CBRN response training in the field.
The video lecture covers the following topics:
- terrorism
- from the loner to Aum Shinrikyo
- opportunistic use of industrial toxicants
- dual-use technologies
- CWC (G) response
- Australia Group (G)
- national implementation (internal transfers to non-state actors)
- developments in science, technology and industry (production processes and reporting under the CWC)
- incapacitants
- current status Syria / Iraq
Addressing the Challenges
This interview covers the following topics:
- global community response
- Syria and chemical warfare (G)
- chemical safety and security
- training and capacity building
- international cooperation and technology exchanges
- national responses
- focus on role of national legislation
- EU support
Addressing Allegations of CW Use
Since early 2013 there have been repeated allegations of CW in the Syrian civil war. Syria joined the CWC (G) in October 2013 in the aftermath of the Ghouta sarin strikes on 21 August. Investigation of CW allegations consequently has two distinct phases.
Before Syria’s accession to the CWC, the UN Secretary-General activated his investigative mechanism in cooperation with the OPCW (G) and WHO. The UN team was in Damascus when Ghouta was struck. It proved the use of sarin. Subsequent investigations confirmed some earlier CW claims.
While the OPCW was overseeing the elimination of Syria’s CW capacities, several accounts of chlorine attacks emerged in early 2014. Testimonials that helicopters were launching the barrels pointed to government responsibility. The OPCW set up a Fact-Finding Mission, whose investigative reports confirmed chlorine use with high certainty.
Multiple attacks with chlorine and the nerve agent sarin were reported between 2015 and 2018. The Syrian government bears responsibility for most incidents. However, during 2015 there were also sporadic reports of ISIL attacks involving chemical warfare agents against Kurdish fighters in the north of the country that intensified during the late spring and early summer. In August mustard agent use by ISIL was reported. Again FFM investigations confirmed CW use.
Based on the FFM reports, the OPCW firmly condemned chemical warfare. However, the body cannot attribute blame. The UNSC is directly involved in Syria’s CW disarmament and reports of CW use, but cannot formally condemn the Syrian government given Russia’s backing. As a way out, it created the OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mission tasked with identifying those responsible for the CW attacks. The JIM, however, cannot hold individuals criminally responsible. What will happen with its findings is unclear from UNSC Resolution 2235 (2015) and other documents.
In November 2017 Russia opposed the renewal of the mandate of the JIM in the UN Security Council, thereby ending a peer review process of the OPCW’s analyses and the possibility of attributing responsibility for violating the norm against chemical warfare. The OPCW adopted in a Special Session of the Conference of States Parties held in June 2018 a contentious decision through majority voting to establish a mechanism within the Technical Secretariat to review the FFM reports and identify perpetrators.
The new Investigation and Identification Team (IIT) became fully operational in 2020. Its first report of April 2020 concluded that the Syrian Arab Republic employed chemical weapons in Ltamenah, Syria in March 2017.
In July 2020, the OPCW’s executive council initiated a non-compliance procudere against the Syrian Arab Republic, as in accordance with paragraph 36 of Article VIII of the CWC. The council requested the Syrian Arab Republic, inter alia, to declare the chemical weapons used in the March 2017 attacks, its remaining chemical weapons, and to resolve all of the outstanding issues regarding its initial declaration.
In April 2021, the IIT published its second report, establishing that a helicopter of the Syrian Arab Air Force dropped one cylinder of chlorine over eastern Saraqib on 4 February 2018.
Also in April 2021, the Conference of the States Parties determined the Syrian Arab Republic’s non-compliance with the CWC and its failure to declare and destroy all of its chemical weapons. Thus, the Conference stripped Syria off the following rights and privileges under the CWC: a) to vote in the Conference and the Council b) to stand for election to the Council c) to hold any office of the Conference, the Council, or any subsidiary organs Also in August 2015 ISIL attacked Kurdish fighters with mustard agent in north Iraq. With the agreement of the Iraqi government the OPCW has investigated the allegation.
ISIL appears to use CW as a method of warfare rather than as a terrorism tool. It has created an unprecedented legal challenge: use by a non-state actor against another non-state actor on the territory of a CWC state party, which is not under government control. This means that investigations require not only governmental agreement, but also the cooperation from insurgents and neighbouring countries.
The real challenge for the future of the CW prohibition is that beyond investigations, the international community appears unable to react swiftly and decisively. As with earlier wars, no clear paths for holding those criminally responsible during or after war‘s end seem discernible. This is a significant challenge for the OPCW and UN.
Keeping the World Engaged in the CWC
The CWC (G) is of unlimited duration, but this does not mean that it will last into perpetuity. The treaty is a social construct, and as such developments both inside and outside the regime may affect its relevancy over time. Therefore states parties must update the norm and practices in line with anticipated challenges and lessons learned from crises.
Verification matters
CW destruction operations are projected to end by 2023 at the latest. The ultimate destruction deadline of 2012 will by then have been missed by over a decade. The CWC should already have transitioned into a post-destruction phase. The delay impacts on the future verification (G) regime as the primary focus should already have been on the prevention of future CW armament. This implies that the OPCW should pursue a new compact with the global chemical industry regarding verification, including reporting modalities and onsite inspection routines. For the Technical Secretariat this implies greater emphasis on an industry inspectorate rather than weapon experts, as well as permanent interaction with industry associations worldwide.
Updating the schedules
As explained in Chapter 3, the CWC operates under the General Purpose Criterion (G). This makes the prohibition the default position and a limited list of purposes are considered non-prohibited. For reporting and inspection activities the GPC is too broad to make verification practical. Therefore, the CWC includes 3 Schedules (G), i.e., lists of agents and precursors based on an assessment of their threat to the CWC objectives and their commercial relevancy.
The CWC foresees a simplified amendment procedure for the Schedules (G), but its application has proved politically difficult. Following the assassination attempt with a nerve agent of the so-called Novichok family in the UK, states parties have moved during the Conference of States Parties in November 2019 to include the two principal families of Novichok agents as well as a family of carbamates that have a similar basis for toxicity under Schedule 1. The amendment became effective in June 2020.
Notwithstanding this amendment, the Schedules reflect past CW generations and may require updating in the light of advancements in chemistry. Without such modification, the verification regime will some become obsolete. It would also shift the verification burden to developing countries as this type of chemical industry has tended to relocate to industrialising countries since the 1990s.
Keeping states parties involved
Once destruction operations have been completed many people will likely start to question the continuation of the OPCW (G). The CWC involves many stakeholders: governments, industry, scientitifc comunity, educators, civil society, etc. The OPCW must expand its outreach to them on every continent, notably via training, education, youth engagement, building professional skills and expertise, professional codes, and reaching into areas of chemical safety and security for societies.