming and got Uzumcu to permanently stall the thing? --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Apparently the US is still pressing for a UN/OPCW investigation and has drafted. Bring it on - we're ready. Pmr9 (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

June 2 [http://www.seattlepi.com/news/us/article/Fact-finding-team-heads-to-Syria-to-probe-toxic-6301658.php. Fact-finding team heads to Syria to probe toxic chemical use] Cleared by Damascus to fly there to start. "The team will look into allegations reported by the Syrian government as well as separate allegations by activists and doctors who say chlorine has been repeatedly used against civilians in recent weeks." --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

OPCW Tasked with Blame-Setting
Reuters reports that UNSC will vote tomorrow on a resolution to set up an investigation to lay blame for toxic gas attacks in Syria. "That team would "identify to the greatest extent feasible individuals, entities, groups, or governments who were perpetrators, organizers, sponsors or otherwise involved in the use of chemicals as weapons, including chlorine or any other toxic chemical, in the Syrian Arab Republic." It's not clear if the investigation is limited to the alleged chlorine attacks in 2014-15, or if it includes the sarin attacks in 2013 where the original OPCW investigation was barred from overtly laying blame.   Pmr9 (talk) 10:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The resolution was passed unanimously. As far as I can tell, this investigation will extend to all chemical weapons use, including the sarin attacks in 2013.  I'm puzzled that the US was so keen to reopen this issue, as it's not obvious how they can guarantee to get the verdict they want.  With the chlorine attacks, the regime can be blamed on the basis of eyewitness statements that the bombs were dropped from helicopters.  But with the Ghouta rockets, it's not so easy.  It's hard to see how a UN investigation can exclude the UN's own report that JAN was bringing CW "products" through the border.  Maybe Russia has laid a trap for the US. Anyway, we should prepare a formal submission  Pmr9 (talk) 16:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And maybe Russia will drop the ball. Citizen involvement is called for. --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * UN: 'document is under embargo' (sometimes it's done for 24 hours--unclear is this the case here).
 * UN Press release: "The United Nations Security Council today gave the greenlight for the establishment of a Joint Investigative Mechanism to identify those responsible for the use of chemical weapons in Syria.

In a unanimously adopted resolution, the 15-member body requested the UN Secretary-General, in coordination with the Director-General of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), to submit recommendations for the establishment of the Mechanism within 20 days. The Council will then respond to the recommendations within five days of receipt."


 * Secretary-General statement


 * TASS (Russian) gives a bit of resolution text: "The Security Council adopted the document that "strongly condemns the use of any toxic chemicals, like chlorine, as a weapon in the Syrian Arab Republic" and decides "to establish a joint mechanism to investigate" with the participation of the UN and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), for "a term of one year with possibility of extension if necessary. ""


 * --Resup (talk) 23:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Xinhua Bashar Jaafari: "the neutrality, the transparency, the credibility and the integrity and removal from politicization -- as well as cooperation and coordination with the Syrian government -- must be the guiding principles of the activities of the mechanism created by the resolution," al-Ja'afari said. "We are saying this due to our experience with preceding missions which, in the past, have transgressed all of these principles in their work and their practices, specifically because they were counting on false witness statements."

Ambassador Vitaly Churkin of Russia said, "the question of who used chlorine is still unanswered, partly because the existing mechanisms of the UN-OPCW do not have a mandate to identify those participating in such acts. Moreover, we became witnesses of many politicized statements in this regard which were clearly meant to be propaganda."

Samantha Power: "Until we adopted today's resolution, there was no mechanism to take the obvious next step, determining who is involved in such attacks," the Washington envoy said. "Even when there were obvious signs pointing to the parties responsible, investigators were not empowered to point the finger. This has compounded an already- rampant sense of impunity in Syria."


 * UN Multimedia US Ambassador Samantha Power said the chemical attacks had continued despite the Council's previous efforts to stop them.
 * "……Today's resolution has been adopted with the Council's unanimous support. This sends a clear and powerful message to all those involved in chemical weapons attacks in Syria: the joint investigative mechanism will identify you if you gas people." --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Full text of the UNSC resolution is now online. As the remit is not limited to alleged chlorine attacks from 2014 onwards, it appears to include the 2013 sarin attacks: "an OPCW United Nations Joint  Investigative  Mechanism  to  identify  to  the  greatest  extent  feasible individuals,  entities,  groups,  or  governments  who  were  perpetrators,  organisers, sponsors  or  otherwise  involved  in  the  use  of  chemicals  as  weapons,  including chlorine or any other toxic chemical, in the Syrian Arab Republic where the OPCW FFM  determines  or  has  determined  that  a  specific  incident  in  the  Syrian  Arab Republic involved or likely involved the use of chemicals as  weapons, including chlorine  or  any  other  toxic  chemical". The SG is requested to draft Terms of Reference within 20 days, for the UNSC to respond to.

The text of Samantha Power's address to the UNSC is also online. She focuses entirely on the alleged chlorine attacks in 2014-2015. It looks as if she doesn't expect the investigation to cover the 2013 sarin attacks. Pmr9 (talk) 09:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks much for your digging on this. Too much/too vague to add otherwise. --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

VoltaireNet has in addition to the Resolution 2235 text [http://www.voltairenet.org/article188450.html the full following debate incl. statements] by Power, Churkin and (at the very end) Ja'afari. Ja'afari on Helicopters, pointing the finger straight at Turkey:


 * [...] various Council members have spoken of helicopters. That is a very important point that is a typical example of the fabrication included in various documents of witnesses purporting to have heard helicopters — in Turkey, not over Syrian territory. That makes such statements questionable, for reasons known to all. In addition, two years ago in the Council we showed a film, taken in Turkish territory, in which rabbits were used [...]

--CE (talk) 11:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Gamba
The UNSG has appointed Virginia Gamba to head the "joint investigative mechanism" (JIM) to identify the perpetrators of chemical attacks in Syria. She is originally from Argentina, and has a fairly solid track record as an academic on conflict resolution and disarmament specifically small arms rather than WMD. She now has to put together an investigative team and a political team. I think we need a new page for the JIM - will look out for any details of how they will take evidence. Meanwhile, I haven't seen anything further on the OPCW investigation of the Sarmin incident, since they visited Damascus in June. Pmr9 (talk) 10:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I saw somewhere that Virginia Gamba was expected to be appointed. Someone had pointed to her Wikipedia article listing qualifications ... I saw it, but no such article now (was waiting for more news) There's a European parliament CV for her in PDF with a long list that seems to show the same and more - disarmament and demilitarization expert, especially in South Africa and in Latin America back to the Falklands war (an expert) and transition of Argentina to civilian-controlled military afterwards, member of International Institute for Strategic Studies since 1987, shared a Nobel peace prize in 1995, etc.
 * She has been honorary professor of the United States University for Defence (technical college), the US Army War College, the US Naval War College, the Canadian Naval War College, the UK Joint Forces course (Camberley), the Argentine Naval, Army, Air Force and Gendarmerie colleges, Yale University, Oxford University, and Princeton. Her areas of expertise as lecturer are: small arms control, disarmament policies, crisis prevention, theory and practical of conventional deterrence, civil-military relations and constructs, transformation of conflict, naval strategy, boundary disputes and conflict resolution, peace keeping evolution, and coercive international relations.
 * The last sounds intriguing in context. --Caustic Logic (talk) 05:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This article of hers in an Argentine newspaper is interesting. She argues that the UK bases in the Malvinas/Georgias are part of a plan for the EU to project itself as a global military power. Although the article is neutrally written, her readers will get the message Pmr9 (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Criminal vs Scientific
Who Dunnit is a Criminal Question, not a Science One. ‘No evidence of Assad forces using chlorine on rebels’ - RT interviews Charles Shoebridge. He points out something I was about to mention - asking the OPCW, chemical and science experts - to decide who used the chemicals. This is not something they were built to answer, is it? It's like a Scotalnd Yard murder investigation, with complexities, uncertainties, cover stories that hold or don't, etc. Mr. Shoebbridge knows the kinds of questions:
 * ...there’s always been this question as to what the possible motivation could be for Assad to be using chlorine against these targets, when it’s almost agreed as a consensus amongst most experts that chlorine is a highly ineffective – that’s to say, not effective at all. ... (in the past) it hasn’t been part of their mandate to ascribe blame. But they mount what can be called a criminal investigation… The problem with chlorine is that it’s difficult to get the evidence at the scene so we’re talking about circumstantial evidence. For example, it’s alleged that this weaponry is dropped by helicopter, and yet there is almost none if any video [of such attacks].

I mean, do they have a chemical test to prove someone's telling you the truth about these helicopters, or "Shabiha," or whatever? No. They have ... not sure. We'll see. Preparing some tools for them over here. --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've approached him on Twitter about collaborating on a sort of investigator's manual for them. I also asked myself somehow. Anyone who can help make sure he sees that and considers it, please do. --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * (Not very clear on CL point--you would like to see a criminal investigation -under UNSC?) I can see a danger in criminal investigations. What if detective BC, from the land of Sherlock Holmes, conducted his criminal ...you know... and it is than presented to a jury of 12 sheepes, from...whatever... who will nod in approval to lock the beast in jail. If laws are vague and colliding (and usually they are ) it ends up to depend whose lawyer did a better job presenting the case. And than, how it will play up on appeal--which is not about merits but whether those convoluted laws were followed. In actual criminal cases, this ends up with a guy getting behind bars, and maybe not the right one, or more deserving to be there. But if you take this and magnify to apply to countries, or multinational companies (I mean something like YUKOS case here), it may have even more severe consequences. (Note that Russia is consistently against a UN-run criminal case on MH 17, although actual evidence-wise, they do not seem to have something to fear; but they may well loose a criminal case still.)--Resup (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Being fuzzy here--criminal investigation and tribunal not the same thing, and Russia is opposing the tribunal--still criminal investigations are conducted for the sake of presenting the outcome in court, and this affects how they are conducted. --Resup (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I mean, that's what they're tasked with, like it or not. And it's dangerous. They might not know how, trust rebels totally, and get believed because they're "scientists," as if that matters here.... but it's also an unknown (as far as I know) and an opportunity. Maybe they can be gotten to make a rare good call that moves the truth forward. Somehow. --Caustic Logic (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * And on prosecutions, didn't think this would lead directly - it's not a tribunal. As BBC reports, the Americans hope the investigation will "accumulate evidence that could be used in future prosecutions. The Americans concede, however, that those prosecutions are not imminent, and could be years or more than a decade away. Although the resolution paves the way for the creation of an attribution mechanism it will not trigger automatic punishment - a weakness seized upon by human rights groups." HR groups want instant tribunal, with instant punishment for Assad, not for any rebels. Too bad, they'll have to settle for investigative results for now. --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

On what evidence?
I'd say in comparable known instances, a lot depends on answers to two questions: --Resup (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What evidence is admissible? (e.g. videos of events, witness statements made on video but not cross examined, etc...)
 * What evidence is 'subpoenable'? --How far the freedom of information goes--what information can be called in? (e.g. is it possible for the court to demand that some evidence -say classified--is released to the court?).

Shroud of secrecy/selective release
Despite broadly releasing propaganda, crucial substantive information is leaked through some selective few, on dubious basis. Why only Hersh knows results of professional chemical lab tests in Syria, and only Parry seem to know something about satellite photos, or whatever else? Even if those individuals are certified as totally brilliant, selected few are much easier to manipulate than a larger thinking audience. --Resup (talk) 16:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)